A Year's Worth of the Most Celebrated Novels

[Selene]

I'll go with a parking lot because of the comings and goings and the semaphore post.

[caroljane]

I wish Wilder's "Our Town" were on your list, but maybe you aren't doing plays. It is so full of the bittersweet beauty of life.

[caroljane]

I am also going to start Lot 49. The title immediately makes me think of "Lot in Life" or an auction lot. Are those clues?

The Pynchon’s real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don’t

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

A cemetery lot? Maybe there's a double sense and the 'crying' could refer both to the crying at an auction and to the crying at a grave.

Daunce, I'm thrilled that you are going to start Lot 49 too! I'm glad the book is under 200 pages; I'm no fast reader, and also tend to deliberately linger with a book for a long time, especially if I like it. Some books I liked so much that I wished my mind could "stay" in the story forever, and I put off getting to the end.

There are cemetery lots and cemetary plots. The speculation thickens. I feel exactly the same way when reading books I love. The whole 3 volumes of A Suitable Girl I never could believe actually ended. I don't have to believe it if I don't want to.

[jriggenbach]

When I was in high school, a friend gave me Pynchon's V, which was then, I think, a fairly current book. I liked the way it started, but bogged down somewhere around the middle and never finished it. I still have a copy on my shelf and the notion that one day I'll try again.

About ten years later, sometime in the early '70s, an editor at Reason magazine asked me to review a then-new paperback reprint of The Crying of Lot 49, which she felt had libertarian implications. I started it and liked it okay for a while, though less well than I'd liked V, but I bogged down again (despite the fact that, as ND says, it's very short). I never finished it. I never wrote the review.

In 1974, Theodore Sturgeon told me I had to read Gravity's Rainbow. I started it and thought the opening couple of chapters were brilliant, but I bogged down in Chapter 3. About ten years later, I gave it another try. I bogged down in Chapter 3. Nonetheless, I put it back on the shelf, convinced that I would try again. It was obvious to me that Pynchon was an extremely talented writer. There were passages in all the books of his that I'd tried so far that were very impressive. As a storyteller, he hadn't impressed me much - I didn't really feel interested in the characters or what was happening to them; I just liked the writing. But there are a few novelists of that sort on my list of the very good, if not great, and definitely to be read: good or great writers with not much skill or talent at storytelling. So I put Gravity's Rainbow back on the shelf.

Then Vineland came out. I bought it, I started it, I loved it. I loved it all the way through to the end. I liked everything about it. (I have since been told that Vineland is the Thomas Pynchon novel people who don't really like Thomas Pynchon tend to like.)

When Mason & Dixon came out a few years later, I bought it, but have never cracked it. I never bought the short story collection, and since Mason & Dixon, since the turn of the new century, I haven't kept up at all. I still read the reviews, but I've acquired no more books.

ND - is mine a hopeless case?

JR

Edited April 11, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Selene]

Hopelessly well written.

You are an excellent writer.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: a few sentences would be great, even if very short

> This is also for Phil if you are reading this! Dump Betty friedan if you can -- Vida will not depress you or bore you, I guarantee. And it has the added value of a full portrait of the turbulent Youth Movement, antiwar protest, early feminist years. [Daunce, #71]

> ...The Crying of Lot 49...Middlemarch...A Suitable Girl...Our Town...Darkness at Noon...Vida...Madame Bovary....Lolita [several posters]

Daunce and others, what I find is if one's purpose is to recommend books, since tastes differ, just a name or (worse) a list of names isn't likely to get anyone to read them, especially if one has a long list of things to read. What ND did with Eco and what I did with Steinbeck might: (i) a mini-review of at least a paragraph discussing plot, characterization, style, or whatever turned you on or made it stand out compared to other things you read. (ii) Even more effective, an example or excerpt is worth a thousand assertions, so one of the writer's best passages** that you folded over or underlined when you were reading it is often very, very powerful.

(Daunce's two sentences above are a step toward that but, no offence, still not enough for this reader at least to buy it, especially since I've never heard of it.)

**what did people think of the two paragraphs I typed out from "Grapes of Wrath" about Route 66 [on the Steinbeck thread] -- did that make anyone more interested or likely to read the book than they had been?

It doesn't take long to do, helps the reviewer himself re-enjoy and re-experience what they loved in their own minds, and can be a lot of fun to write.

(If people are too busy, though, I can understand that..]...but it would be even more valuable - and save much more work - than someone using the quote function... :-) I get a great deal of satisfaction out of articulating, identifying exactly what I love about something. )

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

When I was in high school, a friend gave me Pynchon's V, which was then, I think, a fairly current book. I liked the way it started, but bogged down somewhere around the middle and never finished it. I still have a copy on my shelf and the notion that one day I'll try again.

About ten years later, sometime in the early '70s, an editor at Reason magazine asked me to review a then-new paperback reprint of The Crying of Lot 49, which she felt had libertarian implications. I started it and liked it okay for a while, though less well than I'd liked V, but I bogged down again (despite the fact that, as ND says, it's very short). I never finished it. I never wrote the review.

In 1974, Theodore Sturgeon told me I had to read Gravity's Rainbow. I started it and thought the opening couple of chapters were brilliant, but I bogged down in Chapter 3. About ten years later, I gave it another try. I bogged down in Chapter 3. Nonetheless, I put it back on the shelf, convinced that I would try again. It was obvious to me that Pynchon was an extremely talented writer. There were passages in all the books of his that I'd tried so far that were very impressive. As a storyteller, he hadn't impressed me much - I didn't really feel interested in the characters or what was happening to them; I just liked the writing. But there are a few novelists of that sort on my list of the very good, if not great, and definitely to be read: good or great writers with not much skill or talent at storytelling. So I put Gravity's Rainbow back on the shelf.

Then Vineland came out. I bought it, I started it, I loved it. I loved it all the way through to the end. I liked everything about it. (I have since been told that Vineland is the Thomas Pynchon novel people who don't like Thomas Pynchon tend to like.)

When Mason & Dixon came out a few years later, I bought it, but have never cracked it. I never bought the short story collection, and since Mason & Dixon, since the turn of the new century, I haven't kept up at all. I still read the reviews, but I've acquired no more books.

ND - is mine a hopeless case?

Not at all hopeless, I certainly understand having trouble getting through Gravity’s Rainbow, it’s up there with Ulysses in terms of effort required, though it repays much better when you go back and reread it piecemeal.

Politically I think Pynchon is an anarchist of the left. He’ll throw in references to Bakunin now and then, always in a positive light. Against the Day probably shows his leanings best, where the good guys are anarchists and the top bad guy is a corrupt businessman. The Crying of Lot 49 deals with the postal monopoly, with some historical material on how it got to be that way, otherwise it’s not particularly political. Weird conspiracies are Pynchon’s thing, usually partnerships between government and other interested parties, working towards various nefarious ends. Example: An escaped former Nazi doctor prescribes LSD to suburban housewives, as part of a government sponsored program if I remember right.

I agree about Vineland, and the flip side of what you wrote is also true, it’s the one Pynchon fans tend to look down on. I read V. last, so by the time I got to that one I was ready. When I finished it my immediate feeling was that it was his best, thinking about it again now I have no idea. He is tough to read, there’s often obscure references, but nowadays it’s easy to cheat:

http://pynchonwiki.com/

These wiki’s avoid plot spoilers, so if you’re young enough that you don’t know who Lamont Cranston is (referred to early in chapter one of The Crying of Lot 49), this’ll help you out. How annoying though, the wiki gives away the meaning of the title right there on the first page, ugh!

[jriggenbach]

Subject: a few sentences would be great, even if very short

> This is also for Phil if you are reading this! Dump Betty friedan if you can -- Vida will not depress you or bore you, I guarantee. And it has the added value of a full portrait of the turbulent Youth Movement, antiwar protest, early feminist years. [Daunce, #71]

> ...The Crying of Lot 49...Middlemarch...A Suitable Girl...Our Town...Darkness at Noon...Vida...Madame Bovary....Lolita [several posters]

Daunce and others, what I find is if one's purpose is to recommend books, since tastes differ, just a name or (worse) a list of names isn't likely to get anyone to read them, especially if one has a long list of things to read. What ND did with Eco and what I did with Steinbeck might: (i) a mini-review of at least a paragraph discussing plot, characterization, style, or whatever turned you on or made it stand out compared to other things you read. (ii) Even more effective, an example or excerpt is worth a thousand assertions, so one of the writer's best passages** that you folded over or underlined when you were reading it is often very, very powerful.

(Daunce's two sentences above are a step toward that but, no offence, still not enough for this reader at least to buy it, especially since I've never heard of it.)

An odd book for someone who claims to know something about American literature not to have heard of.

**what did people think of the two paragraphs I typed out from "Grapes of Wrath" about Route 66 [on the Steinbeck thread] -- did that make anyone more interested or likely to read the book than they had been?

I read it a long time ago, actually, but no, those passages wouldn't entice me to read it again. They seemed pretty much standard-issue Steinbeck to me - nothing I'd show to a friend in an effort to stimulate interest in the book.

It doesn't take long to do, helps the reviewer himself re-enjoy and re-experience what they loved in their own minds, and can be a lot of fun to write.

(If people are too busy, though, I can understand that..]...but it would be even more valuable - and save much more work - than someone using the quote function... :-) I get a great deal of satisfaction out of articulating, identifying exactly what I love about something. )

But you get no satisfaction out of identifying exactly which post you're responding to? Or from letting readers know where they can find the exact statement from which you extracted your snippet?

JR

[Philip Coates]

But you don't acknowledge my original point? You get no satisfaction out of providing details, passages, evidence to back up literary claims about the greatest authors or American novels or the like....so that readers can check further and see if you've read enough yourself to back up your claims?

[caroljane]

But you don't acknowledge my original point? You get no satisfaction out of providing details, passages, evidence to back up literary claims about the greatest authors or American novels or the like....so that readers can check further and see if you've read enough yourself to back up your claims?

OK Phil, OK, here's one:

"How could she go on? She could not cry yet. She had to survive, even if she could not remember now just why-- a life in the service of something that had once felt far more pressing...

I am at the mercy of history, she thought, but I can push it too a bit. One thing I know is that nothing remains the same. No great problems in this society have been solved, no wounds healed, no promises kept except that the rich shall inherit.What swept through us and cast us forward is a force that will gather and rise again. Two steps forward and a step and a half back. I will waste none of my life."

Vida,1979

Edited April 12, 2011 by daunce lynam

[jriggenbach]

But you don't acknowledge my original point? You get no satisfaction out of providing details, passages, evidence to back up literary claims about the greatest authors or American novels or the like....so that readers can check further and see if you've read enough yourself to back up your claims?

I don't acknowledge your original point because I have nothing of any import to say about it. On the one hand, I think it is true that at least some of my comments on literary matters would be more persuasive to at least some readers (though, as I keep trying, apparently in vain, to remind you, I did not write them in the hope of persuading anyone of anything or in the expectation of doing so), if I took the time to flesh them out a bit by looking up some illustrative quotations. Generally, I haven't the time to do so. Would you prefer that I refrain, therefore, from making the comments at all? That can be arranged.

On the other hand, I have another reason for not acknowledging your original point - namely, that it seems to me tiresome to concentrate virtually all one's energy, as you do, on telling people how everything they do, no matter what it is, could be infinitely improved if only it had been done Phil's way instead of their way. I tend to focus more on whether there's something in a post (whether it's the main point or a side issue) on which I think I could make an informed comment that might be of some use to someone. How I would have written the post, if I had written it, how I think it should have been done, etc., etc., etc., seems to me to be irrelevant.

JR

[Philip Coates]

Daunce, there's something quite interesting in the passage you quoted [post 65]. Thanks for providing it. I will browse the book at the library.

> it seems to me tiresome to concentrate virtually all one's energy, as you do, on telling people how everything they do, no matter what it is, could be infinitely improved if only it had been done Phil's way instead of their way. [Jeff]

Leaving aside the exaggerations, how is that different from people tiresomely trying to tell me to use the quote function on this list?

Edited April 12, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Subject: a few sentences would be great, even if very short

> This is also for Phil if you are reading this! Dump Betty friedan if you can -- Vida will not depress you or bore you, I guarantee. And it has the added value of a full portrait of the turbulent Youth Movement, antiwar protest, early feminist years. [Daunce, #71]

> ...The Crying of Lot 49...Middlemarch...A Suitable Girl...Our Town...Darkness at Noon...Vida...Madame Bovary....Lolita [several posters]

Daunce and others, what I find is if one's purpose is to recommend books, since tastes differ, just a name or (worse) a list of names isn't likely to get anyone to read them, especially if one has a long list of things to read. What ND did with Eco and what I did with Steinbeck might: (i) a mini-review of at least a paragraph discussing plot, characterization, style, or whatever turned you on or made it stand out compared to other things you read. (ii) Even more effective, an example or excerpt is worth a thousand assertions, so one of the writer's best passages** that you folded over or underlined when you were reading it is often very, very powerful.

Phil,

I merely added my titles to the list without comments because the book discussion group you quoted only asked for the titles (which are to meet certain criteria), not for the personal reasons of choice:

Dear Great Books Discussion Group Members at South Shore Regional Library, It is that time of year again when we begin the process of making selections for ou..reading list for 2012. ...select SEVEN titles from the nomination list below...... A TITLE THAT IS NOT ON THE LIST BELOW, PLEASE ...MAKE SURE THAT YOUR SELECTION MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN A GREAT BOOKS GROUP. These criteria include the following: there is mention of the work in critical circles as either "great" or a "classic"; it has had a significant cultural, historical and/or literary impact; it lends itself to varied interpretations; and it raises important questions and issues that different generations continue to deal with....

But no problem if you want some more details. It may take me a few days to reply since I'm quite pressed for time at the moment.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

The Pynchon’s real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don’t

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

I've just arrived at the passage where Oedipa sees this sign and has no idea what it represents.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The Pynchon’s real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don’t

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

I've just arrived at the passage where Oedipa sees this sign and has no idea what it represents.

The Olympic torch bearer loses his grip and gets bonked on the head?

--Brant

not much of a literary guy

[Selene]

Wow!

Good one Brant!

[9thdoctor]

The Pynchon’s real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don’t

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

I've just arrived at the passage where Oedipa sees this sign and has no idea what it represents.

Genghis Cohen, premier expert on philately, will speculate on it soon enough.

[9thdoctor]

The Crying of Lot 49 deals with the postal monopoly, with some historical material on how it got to be that way, otherwise it’s not particularly political.

Was just thinking a bit more, and the book does show a kind of underground economy at work, that’s quite a libertarian thing. It’s more about information though, government control of information via the postal monopoly. The arrival of the internet renders it out of date...pretty much, hopefully yes.

[caroljane]

The Pynchon’s real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don’t

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

I've just arrived at the passage where Oedipa sees this sign and has no idea what it represents.

Genghis Cohen, premier expert on philately, will speculate on it soon enough.

I've just started and know you won't spoil - just want to mention that I loved Philip Roth's baseball novel (forget the name) with the legendary pitcher Gil Gamesh.

[Rich Engle]

The Pynchon's real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don't

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

I've just arrived at the passage where Oedipa sees this sign and has no idea what it represents.

Genghis Cohen, premier expert on philately, will speculate on it soon enough.

I've just started and know you won't spoil - just want to mention that I loved Philip Roth's baseball novel (forget the name) with the legendary pitcher Gil Gamesh.

Don't forget "Portnoy's Complaint," "The Great American Novel," "The Breast," "The Prague Orgy," --

"Goodbye, Columbus" was arguably what really got him moving. But, you haven't lived until you have read him talking about endless masturbating (in "Portnoy"). I mean, there's one scene in there involving liver that has to have perhaps the greatest exit line ever. There's another where he, er, erupts, and puts out a light bulb and so forth.

I realize this is all very vulgar for the deeply serious, but, hey, eff them--it is damn good writing. If I wanted proper, I'd crawl inside a coffin and look for whatever they left in there.

And if you are really bored for things, you can always read Anne Rice's pseudonym stuff, the erotica. The Beauty ones are excellent, I have a set here. That definitely gets even the deadest forge heated up for a few moments.

Meanwhile, I can only tell you that I had another Phil Visitation<tm> , and it was the very same daemon coming to me. I am not sure but this time I think he was trying to get my dog. I phone-camera'ed it and as I say it was identical to the last visage:

The whole thing is a little confusing to me, but not so much, seeing as I live in Florida and I encounter much stranger things, on a regular basis. I heard Phil might be of Florida, but he is up where there are less critters.

rde

aka (this week only) "Trick E. Dixon"

"I fucked my family's dinner." --paraphrase?

Phil, Phil . . .my impropriety beckons ye so . . .I will chum for you, and all of your ilk . .Behold!

Going to a meeting but not sure what to do or say? Inexperienced, but want to know how to take part? Learn quickly and easily! Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief is a short, 176 page book that includes:

• Simple and concise, user-friendly easy-to-read guide covers the basics of the rules most frequently used in conducting and participating in meetings of any size
• Sample dialogues to get the presiding officer and members confidently through motions, nominations, elections, voting, debates, amendments, and more
• Invaluable tips for keeping meetings orderly and on track
• A chapter answering the most Frequently Asked Questions
• Handy tables at the back of the book tell you just what to say
• Appointed to a committee? Elected an officer or board member? Chosen as a convention delegate? Chapters on each clearly explain your duties
• Written by the same authorship team as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) and entirely consistent, with abundant cross-references to the standard book throughout if more in-depth information is needed.

Henry M. Robert's classic guide to smooth, orderly, and fairly conducted meetings, was originally published in 1896 and has sold close to 5 million copies in nine editions. If the bylaws of an organization specify Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) as the adopted parliamentary authority, then this is the book that will provide all the details. This 704 page, 10th edition, parliamentary authority will continue the book's reputation as the gold standard of meeting procedure for professional parliamentarians and novice club presidents and members alike. When you need all the details, this is the book to get!

Edited April 13, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

"How could she go on? She could not cry yet. She had to survive, even if she could not remember now just why-- a life in the service of something that had once felt far more pressing...

I am at the mercy of history, she thought, but I can push it too a bit. One thing I know is that nothing remains the same. No great problems in this society have been solved, no wounds healed, no promises kept except that the rich shall inherit.What swept through us and cast us forward is a force that will gather and rise again. Two steps forward and a step and a half back. I will waste none of my life."

Vida,1979

Wow. Immense.

Thanks for posting that.

Ellen

[Xray]

The Pynchon’s real quick, under 200 pages, no sense giving anything away.

Don’t

ever

antagonize

the

horn.

I've just arrived at the passage where Oedipa sees this sign and has no idea what it represents.

I now know what it is. When reading Oedipa's dialogue with Stanley Koteks, suddenly the scales fell from my eyes.

I then googled the term (of what I thought it was) and the symbol showed up (along with several other 'naturalistic' photos of it). I had not seen that the thing was m...d though.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Subject: a few sentences would be great, even if very short

> This is also for Phil if you are reading this! Dump Betty friedan if you can -- Vida will not depress you or bore you, I guarantee. And it has the added value of a full portrait of the turbulent Youth Movement, antiwar protest, early feminist years. [Daunce, #71]

> ...The Crying of Lot 49...Middlemarch...A Suitable Girl...Our Town...Darkness at Noon...Vida...Madame Bovary....Lolita [several posters]

Daunce and others, what I find is if one's purpose is to recommend books, since tastes differ, just a name or (worse) a list of names isn't likely to get anyone to read them, especially if one has a long list of things to read. What ND did with Eco and what I did with Steinbeck might: (i) a mini-review of at least a paragraph discussing plot, characterization, style, or whatever turned you on or made it stand out compared to other things you read. (ii) Even more effective, an example or excerpt is worth a thousand assertions, so one of the writer's best passages** that you folded over or underlined when you were reading it is often very, very powerful.

Phil,

I merely added my titles to the list without comments because the book discussion group you quoted only asked for the titles (which are to meet certain criteria), not for the personal reasons of choice:

Dear Great Books Discussion Group Members at South Shore Regional Library, It is that time of year again when we begin the process of making selections for ou..reading list for 2012. ...select SEVEN titles from the nomination list below...... A TITLE THAT IS NOT ON THE LIST BELOW, PLEASE ...MAKE SURE THAT YOUR SELECTION MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN A GREAT BOOKS GROUP. These criteria include the following: there is mention of the work in critical circles as either "great" or a "classic"; it has had a significant cultural, historical and/or literary impact; it lends itself to varied interpretations; and it raises important questions and issues that different generations continue to deal with....

But no problem if you want some more details. It may take me a few days to reply since I'm quite pressed for time at the moment.

Re THE BROTHERS KARAMASOV:

At the time when I read the BROTHERS KARAMASOV, I was still a believer, and the first atheist who rocked my boat was a fictional character: Ivan Karamasov. I recall it as a dramatic, unforgettable experience.

Ivan's scathing damnation of any belief in God in view of the incredible suffering he observed really shattered me.

I found Ivan a far more interesting character than Alyosha. The Grand Inquisitor's speech Ivan composed (story within a story) is another culmination in this monumental novel.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Thanks, Xray. I was hoping people would offer a couple short sentences of explanation (or a telling passage - either one) about a book they recommend -- as you just did. (Three page rant about lazy Oists deleted.. )

Sometimes I think the reason people just name books they love - as if people who don't know them or whether their tastes are similar are likely to simply go on that skimpy a recommendation - is that it was so long ago they've forgotten most of the details.

Karamazov is definitely one of my choices for 2012..I'm still trying to reduce the list since there are many I'd like our group to discuss next year.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

I now know what it is. When reading Oedipa's dialogue with Stanley Koteks, suddenly the scales fell from my eyes.

I then googled the term (of what I thought it was) and the symbol showed up (along with several other 'naturalistic' photos of it). I had not seen that the thing was m...d though.

Hilarious character names, don't you think? Are you reading it in German or English? Does "Koteks" translate? It sounds like the brand name of something in the U.S., I'm not sure if that fact travels.