Either you're the sort of person who yearns to read 1000+ pages of that sort of thing or you're not. (Via A&L Daily.)
IN THE COMMENTS: George points to a grand literary tradition of listing. That makes me think of the not-so-grand pop culture list craze. There's a nice take on that here (with a comment by me somewhere in there). And don't forget 1977's "Book of Lists," a page of which I scanned the other day and -- given the new timeliness -- feel like posting again:
(Click here to enlarge.)
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
Does Pynchon use that device a lot? I find that those sorts of lists, used sparingly, can really help with visualization, but if an author overuses them then reading becomes a chore.
word verification: gytfiyku. Oh yeah? Well gytfiyk you too, buddy.
A literary technique in service of a serious topic is one thing.
DeLillo and Roth and so forth overuse techniques. (Does Roth really need another doppelganger story? Could DeLillo write in unstilted English?) But they are serious authors dealing with serious topics.
The review accuses Pynchon of unseriousness. That's fatal.
A list is a list is a list. Pynchon's list is rich with references to the competing technical and business components of early 20th Century Hollywood, no small source of our current World.
There's a great literary tradition of listing...
Along came Poly
Greetz Franz
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा