What the fuck is all the hype about this book? Overwrought, flatulent prose by a perverted 90-year-old man immortalising how much of a loser he was.
all books are shit
>>8121140
this
>>8121140
/lit/, everybody
>>8121122
Sorry you didn't like it, anon. I know I did.
I don't know since no epub.
>>8121122
Agreed. Same with John Hawkes and DFW. Gaddis is okay, but also a preachy, prancy, primpy, rambler. Some good prose but a lot of inconsistencies and awkward prose in between. Good dialogue writer, except for the black servant character in the Recognitions who was like a bad mix of Faulkner black character dialogue and the primpy dialogue of the rest of the characters. Ulysses is well written but says nothing, so Joyce is pretty much worthless, a pretentious wordsmith and that's all. Borges is a gimmicky and overrated charlatan. Don Delillo has the same mediocrity of Gaddis, with emphasis on the rambling, and with even worse prose. Stoner is very mediocre, a sentimental sob story for depressed teenagers. Dostoevsky is terrible. A complete charlatan. The Brothers Karamazov is the work of a preaching bible thumper who doesn't want to admit he's a bible thumper. Terribly written with uninteresting caracatures of characters. DFW needs no explanation. Pynchon's Mason and Dixon is decent, but the rest of his work is garbage. Gravity's Rainbow is one of the greatest literary failures of all time. A work whose message could have been condensed to an essay, instead to be puffed up with overwritten and incomprehensible prose, masturbatory references to prove the author's education to the audience, and a thin "low brow" persona to create a personality that pretentious undergraduates can admire without looking like they're pretentious.
>>8121969
Get a load of this sophomoric precociousness right here.
I want to smack the tastefully refined glasses off your face and poke you in the eye.
>>8121122
>committing her Tampax to the trash
the fuck did you expect? come the fuck on, it was clear from the first damn page.
