The first person narrative made the book a real disappointment.

File: image.jpg (10KB, 319x319px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 319x319px

does every fucking thread on this board have to be about the decline of the west jesus fucking christ

>>9845371
>reposting your shitty post that everyone ignored the first time cause it was shitty

fuck off

sage

Ha! At least some of those words are ones I wrote weeks ago.

>>9845411
But I didn't post the OP. Obviously not everyone ignored them and thought they were shitty, now did they?

>>9845411
not an argument

>>9845578
Not an argument

>>9845371
Shut the fuck up you didn't read it.

why does he talk about his micropenis so much lads

>>9845752
Because it's funny you fucking idiot

>>9845371
Gass called people like you out when it was first released: Bad. Readers.

>>9845845
Sounds like something an unappealing writer with a warped mind would say.

>>9845845
> Losing your audience? Yell "bad readers"

>>9845371
I never see any real discussion of Gass' here. It all boils down to some fart memes and "muh prose mothafucka"

He knows that racism is wrong and American culture is dumb.

File: IMG_0257.jpg (30KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x320px

>tfw i wrote the middle paragraph
that was my experience with omensetter's luck and not the tunnel, btw.

File: zippy_dave.png (130KB, 270x314px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 270x314px

>>9845845

This is such a hilarious thing to say.

"I... I'm not a bad writer! You're just a BAD READER!"

>>9845371
>>9846209

KEK

OP exposed as a guy so dunce he needs to steal away sentences from other anon in his posts because he can't even articulate his own thoughts.

>>9846220
>what is copypasta
i'm just glad someone reposted my shit. finally, my immortality is secured.

>>9846209
I'm literally about to start omesetters this weekend. What am I in for?

>>9846231

>implying that is how pasta works

He decided to cop some lines you've written and write them off as his own thoughts: this isn't pasta, it's a brainlet patchwork.

>>9846240
i genuinely couldn't finish it. the first part is intolerable, but the stlye shifts a little. it was all right (just all right) until the old man pervert bullshit started setting in. the sentences offered as utterly beautiful prose also failed to astound to be sure. not a book i would suggest to anyone.

an excerpt
His eye entered everything like a needle even yet -- penetrated, looped, and then emerged -- and he hung these pictures on a string like beads around his neck. For hours he fingered the air obscenely, and when he moved, he felt they clicked. He would say to his wife: here's your vulva, it's next to the nose of the beagle; or he'd say: here's your blood, dark as wet bark; or he'd say: here are the stools your bowels are shaping; on and on, until she struck him.

shit's fucking old man gross. and i say that as one thoroughly enjoying GR at the moment. No pleasure to be found in Gass's work, unless you like being fondled by your grandpappy, and then being reminded of it constantly.
Someone might like this shit, even you. I don't.

>>9846253
what is it, mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery?
i'm prepared to deal with the plagiarism as long as it propagates my work, I'll always know the score. I'm not Otto, for chrissakes.

>>9846283
I read the first five pages when I got it. I thought it was great. To each his own I guess

>>9846283
Wtf this sounds awesome. Can't wait. He was also pretty young when he wrote that you dumb faggot.

>>9846355
yes, and? what of his age in regard to his old man-esque perversity?
regardless, i qualified my opinion with
"someone might like this shit, even you. I don't."
that means it's okay to disagree with people.
>>9846303
I hope you enjoy it, honestly. nothing wrong with that. what about it do you like, if i might ask?

I couldn't even get through Gass' interview on the paris review, honestly

>>9846425
holy fuck.
on a related note, have you seen pynchon's? fucking gold. blew the doors off.

>>9846371

>what of his age in regard to his old man-esque perversity?

.. the fact that he wasn't actually an old man at the time? You hysterical hausfrau.

Most young men go through edgy phases before they become old men. You're talking like this instance is some abnormal exception and not the relative norm.

>>9846450
so, one can't write like a perverted old man and not be one? why do you put such limitations on authors? because you have them?

>>9846458

Kek at that passive aggressive jab at the end. It's amusing to note in a meta sense that you're actually carrying yourself as a young edgy man would as well right now.

You talk one way yet act another. This is a larp.

>>9846481
you're reading quite far into this, i sense your pride was stricken in that jab? first blood, i have already won the duel, friend.

>>9846498

You're not some stalwart defender of maturity. You're just some bored young guy who likes to try out different shitposting techniques to stave off his boredom like all the rest of us.

My pride is fine because I'm self-aware. You're the delusional larper here, friendo.

>>9846513
i'm hardly shitposting, i don't like gass, and expressed why. i guess people having their own opinions is larping these days.
get over it, this is starting to get silly. building me up into some sort of villian,

>>9845371
>All that time he spent crafting this dark, depressing door stopper could have been used to create something beautiful and lasting. Just a real waste all around.

pseuds. cant teach em, can you?

>>9846521

>i'm hardly shitposting

Kek.

Ur in fookin shambles, mate.

File: IMG_0305.jpg (49KB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 420x315px

>>9846527
ahuh.

File: 1382563771391.jpg (41KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x375px

>>9845371

havent read the book and your post looks like bait but i unironically hate the first person mode and have felt the same about other books, that they could have been good in 3rd person but were absolute dreck in 1st

thanks for the heads up op, i can scratch this one off the list

File: 1499728869072.jpg (42KB, 368x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 368x400px

>>9846531

Please say something of interest in your posts. That is just shitposting.

File: IMG_0207.jpg (31KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 210x240px

>>9846541
it's what you wanted, for me to become the villian, so you could feel the hero, eh? well, here i am, waving my cock in your face, since that's all that appeals to you, so much so that you attempt to transform those around you into archetypes, so you never have to leave your fantasy world into the land of dissent.

>>9846535
What's wrong with 1st? There's literally no difference between he and I

File: 1498450691799.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

>>9846557

>it's what you wanted, for me to become the villian

Lmao at your over the top treatment of this exchange. I just think you're a bored young guy who shitposts like the rest of us but for some reasons he paradoxically chooses to larp about maturity as he does it. What is this "villain" shit?

>>9846557

This post is aspie edge as fuck btw. Stop being such a katana king.

>>9846643
let's think about this, i say an excerpt reminds me of an old pervert. you say i'm larping about maturity? where have i spoken about one's maturity in any sense? you have latched onto that concept, not i. you are the one speaking of young men going through their phases, not i. you are the one accusing me of being a "young guy".
in this, you have chosen to take on the theme of maturity.
i think you need to regain your bearings in all of this.

>>9846557
What's your favorite literary work, I'm genuinely curious about your taste.

File: IMG_0180.jpg (69KB, 1024x688px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x688px

>>9846664
i aint the villian here, pal.

File: rabN.jpg (54KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 566x480px

>>9845384
K A L I Y U G A

>>9846673
usually whatever i'm reading and don't want to quit at the time, but for an overall answer? I really was blown away by turgenev's living relics, and his hunter's album collection as a whole. that's made the most recent and strongest impression on me. i'd suggest it to anyone. a book about nature, the people, and a touch of religion, it has occasionally generous prose, but nothing outrageous, a true sense of what it felt to be russian at the time, i imagine. another incredible book was The Recognitions. fantastic work, plan to read again and again.

>>9846689
i should have added "how about you?"

>>9846557
>postponing from moment to moment his entry into the world of guilt and sorrow.

>>9846557
holy shit that pic me lol good

>>9846723
a nice quote.

aw, all my friends have gone.

>>9846458
>so, one can't write like a perverted old man and not be one?

But the thing he's doing nothing rise above that. Like OP said, it's one-note first person narrative and by the time you've finished the book there's been no development.

Gass' shtick is "A-ha! I'm writing like a pervert but you probably know that I'm just a boring academic. Now what do you think of that?"

Compare that with the perversions of Celine, who uses it to write about the working class in a way to deliberately efface bourgeois romantic notions about them while finding other ways to sympathize with them. Or with Pynchon where the perversions are a symbol of way in which each generation leaves the world a worse place for the next generation, technology and industrial have become literal death machines etc

Gass wants you to think about his superficial prose as if out of the opacity something really profound is at work but everything you can tease out is NYT op-ed tier.

>>9846303
> it was so good I read 5 pages

high praise, indeed

>>9846216

But, I mean, it's often accurate. Look up goodreads reviews for classics (Lolita's a good example) if you want to see idiots shit on artistic triumphs for "boring plot" or "unlikeable characters"

>>9847785
that's what i was saying to begin with. i'm the guy who wrote the second paragraph in OP. i agree completely.
the other guy was saying my criticism was stupid because Gass was young when he wrote the old man perversity. i was arguing that he could write as an old pervert and still not be one.

>>9848841
There was a reviewer who said there was no real point or development to the novel and its hard for you to separate the narrator with Gass himself. Gass would probably say this critic is a "bad reader" and justify his weak ironies by saying it was needed, maybe mumble something about Flaubert or Henry James, but really the reviewer is spot-on.

It's a pointless book. He spent 30 years writing it off and on and he should have just called it quits.

>>9849021
well all i've read of the tunnel was the first page and that was far more than plenty, i had read a bit into omensetter's luck before i formed my active opinion of Gass, whether it is unfair or a matter of my poor readmanship, i have determined that he is not an author i have any interest in. it's somewhat vindicating to have others share a similar opinion to mine, but i feel i would hold it regardless.
i am happy that others can enjoy it though. i try to keep from making others feel alienated for liking something i dislike intensely, or at least i'm working on that. i'm hoping that in some beneficial way it will ensure that my criticisms aren't aimed at harming others and find themselves befouled with maliciousness, but rather putting words to a justified feeling of dislike.

GASSED. and here we see the proof that plebs can't handle Gass. He's difficult for a reason boys.

>>9849287
I don't feel bad because he's shilled here daily without anyone describing what makes him worthwhile.

Like this guy
>>9849389
Gass isn't difficult, just bad.

>>9849416
Kys

>>9849434
???

>>9845371
How can anyone who has read this book claim that Gass' uses perverse images just 'for the image'?
The first passage with the jews is a critisism turned outward AND inward, of which the perverse image is a key element.

When he talks about the German wanting to rape dead jews did you really just think 'oooh so edgy?' and miss the part about how he thinks the Holocaust comprises human history while also being a larger projection of our day to day quarrels unmasking us a perverse beings?

>>9849710
He's not bad. I'm reading the tunnel right now. How on God's name could you call him a bad writer because you don't like his books. The writing in this is top stuff. When he fucks the student in his office weeeeew I wish I could write about fucking sluts that nicely.

>>9849962
>uses perverse images just for the image
you can't read at all, can you?

>>9849389
hardly difficult if you mean unpleasantness could be used as a substitute for complexity.
>>9850111
i wouldn't say he's bad, unlike the other guy. more along the lines that i don't like what he's written and don't wish to read any more.
his skill in writing isn't in question, and shouldn't be, i don't find it as beautiful as some seem to, i will say, but to flat out call Gass a bad writer isn't fair.

>>9850192
*unless you mean

>>9845371
Gass is basically too smart to write good fiction.

dem essays tho

>>9850111
>fucks the student in his office
Page no.? Curious but I'm also one of the people who doesn't like Gass' aura and gave up fairly early on.

>>9850177
It's not implied in the Op, but ut sure is elsewhere in the thread.
Also: 'you can't read' is a horrible answer in any thread on /lit/.

>>9851773
>b-but i can read
nope. sensors reporting a lack of literacy from your quadrant.
>b-but the strawman i need is insinuated
yes yes, you're very smart.

>>9852894
This is just pathetic.

File: IMG_0291.jpg (207KB, 600x585px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 600x585px

>>9852908
ahuh.
good job, you sure deterred me from posting ever again!

>ITT: undergrads at C grade colleges trying to criticize a man who literally studied under Ludwig Wittgenstein

File: weasleyron1.jpg (41KB, 373x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 373x500px

>>9845371
It was disguised as an introduction to a work by a fictional historian, anon. First person was the only way to have done it.

>>9853040
>butthurt asskisser dares not defy convention
>>9853056
he should have written something else. though i don't agree with the sentiment that a first person narrative spoils a work. i recall being criticized for using "first person omniscience" (when i wasn't at all, i think the person didn't have any idea what it actually means) and i wonder why that is such a negative thing inherently.

Seems like many people who claim he's bad gave up early in The Tunnel. This is a little amusing as he said, in his interview with Silverblatt, that he purposefully wrote the first ~70 pages as a kind of test to make sure only the right kind of reader made it further. I haven't read The Tunnel yet, but he seems like an incredibly smart person in every talk I've listened to, and I think he's a top notch essayist. I just find it funny that people will readily admit they did the thing he set his book up to make idiots do. It seemed to work so I'll likely read it next.

>>9853093
>falling for a pride trap
oldest trick in the book. DFW claimed the same, that the first few hundred pages were pleb filter.
what an act of bad faith from an author if it's even genuine. glad i won't be reading Gass, i don't particularly care for shithead lit.

File: mfw_restraining_order.png (114KB, 347x344px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 347x344px

>>9853093

He's butthurt because everyone drops his tiresome novel. The fuck else is someone with an ego that big going to say? Good lord you are a credulous retard.

>>9846216
Maybe a few hundred years ago it wouldn't be viable, being that anyone who could read typically could do so well. But today, every idiot at least learns basic word comprehension. So yes, bad readers are very much a real thing. If something is there, and one can't see it, you don't say the thing is invisible or nonexistent. You say the person's blind.

>>9853110
Some people genuinely enjoy the beginnings of those novels, and those are the people they're writing for. I honestly think those books turn out to be far more rewarding in the end. Gravity's Rainbow is similar in that the first few chapters are usually enough to make people drop it. I don't think there's anything wrong with being up front about what you're writing, and making sure the people who move on to the rest are at least up to the challenge. You can get butthurt about it if you want to, but it's a good move in a literary sense. The people who give up immediately would give up anyway, but they'd be far more upset if they didn't know what you were going for until 3-500 pages in.

>>9853139
He said this right after it was released, while being showered with praise. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it was received by academics and respected critics like Moore and Silverblatt. At least listen to the interview in question, since you're misinterpreting the context it was said in.

>>9853110
I genuinely enjoyed the beginning of Infinite Jest. I don't understand the hate

File: 1498441213692.jpg (17KB, 640x597px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x597px

>>9853093
>This is a little amusing as he said, in his interview with Silverblatt, that he purposefully wrote the first ~70 pages as a kind of test to make sure only the right kind of reader made it further.

The irony is that someone can read a few lines of good poetry and get infinitely more out it than slogging through 700 pages of arrogant bullshit

>>9853093
>someone's an idiot for refusing to take a test from an author
so, i pick up a book, don't like anything about it, and i'm in the wrong for it? fuck that, and suppose you read three hundred pages of it and stop? is that just a filter for the intermediate group? what a load of horseshit.
what a disgusting bootlicking experience you must have with literature.

>>9853143
GR has a compelling, funny, and interesting beginning. Worth every minute. Being a dick and saying your initial fifty to two hundred pages of pleb filter is not the same as saying that people genuinely like those beginnings, it's literally saying that it was purposefully made unpleasant so that impatient people wouldn't bother reading. it's hardly saying "i'm being honest from the beginning and showing you what i got", that's the opposite. they're lying and calling you an idiot if you don't play their game.

Awful, awful thread.

>/pol/ tries to understand why he's so sad, come to /lit/, can't get into reading things above their level, so it's everyone else's fault!

>>9850209
this is actually one of the dumbest things I've seen posted here. I say that a lot but, by god, this is up there

>>9853698
well, you're a fucking moron. this has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with personal taste. the people who wrote the first and second paragraphs in OP have not defended their positions. I have. My position is not anything more than a dislike of a style of perversion that Gass portrays in Omensetter's Luck, The Tunnel is a book i put down after the first page, in which the word Tampax was written. I had no intention of reading further, whether people insist on intellect being the barrier for me to enjoy that which i do not, then so be it, i am a dunce for having a personality and am happier for it. i do think, however, that there is grave emphasis placed on enjoying works by people that are known to be difficult for the sake of difficulty, and to put others down with exaggerated elitism. some books are not to the taste of others, even people with erudite tastes. one can enjoy J R and not The Tunnel. it's fucking okay. not all men must be sorted and filed, dammit. God damn commies aren't even this bad with dissent, at least those fuckers have the decency to kill you right out.

>>9853668
I, and many others, genuinely like those beginnings. I don't know what your point is.

>>9853774
the point is very simple. the position was put forward that the author is intentionally putting their work up front, an honest position of clarity right from the start, when in reality, these authors themselves have said the beginnings of their works are purposefully unpleasant or holding back to sort out a specific type of reader, and cut away the rest. that is NOT being up front with your writing, it's being manipulative and dishonest. to hold back your best writing until you think people have "earned it" with patience is not putting everything up front at all. in fact, it is the opposite. i am arguing with your mischaracterization of the intent of the authors.

>>9846558
the use of first person moves the narrative into a subjective space that is much harder to perfect. writing in third person generally leaves more room for psychic distance and ambiguity. if you are writing in third person and your narrator isn't some detached manly man you're going to have a hard to complexly representing their interior world.

>>9853814
How did you get "not their best writing" out of any of this. You seem to feel pretty strongly about whatever your point is, but it relies on a willful misunderstanding of what they mean when they say that. In fact, on a technical level, I'd say the beginning contains some of the strongest writing. It's difficult, like in terms of difficulty. I don't see the point in twisting it to mean something else just so you can find your argument. The point is that it worked. Works. Seems to me that the readers who enjoy density and difficulty stick around while the ones who don't drop it. Mission accomplished and all that.

>>9853156
>respected critics like Moore and Silverblatt

my fucking sides

Silverblatt is a good interviewer but Moore is a hack. He's literally /lit/ tier "I like books because they seem difficult and long." He'll praise anything that's dense and at least 500 pages.

>>9849962
> like, humanity is perverse and full of hate, man! the proof is my prose shocks you!

what a brilliant insight.

The Tunnel reads like Flaubert's prose with Celine's one-trick edgy misanthropy but you realize the author is just J.K. Rowling's twitter.

>>9853698
Has there been any discussion of Gass' work beyond "muh foremost prose stylist?" DFW fans have more concrete analysis than anything Gass shills shill on an hourly basis.

>>9854341
It's clear you've never read any Moore. I just finished his newest collection of essays and it contains some of the most thorough analysis I've ever read. Your opinion of him seems to have been informed by (hilariously) /lit/ and reddit. Check out his long essay on Gaddis or Theroux. Also, Silverblatt is one of the closest readers I've ever heard of. If you read anything where he's the one being interviewed, it's clear he's incredibly picky as well. Watch his ~1 hour long talk on reading at, I believe, Cornell. I'm not comparing dicks but I've read a lot of criticism and listened to a lot of talks on literature, those two guys are some of the best we'll get for this generation.

File: lobotomy.jpg (49KB, 606x732px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 606x732px

>>9849962

Wow, people are prone to inter-tribal violence?

THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE HAS A DARK SIDE????

Only a brilliant lit-fic reader could come up with this stuff. I wish I was smart enough to tease these diamonds of wisdom from a 600 page artistic triumph. I'm still skeptical, but if a Literary Scholar says it, who am I to contradict him?

>>9853754
you sound like a real uppity faggot...

>>9854319
>density and difficulty
you've missed the point entirely. it has nothing to do with difficulty. not a damn thing. it's not the density of a novel that is in question, it is the quality of the work and the overt commentary that the authors distributed themselves that their first fifty to two hundred pages are meant as barriers to readers they don't personally like. jesus, you have to be beat over the head with a simple point in twelve different ways until it becomes sensible, and here you are bitching about dense literature being unappreciated by my point of view? i love dense and complex literature. i don't love being toyed with and withheld from intentionally as though i'm a child, i paid for the book, i researched it, i opened it the fuck up. what more do dfw (not that i dislike dfw, the opposite actually) and gass want? they want obedience before reward, and some of us, who have willpower and mental fortitude to hold their opinions.
that's not even the reason i dislike gass either! i dislike him because of what techniques he uses to portray his themes, his particular brand of perversity, and though skillful, am unimpressed with his prose. the argument about an author toying with his reader maliciously is irrelevant, and one i don't think you completely understand.

>>9854809
>mental fortitude to hold their opinions own feel otherwise.
sorry, drunk.
>>9854488
i watched the interview with gass and silverblatt, and i must say both people are incredibly interesting, intelligent, thoughtful people. i happily watched the entire interview, chuckling at some of the jokes Gass passed. doesn't mean i enjoy his literature, fiction anyway. someone mentioned his essays several times, and that sounds like it may be worth my interest. the problem i have with gass is just what he writes about, generally, he even speaks of it himself, the failures, silverblatt mentions horrifying in relationmtomhis work on several occasions. i enjoy an occasional romp through the dark side, but i don't like reading entire books full of it. just my personal taste. it really can't just be down to taste for some people, it's always "well you're a pleb, it must be too hard for you". well fuck those assholes. difficulty is a bonus to an enjoyable work, the work still has to be pleasurable in some way, it's a value statement. if i'm not enjoying it, i'm not going to read it merely as some badge to show /lit/izens to get accepted into the fold.
i'll enjoy what i want to enjoy. like i said, fuck elitist swine imagine difficulty is the only prerequisite to finding pleasure in literature.
>>9854624
while you posted this i was ramming my wife, you insignificant dipshit.

>>9854841
Glad you went and listened to it, it's definitely one of his best interviews.

>>9854869
i watched a piece of barth's interview as well, silverblatt knew his work better than he did and barth admitted it several times, i guess i accidentally started with his best. Gass really does seem like a nice guy, and Silverblatt mentions that in contrast with his characters, and i acknowledge the possibility (to an extent, the depths can't be plumbed without at least some taste for them) that Gass wasn't his own characters in their excruciating vileness, though it's difficult to separate regardless. it certainly would add to his ability as an author if he were materializing these people out of thin air, but i'm not so naive as to believe that.

>>9854841
Again, how are you getting any of that out of what anyone said? Plenty of people enjoy it. What is with the recent trend of people claiming others only like certain works due to their difficulty? I tend to enjoy denser works, yes, but not if that's the only thing it does or has. I guess I just don't see your point, still, and it's coming across as pure butthurt.

>>9845594
>>9845578
Not arguments

>>9854892
His best are with DFW, but the Vollmann ones are a close second for me. Listen to his first interview with Wallace and pay attention, you can hear the exact moment when he starts to respect and trust Silverblatt, and the conversation just takes off after that. He did, I think, 5 interviews with him. They're all good, and they were pretty good friends from what I understand. Listen to Vollmann as well, it might erase some preconceived notions, if you're one of those here who have them.

File: image.jpg (88KB, 500x457px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x457px

>>9854914
>DFW isnt a complete fake

>>9854908
i'm going to show you how you're not even fucking arguing with me and how much of a fucking idiot you're being.
my quote:
>difficulty is a bonus to an enjoyable work, the work still has to be pleasurable in some way
your quote:
> I tend to enjoy denser works, yes, but not if that's the only thing it does or has.

do you see how fucking frustrating you are?
i'm expressing my opinion about something completely fucking different, about people who are not you, and here you are, trundling like an oaf into the conversation saying i'm butthurt and you don't understand what i'm talking about.
you know why you don't fucking understand? because you (obviously aren't following what i've said) aren't the target of my argument.
get it? it's not about you. fuck.

>>9854914
i will definitely listen to vollmann's interview, i noticed and bookmarked it earlier. i have sort of been worried about his prose, and i wasn't much of a fan from the snippets, but i do know a little about the place the guy went to college, that cowboy haven school for geniuses and probably rich kids, deep springs?
interesting enough to listen to the guy talk for a bit. shame that doesn't always translate into what i find to be an enjoyable body of work.

>106 replies
>32 posters
OP what the fuck do you have against Gass did he fuck your wife or something?

>>9854958
OP just posted pasta from another thread,

File: spilled_water.png (220KB, 347x440px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 347x440px

>>9854958

>implying it isn't just one guy (you) defending gass from a /lit/-approved pseud beatdown

Nobody feels the need to pretend to like this bag of... hehe... wind.... in an anonymous environment... we get no social points for posturing.

>>9854939
That's my entire point, Mr. Butthurt. Nobody knows what your point is because you're angry about nothing. I literally agree with you and ask for clarification on your point and you freak out. You felt the need to twist each point people made in response to you into something you could easily argue, and now you're mad that you have to actually back it up. Just stop.

>>9855047
i have been very patient with you. my point is very clear. i don't like gass's fiction. i have listed the reasons several times, and won't do it again.

your interjection came with this:
>>9853668
responding to a post i made in which i claimed dislike for authors who wish to bar certain readers with unpleasant sections in the beginning. not unpleasant because of their difficulty, but simply unpleasant.
you whined about how people genuinely enjoyed these beginnings, which is irrelevant, because i'm specifically talking about the technique being in bad faith. you went on to talk about difficulty, which we both agree is nice when it has a reason to be there.
then, i dismissed the aspect of the beginnings being malicious, and simply said i dislike Gass, that the argument was irrelevant, though i maintain the technique is a shitty one to pull on readers.
then i talked about a sort of /lit/ character that calls people plebs, and spoke specifically of them and not yourself. a maddening group, that clearly exists on this board.
i never claimed that anyone likes books simply because they're difficult, but rather use that difficulty to exclude or insult others when they dislike reading a particular book. very simple difference.
i'm not angry about any specific thing, i dislike things and am voicing an opinion, you argued with my point by saying that some enjoy the beginnings of some books in which the authors attempt to weed out specific readers. i responded that it has nothing to fucking do with people enjoying it or not, but rather the author's malicious intent. once again, a very simple dismissal of your argument. you just urged on for something that wasn't there by purposefully misunderstanding everything i've said.


so in summation, to reiterate and simplify. i don't like authors who do certain things. you and others don't mind them doing those things. this doesn't invalidate my dislike of those authors. savvy?

the other opinions have nothing to do with you, and i will refrain from any further posts responding to me about those opinions, as they do not concern you. and in fact, i won't respond to anything more you contribute, as i feel there is nothing to gain from speaking with you further.

>>9855078
not that post, this post. >>9853143
this was your interjection.

File: IMG_0318.jpg (41KB, 600x608px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x608px

>>9855078

>>9855078
Holy shit you're retarded. Please, repeat your point again for everyone. The only reason anyone (it's not the same person, by the way) is responding to you is because you're so upset and acting like you're intelligent while blabbering on about nothing and saying the same thing over and over again. Nobody has disagreed with anything you've said, yet you've managed to take literally every response to you right up the ass. Dislike whatever you want, what is being questioned is your implication that people like it only because it's difficult, which has not been cleared up. Feel better now?

>>9855178
>i never claimed that anyone likes books simply because they're difficult, but rather use that difficulty to exclude or insult others when they dislike reading a particular book. very simple difference.

>>9855188
>which has *now been cleared up
That was a typo.
So you're claiming that people don't give up on books because they're too hard? Or that some people do, but others don't? Who doesn't know that? Your point is nonsensical and completely irrelevant regardless. Who ever claimed that people couldn't dislike it for different reasons? Listen, there are many reasons someone might dislike these types of novels. Them being too difficult is absolutely one of them. The entire point was that some of the authors make the beginning dense in order to let the reader know what they're in for (separate from the other aspects that one might dislike, not sure how you're not getting this), and many people give up at that time. I do believe that if you stick through it, these types of novels teach you how to read them, and are usually some of the most rewarding reads out there - this is irrelevant, though. I guess I just don't understand what you think the argument is here. Obviously someone can dislike something for different reasons, but the topic had nothing to do with that to begin with, so it comes across like you're just offended.

>>9855204
>responding to a post i made in which i claimed dislike for authors who wish to bar certain readers with unpleasant sections in the beginning. not unpleasant because of their difficulty, but simply unpleasant.
you whined about how people genuinely enjoyed these beginnings, which is irrelevant, because i'm specifically talking about the technique being in bad faith. you went on to talk about difficulty, which we both agree is nice when it has a reason to be there.

>>9855217
whoops, bad copypaste. heh. anyway, if you would have just read this shit, i wouldn't have to keep explaining. i'm just going to copy paste in response to anything you bring up, because i inevitably covered it in my many many many posts.

>>9855204
>I guess I just don't understand
this sums it up nicely. let's leave it at this.
maybe if you keep reading my posts, they'll teach you how to read them.

>>9855232
Bad you're explanation as to why it's in "bad faith" is both ridiculous and bitchy as fuck. You're acting like you're the smartest person in here, but nothing you've said is enlightening or a "point", it's just obvious truisms and nothings. The issue isn't with not understanding what you're saying, that's obvious, it's with trying to understand why you're saying it. It seems like an idiotic and pointless thing to keep repeating, when that wasn't even the first post's point. You took it out of context to go on your little autistic rant, but there's a reason everyone here is laughing at you. Is that clear enough for you?

>>9855222
Exactly my point. Stop. Stop bringing it up. Nobody cares, it's idiotic to begin with, and repeating it isn't making it any better.

>>9855237
But your*

>>9855217
Which techniques in the beginning of The Tunnel are unpleasant, specifically? You keep saying you've explained it, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. You keep responding with the same shit, but saying "it's bad but not because it's hard" in as many ways as you can come up with, in response to everything, is just obnoxious.

>>9855237
the first post's point, is literally a fucking copypasta of something i said to begin with. i have been actively commenting throughout this entire fucking thread on a variety of topics on Gass and writers in general, and because people continually say they don't understand, i have been so kind as to repeat myself. if you don't like it, if you don't fucking like it, if you don't like it, if you don't fucking like it, you dipshit, you cam hide the thread, that i am a direct contributor to, in both spirit, and in OP. I am the Gass disliker. fear me. misunderstand me, do as you are told and fuck off. this my home, my thread, and i will act in it in any way i please.
>>9855242
people have responded and commented on my posts for days. DAYS.
they don't care so much that they spend almost two and a half days discussing Gass with me? okay bud.

>>9855250
I explained in part, in the second paragraph of the OP, and at various points throughout this entire fucking thread.

>>9855266
Cool, you've repeated yourself again. How is implying the reason people don't agree with you - or want you to expand on your point - is because they don't understand it any better than Gass putting a pleb filter in the beginning of his novel. Please, friend, explain what about the beginning of The Tunnel was bad (other than it being difficult, as you've kindly pointed out many times) instead of getting progressively more upset, putting your fingers in your ears, and repeating "they just don't understand me!" It's ridiculous. Dislike whatever you want, I'm asking you to explain why. Everything you've said in this thread is pathetically dumb, here's your chance to give a real critique. Something other than "it's in bad faith, but don't worry there's many other reasons I don't like it" preferably. We understand your trite point, we have understood it each and every time you've repeated it. So go ahead and drop that act and explain what you mean by Gass putting bad parts in the beginning? (separate from it being difficult, I think you said?)

>>9855272
I think he meant something intelligent and not stolen from others.

>>9855284
if only you had taken time to read the thread, but no. no that would be too easy.
if you had read the thread, you would know that i had only read the first page of the tunnel, and that all of my criticisms of Gass relied on that one page, as well as some hundred of omensetter's luck. in fact, in OP, i have happily described why i dislike Gass, there are other places where i expand on this and even add other aspects, but in this, a copy paste of what i have said before should suffice.

He's also perverted, and not in the jolly "let's look up her skirt and find a clown face popping out" sort of way, or even the "I'm observing, recounting, or creating instances of perversion which are to effect you in the ways i see fit", but rather in a "I'm a cellulite ridden imp of perversity, I am going to allude to my very own depraved crevices constantly and clumsily and unsuccessfully attempt to pass it off as a theme perpetrated by one with higher skill than mine" style of perversity.

note how it's only a fragment. this was taken from yet ANOTHER entire thread about Gass.
since this paragraph there have been continued comments on why i dislike Gass, if you'd like to know more, please read the thread!

>>9855286
>you didn't write that and it's stupid anyway
i sure did, and that's your opinion. care to express why you dislike the work of the Gass Disliker?

>>9845384
i think it might be in reaction to the west declining but im not sure

>>9855290
You're so obtuse it's starting to make me sad. I read the thread. I'd like to know more. Nothing you've said has any substance, and you claimed - without hesitation - that the beginning of the books was bad. One page is a little ridiculous, sure, but you're so adamant about your dumbass opinion I thought you'd have something good to say about it.

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/9797897
here's the thread in which two posts i made were particularly notable, and where i found a nazi friend. I was the one who called his prose rotten milk, and who wrote the second paragraph in OP.

>>9855295
Mostly because he's the most undeserving elitist I've ever seen on this site, and that's saying a lot. Nothing he's said was in any way intelligent but he's talked down to every person who's responded to him. Even the people just asking for more explanation. I'm guessing you're a troll, but if you're not you should think about reading a bit more. Start with the second page of The Tunnel.

>>9855302
>your opinion on why you dislike something isn't enough to satisfy me
oh i'm dreadfully sorry to have displeased you, master. i'll sure get ready and whip up some top grade fucking criticism for you to chew on yessuh.
fuck you. i don't care if you dislike why i dislike something. it's hilarious that you are even bitching about it, i never claimed to be some godlike entity, bestowing grade A literary criticism of Gass to any who pray to my altar, you puling infant.
fuck you, bitch.

>>9855305
Oh I remember that thread. Believe me when I say that only you think your posts are memorable. You're a joke if anything. Please don't stop posting, though. You've made my night. I've never seen someone get so butthurt about not being able to get more than 1 pages into something. I'm not saying you're mad about it being too hard for you, just that you're acting exactly like someone who is.

>>9855308
nope, busy reading something i enjoy. unlike Gass's work.

>>9855310
Oh, it's you. I've seen you around here. Any time someone asks for a single intelligent post from you, you resort to this. Good work anon, you've proven my point. Explains why you were so offended that Gass made it difficult in the beginning.

>>9855314
Actually, i didn't repost my own post in OP. that was someone else. So, someone other than myself found it memorable enough to repost it, now didn't they?
I'm glad i've made your night, i'm thoroughly enjoying typing all of this out on my phone, drunken, and occasionally reading a post to my wife, giggling at the ever present resistance to my posts.

>>9855315
Stephen King?

>>9855321
Can you ask her to explain, in a way that makes sense, what was so bad about the first page (did you finish the whole thing at least, bud?) of The Tunnel? I can't imagine even a woman having less insightful things to say than you. Then again she did marry you...

>>9855317
>oh it's you
then you must be recognizing some doppelganger, as i am only myself and have never come across someone so bitchy about me disliking Gass before. it's immensely satisfying. it's also quite funny that you have taken the position that it was a problem with difficulty, to which i respond that you should read the thread again!
I do hope you dispose of your Tampax in the trash and not the toilet!

>>9855330
>attacking someone's wife
how rude.
>>9855322
no, i'm readin Pynchon, lots of fun!

>>9855333
Oh, I've only taken that position after you reverted to childish insults and roundabout bullshit when confronted with a real question. It makes more sense that you're just pissed off that you couldn't understand it, so you come up with some bullshit criticism and repeat it over and over so you don't have to think of anything real to say. It's pretty sad. I've honestly never seen anyone get so butthurt about not having a real point, and then to keep claiming its because everyone is too dumb to understand... What exactly couldn't they understand? The idiotic shit you said on this thread, or the other one? I've never ever read Gass, but I couldn't let you go without making you go full autism. You definitely did, though, so congratulations. If you think of anything insightful, I'll be here. Still very much interested in what was so bad (other than the difficulty, right?) about the first, oh lord, page of The Tunnel.

>>9855321
It's not resistance so much as complete disbelief.

>>9855347
Actually it was Omensetter's luck. The tampax thing only reinforced my opinion! You know, the opinion i have elucidated throughout the thread? heh, you're such a kidder!
>i've never even read Gass
i know you haven't!

>>9855342
Did you get passed the first page? I promise it'll get easier, bud. But only if you try.

>>9855352
oh it's resistance at every turn, look atcha, nippin, you're all horripilating at the mere touch of my tongue to the letters on the screen of my phone (i type orally), you're stricken with a deep frisson at every post i make, it's delightful for you, i know.
>>9855357
>passed
need i say more?

>>9855356
Well I read his essay collections, so I should say fiction. What I'm referring to is your "bad faith" comment and how you went on to say that the beginning of The Tunnel (specifically) is bad, but not because of the difficulty. Can you expand on that point?

>>9855362
Oh no, you're embarrassing man.

>>9855342
Which Pynchon are you reading?

>>9855363
Oh, well, i'd be happy to, and I'm sure his essays are better if they deal less with such unsavory characters. In terms of bad faith, i feel it somewhat insulting for someone to attempt to weed me out intentionally, by making unpleasant length of literature, it is bad faith in a literal sense, the author has no faith in me, instead he creates a test to ensure that he can trust me woth some aspect of his work that he refuses to display until the test is passed, catch my drift?
in terms of The Tunnel, i never said that his work was bad, in fact i came fairly close to commending his skill at creating unpleasantness in his works throughout the thread. I personally disliked it because it immediately became clear that it was up to the same mischief that made me discontinue Omensetter's Luck, namely, an uncomfortable perversion, a character i didn't wish to read about, for example, the mention of Tampax, or the rape of whoever on the frathouse stair. The writing of the page is fine, just an overtly negative and unpleasant cohesion of thoughts that immediately made me wish to read something else. usually i have some good will with an author before they toss out stuff in that order. i picked up Omensetter's luck at a thrift store, and figured i'd give it a whack, and read it for a while, the first section somewhat jarring in its style, though lacking something that i felt having just finished Molloy and buzzing with good intentions towards a new book to read before i went on to Malone Dies. that feeling was pleasure, a desire to continue, that died further on when my patience came to an end with the guy who shoots the fox in the well, whatever his name was, having a recurring fantasy in vaguer terms of an earlier scene in which he was manipulating the air and telling his wife he was squishing around with her organs and shit. I finally just chalked it up to a book i might read another time, took up pynchon and have had a wonderful time since, noting the ebullient humorous mind behind the shade of Gravity's Rainbow immediately, in comparison to the oppressive feeling of disappointment, failure, and not horror, but something else, that was pervasive throughout my short experience with Gass.

>>9855391
Would you disagree that some readers need to be weeded out when it comes to certain types of literature? I'd argue that by making something dense, the author is putting even more faith in his readers, just in less of them. I get where you're coming from but I don't necessarily agree.
Cool, thanks. Fair enough. I guess we just read differently, because I've never had an issue reading things that make me uncomfortable, that's one of the main reasons I read, in fact: to feel things I wouldn't otherwise feel, sometimes that's discomfort.

>>9855399
Well, i'm all for discomfort, for example, Molloy was extremely uncomfortable for me in a lot of ways, fairly dense, and hardly making any concessions to a reader, but it was worth reading, the prose was stunning, and though at times unpleasant and near impossible to comprehend, i charged through happily.
I think it's the intent, maybe, or maybe i just don't like Gass and have no great reason for it.
In terms of your thoughts that weeding people out can be positive, i suppose i could make the concession that viewed from another perspective it's a positive act, though from mine it feels nothing but malicious. it just feels dishonest. like i said earlier, i bought the book, let me read it. how would you feel if your kindle made you pass some dull test before you could turn it on? wouldn't you be at least frustrated with the thing? i guess in some books it's okay to have a barrier because i see enough that i enjoy to push on for, but in the case of Gass, i just didn't see the value.
In the end, it boils down to exclusivity, a feeling that if you're not up to my standards, you can't read my book. it feels like some clique bullshit from highschool rather than a professor letting me into his study after a brilliant submission to have an enjoyable and involving discussion. i think that no readers "need" to be weeded out. that sounds anti-reader to me,

>>9855413
Fair enough, I guess there's just something exciting about "passing" whatever test these authors set up and getting a lot out of it. You mentioned Pynchon. Well, he could have written the same story in a much easier style, but then it becomes something completely different, right? I don't think, from what I know of Gass, that it's meant to be malicious, because there are people who think the beginning is the best part. I don't see it so much as a test like "if you can't struggle through this, you're not worthy" but more like "if you don't enjoy this part, you're DEFINITELY not going to enjoy the rest".

>>9855421
In terms of pynchon, it seems like he does the opposite though, he attracted me in with a big fucking juicy banana, and then smacked me around with difficulty until i liked it and has been dropping nuggets of goodness along the way.
seems like a better way to do it to me, "welcome to the club, now bend over."
though, i guess i should owe Gass a favor for making sure i didn't waste my time from the perspective of "there's just more where this comes from so don't bother". it's just weird thinking of it that way, building your book with a failsafe, just in case they hate it? have some damn confidence in your book! make me like the damn thing! you're the writer, you struck out to do the work, do it. that's probably a difference in goals from author to author, i do marvel at the author of fiction that does not set out to entertain. but that's not particularly fair, and i'm sure many love Gass. in fact, what you say makes sense at least so far that he didn't mean to be a jerk, he seems an amiable guy. honestly in these situations, sometimes i wish i just liked everything, it would sure make things more convenient. i guess i just have to weed out the authors unworthy of me, heh.

>>9845891
im not convinced its such a bad option seeing as the detractors are here posting on a ukrainian snuff film distributing platform

>>9855435
That's the thing, though. Not every book is for every person. Some people hate the beginning of GR, just like some love the beginning of The Tunnel with a passion. I guess he failed on that he didn't get YOU to fall in love with the beginning, but many intelligent and well read people have felt the opposite. I absolutely see where you're coming from, thinking it's dishonest, I just see it the other way. If anything, in my opinion, it's more honest than anything.

>>9855449
In the end i'll probably go back and read the tunnel in a few years and enjoy it and bitch at faggots who meme about Tampax. Who knows.
some good discussion came out of this, we both know what way we'll attract readers to our books, one with honey and one with a stick. unfortunately we'll eventually have to figure out which is which.

>>9854841
>i happily watched the entire interview, chuckling at some of the jokes Gass passed
>Gass passed
pffff HAAAHAHAHAHAH

>>9855447
literally the best lit forum on the internet

>>9855880
>somebody got that
ah, my life is complete.

>>9853668
Eh, GR wasn't worth EVERY moment.

>>9856843
i mean the beginning is worth every minute. i definitely agree that there are some patches i would prefer to have edited out. like the spacers between Slothrop scenes. god i love slothrop.

>>9857834
i've been holding it up for a couple days now, what more could you possibly ask of me?

Look at this, opinions of me and my jew-wise /lit/ buddy still on top. Words of the wise are truly lasting.

>>9845371
>muh first person narrative is bad meme
Jesus, this is getting really pathetic.

File: IMG_0030.png (1017KB, 753x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 753x1000px

>>9858226
oh man, my nazi buddy! what's up?

>>9858241
i dunno where the first person thing has been coming from really. it's a strange position to hold on one of the fundamental aspects of literary structure. don't even mention first person omniscience to them either, they'll just flip right out.

>>9858259
First person is amazing because when done properly the writing can fuse with the first person internal monologue and ego of the reader. That is the point. Then you throw them into an omniscient transcendental experience. It's awesome.

File: 22046286a4150660b4df93548c58865293321aaad80a82e2f8e433c26f07ffbb.png (170KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 600x600px

>>9858247
Hey man, just living life and spreading the word.

>>9858275
i agree, when done properly, it's fantastic. often it's done poorly, or done fantastically from the perspective of a person you despise. i personally find it hard to read a text without putting myself in some shoe or other in the text. i have to feel immersed in some way, whether or not that makes me a bad reader, whatever, but in the end it's difficult not to be annoyed or deterred when first person perspective portrays some total dick cheese that you can't stand.
i recall having trouble with the narration style of dostoevsky's Demons, just threw me right off. never could penetrate it very far though i've read essentially everything else he had written, save the adolescent.

File: IMG_0143.jpg (221KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1200x900px

>>9858286
Keep on it!

>>9845371
This book, it is tremendous. One of the few, memes on this board that were actually good.