Rating: 
Summary: Only if you're crazy with an urge to pierce the hazy...
Review: As dense as a London fog is Pynchon's masterpeice, and not for the faint of heart whose sweaters never feel the air out of doors. Oh, yes, indeed - I have read the 'lone star' reviews and I know how some folks come to such conclusions but those folks are WRONG! Gravity's Rainbow will not open to the conservative reader. Those who cannot entertain the insanity, the absurdity, the surreality or the general abuse, shall not be able to stomach some of it. But Gravity's Rainbow will not open to the would-be liberal reader, either. Those who cannot recognize themselves in the malaise, whose feet never find themselves walking a path of conscious ignorance along a perilous ledge of uncertainty, shall not be able to appreciate the gods-eye-view Pynchon offers. What do I mean? How could I tell you true? I'm winging it! ...But, look, okay? You seem like a decent enough person, so I'll tell you something straight from my heart: Gravity's Rainbow is not only my favorite book (and I am an avid reader, 32 years of age), it is also the book that made me doubly proud I read the hundred or so books that came before it, and it is also the book that will enhance everything I shall read in the future. It is brilliant, witty, sarcastic, ironic, sardonic, vulgar, tragic, hopeless, confusing, wise, mystical, arythmic, choking, paranoid, heavenly, uplifting, uproarious, outlandish, eclectic, occult, romantic, musical, silly, powerful, poetic, and - as if this is not totally obvious by now - encyclopedic. Is it believable? Do birds wonder? Do you call black a shade or a color? Does it matter? It does to you but I can't answer such questions absolutely. It's a really big world, and life is what we've got, and we're all rather ignorant in the end. So... read the book. If you've read this little review this far, *and* you think you might have some notion what I am getting at (or realize that I *am* getting at something), *then* perhaps Gravity's Rainbow is for you as well.
Rating: 
Summary: I am totally unqualified to review this book
Review: I read this all the way through. At 35, that sounds funny, but it was a struggle at times. I agree with everything everyone here has said about it, pro and con. For those who admire its writing, I can easily point you to gorgeous passages, that I read three or four times for sheer pleasure. For those that say it's prose is terrible, I can point you to many passages that are unreadable, and that I read three or four times out of frustration, and still leave me baffled. Some of the "humor" is on the level of junior high flatuence jokes, and makes me feel almost embarrassed for Pynchon. Some of it is genuinely funny.I found some themes in the book that I thought were well crafted and thought provoking. I found many thematic and stylistic aspects - such as the depth of paranoia, the lack of chronology, the excessive and dull descriptions of sex acts, the fact that you're never really sure whether there is any real time and place in any of the tale - impossible to relate to. Some things that are not here for a first reader (at least without an annotated guide): a story and character development. I missed these things; I've grown attached to them. Without these fundamental elements, I'm not sure if I'm reading a novel. On the other hand, just because it isn't a novel, doesn't mean it's not worth reading. Just be prepared. I'm glad I read it. The "good" parts were worth the frustration. I make no judgment on Mr. Pynchon, as many detractors and worshipers seem to. Because he is obscure and confusing, doesn't necessarily mean he's showing off, nor does it mean he's a genius. Several posters have said that he should make his "point" clearly - true, if he has a point, which maybe isn't always the case. He's certainly self-absorbed, and asks much of the reader for an uncertain payoff. He very well might be completely insane for all I know. I'll probably read it again sometime. Most people know whether they'll like this before they pick it up. Guage your reactions to these reviews; your instincts are probably right.
Rating:
Summary: I am not worthy
Review: After a few weeks of hard reading, I found myself only about 100 pages into GR. Why? It is by far the toughest, densest book I have ever attepted to read. As of this moment, it is sitting on my nightstand about half finished, the bookmark in the same place it has been for quite a while. I have given up on it, not because the book is bad, but because I simply cannot handle Pynchon. Many times I have scratched my head in bewilderment, turning back a few pages to try to figure out what is going on. Many times I have stopped midway through a conversation and realize that I don't know who is talking. In fact, the prose he writes in is one of the best I have ever read (lines like, "We are all wasted Gods urging on a tardy glacier," don't leave your memory easily.) The book itself is a masterpiece, in the same way a surrealist painting could be called one. At first, you don't see all of the subtlties, but after much observation, much studying you come away from it a changed person. I only gave it four stars because I did not finish it. I am sure that if I read it completely (I don't mean to the end, I mean for comprehension) I would give it 5 stars. Maybe in a few years, when I finish high school and I'm in college I can truly appreciate this masterpiece. This is not a book to read on an airplane, or during a vacation. This is a book to read over a course of weeks, of months, of years. I haven't given up on the book. I just need some more time.
Rating:
Summary: A Challenge To All Lazy People
Review: When I first read this book I did so without wanting to put any effort into it. I was lazy. I didn't bother to look up any of the historical, scientific, or pop cultural references. Moreover, if a difficult word popped up I didn't bother to reach for a dictionary to find out what it meant. Often I'd think to myself, 'Who is Clausewitz?' or 'What is a narodnik?', and then I'd move on without finding out what these terms actually meant ( even though I could have found an answer right away by simply typing any of these terms into an internet search engine ). The process was arduous, painful, and frustrating. I hated this book. I simply didn't know what he was saying because I couldn't put anything into context. The second time I read Gravity's Rainbow I purchased an annotated guide, while also making an effort to find some of the more obscure references myself. Though I can't claim to understand everything he was saying, I did grow comfortable scrabbling about Pynchon's exotic little universe. I came to respect the genius of this book, both in a thematic and artistic sense. I believe that one of Pynchon's goals is to dare the reader into reading this book. Simply put, he wants us to work. Kierkegaard said that being a Christian should not be an easy task. The same is true, I think, in literature. For, the safer literature gets, the more it comes to resemble TV. Yes, on the surface this book is difficult, even pretentious. But if you work at it, that is, actually make an effort to understand Pynchon's somewhat obscure references and his abstruse vocabulary, the results are most rewarding. Simply put, he's not going to spoonfeed literature to his audience. Nor, as a reader, should you want to be spoonfed.
Rating:
Summary: The only book you will ever need to read
Review: There's nothing else to say. Or, on the other hand, there's everything else to say. This is an oracular tome. The answer to *everything* is in here, if you just know how to read it. Of course, you can do this trick with just about any book. _Gravity's Rainbow_, however, is the one that has chosen me. What's it about? Paranoia. Parabolas. Parables. Pigs. Plastics. Pinball. Poppies. Petroleum Principalities. Passchendale. Pudding. Passage. Pain-City. Prayer. Pavlov. Preterition. I think what irks people is that, yes, it's an insanely difficult book. It fights analysis tooth-and-nail every step of the way, and those of us who love it love it with such a fierce intensity that those who don't get it at all decide we must be faking it, that it's sheer pretentiousness that makes us stand up and scream, "This is the only book you will ever need to read." Not so. If you ever *do* manage to get sucked inside its paranoid logic, when the twisting stories in it finally manage to make some sense, and you see the shapes that they're skittering along the outlines of, then you're hooked. You know why the Kirghiz Light cannot exist in a literate society and why nations have become shadow puppets for corporate struggles. And you realize that Pynchon saw all this in 1973. Unless, of course, it's all in your own head, and the book says nothing of the sort. Obscurantist? Yeah. But the man has done his homework. His sources, as they say, check out. There are people who have made whole careers out of reconstructing his sources. I wouldn't necessarily rely on it for a history of late nineteenth century German petrochemical research, but it won't steer you too far wrong. Bits of it are sickening. Bits of it are screamingly funny, as funny as anything in _Moby Dick_. If you've honestly read _Moby Dick_ not under duress and not found anything to laugh at, don't bother reading _Gravity's Rainbow_; you won't like it. I must have read each bit of it ten times by now, some passages much more often. I still don't know what it all means (cue Mr. Natural, here, if you wish). Sure, you can read it as a parabolic tale of the transition from pre- to post-atomic life. Or nation-state to corporate entity. Or modern to postmodern. Sanity to madness. Metal to plastic. I could give a disquisition on each of these and how _Gravity's Rainbow_ develops the theme. But why bother? Ultimately, the book means what it means. Give it a try. If you hate it, give it to a friend. Or an enemy. And if it gets a hold of you too, well, don't say I didn't warn you. As B/4
Rating: 
Summary: A hateful experience, 0 stars if that was allowed.
Review: After reading over one hundred fifty pages, all I could believe was the story set during WWII, but I wasn't sure. The location was England, but I wasn't sure. I finally threw it against a wall in disgust. I've been told the nominating committee (made up mostly of book reviewers) nominated this for the Pulitzer Prize as best fiction. The awards committee (mostly book editors) rejected it as an unreadable piece of crap. I agree with the editors.
Rating:
Summary: A Large Sinister Book I love
Review: I think we can all agree that the novel is a masterpiece masquerading as chaos. As Ken Kesey once said in an entirely different context, "We are operating on many levels here." Also consider that the etymology of the word "paranoia," from "para"-"noia" is "mind beside itself." You see, if your approach to literature is too orderly, too grid-like, then you're not ready for the mindless pleasures of Gravity's Rainbow. But if you've made it through the novel at least once, try the following--it's great for parties, too: Although it is quite rude to slice and dice any old novel, with Gravity's Rainbow the results are, shall we say, enlightening. Look closely at your copy, and you'll find many paragraphs throughout that end with ". . ." What's up with that anyway? Well, take a pair of scissors and do a Burroughs cut-up on the novel making cuts at every " . . ." It takes awhile, I know, but it's worth the waite. Now sort the pieces into piles and re-assemble into x number of mini-novels. The results are fascinating to say the least. If done correctly, you're left speechless.
Rating: 
Summary: I'm sick to death of all the semantic insanity...
Review: So it sits there on my shelf, having defeated me twice. OK, maybe I'm a lazy bum, but I think I'm approaching the point where if another confused milquetoast hack tells me I *need* to read this book because TP is the best writer of the 20th century blah blah blah (a disgustingly de minimus claim) I'm going to go nuts.
Rating: 
Summary: This book tasted like peach fuzz
Review: I know this opening line makes no sense, but it does to me. THAT is what makes this book such a delightful headache. Pynchon knows what his references are suppose to mean, but doesn't seem to care if the rest of us are in on it. I kept finding myself saying to the book on my lap..."Yoo-hoo. Remember me? The reader?" The words were in English, but when put togther like that you had to surrender logic and go by complete intuition. WHICH, IRONICALLY was the main premise as to what drove Slothrop on is dreamlike quest to find his deep love - the V2 rocket. I'm glad I read it, but I don't know if I could recommend it to anyone who isn't on an eternal quest to discover what all the world has to offer.
Rating:
Summary: The Emperor has no clothes
Review: After I finished reading this book twenty years ago, I left it in my apartment building's laundry room for whomever might be interested in it. The book sat there for months and nobody was interested in it enough to take it home. Finally, it was ruined when a water pipe burst and, I presume, it is now landfill in Staten Island. Apparently, many people believe that a book should be considered "great" just because it is long and overly complicated. It is my opinion that it is a complete waste of time if one needs to buy somebody's doctoral dissertation as a companion guide, in order to decipher or identify the dozens of plots and subplots and hidden codes. This is not the mark of great literature, rather it is the mark of an insuffereable show-off. For all its cleverness and faux sophistication, there is nothing in this book that will make you see the world in a different way, or that might be of use to you at some point in your life. IT IS A ZERO. There is not an ounce of humanity in this book. Just clever-clever intellectual showmanship. As you may have guessed, I am not impressed with GR. Pynchon is like a high school football bully who says "Okay, I'm gonna trow da ball as hard as I can--you see if you can catch it". No thanks Spike. Pynchon desperately wants to impress us with his strength, wants to show off for us. The more you examine Gravity's Rainbow, the less you find. Why? Because there is nothing there. Pynchon's cleverness is in not standing for anything identifiable. This book is hundred of words that add up to nothing. Gravity's Rainbow is ultimately as profound as all the doughnut holes in the world combined---ZERO. Life is too short to read intellectually vain junk like Gravity's Rainbow. This book did teach me one valuable thing, however. I learned to be much more discriminating in my selection of reading material. D. Olney
|
