Is this book more challenging

Dhalgren is the most complex. Ulysses is moderately difficult and pinecone is babby tier shite

>>8459324
what...Dhalgren is much easier to read than either Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow

>>8459361
i agree here.. that Dhalgren wasn't that hard to read, at least compared to what OP mentioned

>then
yeah it's going to be a problem

Ulysses

File: 225[1].png (158KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 200x200px

>>8459409
underrated post

>>8459361
>>8459401
It's non-linear, the chronology is confused, it contains classical stream-of-consciousness and the story is circular. It's not an easy book

>>8459409
post bereft of proper rate

>>8459455
eh it's pretty easy once you understand the prose

>>8459462
yeah..but i don't think it is as hard as reading Gravity Rainbow which was just confusing

>>8459409
jej

>>8459469
oh I thought you were talking about Gravity's Rainbow...

>>8459493
so whats more challenging..dhalgren or gravitys rainbow?

>>8459500
>Science Fiction

Definitely Gravity's Rainbow

>>8459500
dhalgren

>>8459503
so im getting conflicted answers...your saying GR is more challenging, the guy after you is saying dhalgren is harder

is this ultimatelly a subjective question or something?

Ulysses I think is harder than Gravity's Rainbow, definitely.

Dhalgren is a joke. It's just poorly written, no substance to it, a failure, a ripoff, a fraudulent attempt at supposedly "deep and complex literature", explicitly written to be thought of as high and literary. It's hilarious how much it tricked literary critics, or rather how they were taken in by this abominable, ridiculous, phony purple prose. You can tell from the first page that the author has no idea how to write. It's the most difficult to read for anyone with any discernment at all because it's just so embarrassingly awful and nauseating.

In conclusion, no, OP, Gravity's Rainbow is not more challenging than either of those books at all/ Good luck reading it anyway, it's still pretty daunting.

>>8459514
they're both more challenging simutaneously you dimwit

>>8459530
ah yes, like Schrödinger's cat...

>>8459315
>then
all books must be challenging for you

..what is going on

>>8459554
>..what is going on
..what is going on

>>8459315
I think you mean "than".

>>8459586
jesus christ stop with the nazi grammer crap

>>8459788
>nazi grammer
You mean Grammar Nazi.

>>8459315
I've never heard of Dhalgren, but Ulysses is a very challenging book and Gravity's Rainbow is just a silly collection of loosely related stories with somewhat unconventional prose. Both are extremely enjoyable, but Ulysses is the only difficult one.

>>8459514
>is this ultimatelly a subjective question or something?

Holy fucking shit. Are you dense? Is it a subjective question whether or not a book is difficult? Of course it is. There's no objective Literary Difficulty Meter that gauges and compares books. Literally what makes books difficult is the subjectivity of reading them, the difference of vocabulary known, of life experiences and reading experiences. How could this not be a subjective question? And you're asking fucking anonymous individuals on a Tibetan throat-singing board who may or may not be entirely the same person shit posting endlessly.


>>8459537
>they're both more challenging simutaneously you dimwit
>like Schrödinger's cat...

No. Not fucking like the cat, at all? Are you the same person as I previously quoted, because you're completely fucking stupid. I don't understand the kind of people on this board. You should never consider reading Dhalgren or Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow because you'd fail to comprehend the clearest sentence. And I know because i've actually read all three so fuck off.

>>8460187
all me btw bby :^)

>>8460195
damn you're retarded son. You seriously have to work on your logical reasoning faculties.

>>8459521
>>8460187
I love you man, keep shitting on these mouth-breathing dumbfucks.

This guy is right. Ulysses is more difficult than GR because Ulysses does experiments where entire chapters are intentionally unpunctuated. GR has a dense vocabulary, but its flow is relatively easier to comprehend compared to Ulysses.

Dhalgren on the other hand, steals from both and tries to seem DEEP, but ends up being nothing more than a polished turd. Even the publishers didn't give a shit. Its first edition was full of errors, and the book went out of print for a decade.

And even on the next couple of editions, to this day, there are still a shitload of punctuation and textual errors. What a disaster.