0 reactions
aFinished Gravity's Rainbow and I'm Fulfilled/Underwhelmed
After a few months of somewhat steady reading, I finally finished Pynchon's infamous 1973 opus *Gravity's Rainbow*. This was my second attempt to make my way through the novel and I find myself slightly conflicted about it. I figured this this would be a good place to square away my feelings toward this immense work.
First off, I would like to award *Gravity's Rainbow* as the hardest novel I've finished, but not for any straightforward reason. I've completed a few "difficult experimental epics" including *Ulysses*, *Infinite Jest, The Name of the Rose* and *Absalom, Absalom!* and Pynchon can proudly stand above them in challenge. I didn't find understanding *Gravity's Rainbow* to be impossibly difficult (with the exceptions of the deliberately disjointed and confusing sections) and struggled more so with the schizophrenic nature of the novel and its constant prosal whiplash. I recognize the incongruencies, juxtapositions and collapse of traditional narratives are essential to "the point" of *Gravity's Rainbow,* and this thematic implementation within the text is phenomenal, but it lends the whole experience a stuttered, inconsistent reading feel (at least for me). Pynchon swirls between evocative romantic imagery, absurdist comedic sections and truly abhorrent depictions of "carnal pleasures," which is fun and entertaining and part of his project, but it made it difficult for me to truly connect with the text on an aesthetic level. I found myself really enjoying intricate sections of the book, only to struggle when an inevitable perspective shift turned the narrative to something entirely unrelated. It was hard for me to fully engage with the narrative or to read large sections of the book at a time for this reason. These unending shifts in combination to Pynchon's "convoluted" language elevated the novel's challenge immensely.
My chief complaint with the novel has to do with an "emotional core," which I feel it lacks. *Gravity's Rainbow* has no shortage of deeply evocative passages and interesting characters, but rarely does the book demonstrate moments of profound humanity that aren't immediately undercut by an extended comedic exaggeration. The other gnarly masterpieces I've read (with the exception of Eco) all ground their grand scope in quiet character moments which extend outward, lending a human universality to their narratives that I feel Pynchon avoids. One could point towards its thematic construction, to its exploration of love, death and semiotics to fill this space and I understand and respect that argument, but personally these are harder for me to connect with.
This isn't to say I disliked the novel at all, I'd describe *Gravity's Rainbow* as utterly astounding. Pynchon's command of the English language is a wonder to behold and he demonstrates a thorough understanding and mastery of every modern prose style. The fluidity which he maneuvers between literary modes while maintaining an essence both humorous and melancholy is incredible to experience and I was enamored by much of the novel by the simple pleasure of reading it. It was also very fulfilling to trace successive authors back to Pynchon, as so many postmodernists were directly influenced by him. It retroactively adds context so stories I love by Rushdie, Zadie Smith and Foster Wallace. I'd love to return to it soon after reading some scholarship; annotating the text myself and attempting to connect its seemingly disjointed elements.
To summarize, I'd say I enjoyed *Gravity's Rainbow*. It's an amazing book that I'd heartily recommend to anyone interested in postmodernism, but it's not one of my favorites. I'm interested to hear what others who have finished the novel think. Did people "enjoy" it in the traditional sense? Does it have a "core humanism" you connected to? Also, I'm interested in comparisons between *Gravity's Rainbow* and other books mentioned in the same conversation if anyone had thoughts on that (a reviewer once called D.F.W "more puerile Pynchon").
#entertainment
source
After a few months of somewhat steady reading, I finally finished Pynchon's infamous 1973 opus *Gravity's Rainbow*. This was my second attempt to make my way through the novel and I find myself slightly conflicted about it. I figured this this would be a good place to square away my feelings toward this immense work.
First off, I would like to award *Gravity's Rainbow* as the hardest novel I've finished, but not for any straightforward reason. I've completed a few "difficult experimental epics" including *Ulysses*, *Infinite Jest, The Name of the Rose* and *Absalom, Absalom!* and Pynchon can proudly stand above them in challenge. I didn't find understanding *Gravity's Rainbow* to be impossibly difficult (with the exceptions of the deliberately disjointed and confusing sections) and struggled more so with the schizophrenic nature of the novel and its constant prosal whiplash. I recognize the incongruencies, juxtapositions and collapse of traditional narratives are essential to "the point" of *Gravity's Rainbow,* and this thematic implementation within the text is phenomenal, but it lends the whole experience a stuttered, inconsistent reading feel (at least for me). Pynchon swirls between evocative romantic imagery, absurdist comedic sections and truly abhorrent depictions of "carnal pleasures," which is fun and entertaining and part of his project, but it made it difficult for me to truly connect with the text on an aesthetic level. I found myself really enjoying intricate sections of the book, only to struggle when an inevitable perspective shift turned the narrative to something entirely unrelated. It was hard for me to fully engage with the narrative or to read large sections of the book at a time for this reason. These unending shifts in combination to Pynchon's "convoluted" language elevated the novel's challenge immensely.
My chief complaint with the novel has to do with an "emotional core," which I feel it lacks. *Gravity's Rainbow* has no shortage of deeply evocative passages and interesting characters, but rarely does the book demonstrate moments of profound humanity that aren't immediately undercut by an extended comedic exaggeration. The other gnarly masterpieces I've read (with the exception of Eco) all ground their grand scope in quiet character moments which extend outward, lending a human universality to their narratives that I feel Pynchon avoids. One could point towards its thematic construction, to its exploration of love, death and semiotics to fill this space and I understand and respect that argument, but personally these are harder for me to connect with.
This isn't to say I disliked the novel at all, I'd describe *Gravity's Rainbow* as utterly astounding. Pynchon's command of the English language is a wonder to behold and he demonstrates a thorough understanding and mastery of every modern prose style. The fluidity which he maneuvers between literary modes while maintaining an essence both humorous and melancholy is incredible to experience and I was enamored by much of the novel by the simple pleasure of reading it. It was also very fulfilling to trace successive authors back to Pynchon, as so many postmodernists were directly influenced by him. It retroactively adds context so stories I love by Rushdie, Zadie Smith and Foster Wallace. I'd love to return to it soon after reading some scholarship; annotating the text myself and attempting to connect its seemingly disjointed elements.
To summarize, I'd say I enjoyed *Gravity's Rainbow*. It's an amazing book that I'd heartily recommend to anyone interested in postmodernism, but it's not one of my favorites. I'm interested to hear what others who have finished the novel think. Did people "enjoy" it in the traditional sense? Does it have a "core humanism" you connected to? Also, I'm interested in comparisons between *Gravity's Rainbow* and other books mentioned in the same conversation if anyone had thoughts on that (a reviewer once called D.F.W "more puerile Pynchon").
#entertainment
source
| 26,000 mlx | |
| 26 | |
| 0 |