I’ve only read the biblical books out of this list, although I really must get around to Revolutionary Road one of these days. The poetic books & Ecclesiastes really do feel like they were brought in from another tradition, and knowing ancient Judaism they probably were. On the novel as sociology – the Academy preserved a lot of really good American books that probably otherwise would have been pulped in the machinery of capital, but it always had a bias toward novels you could use as a sort of sociological study or a window, through which to interpret the world. I love Pynchon, but gravity’s rainbow is one of the prime examples of this.
Wow my tastes are definitely different from yalls! RR is one of my favorite books from 20th century america. I love the writing and the construction, how restrained and pitiless the book is. I also liked April and frank, and even admired them in a way, both for their bravery and their pretensions.
For me, the irony's too heavy for the characters to achieve escape velocity, the way Emma (whether Austen's or Flaubert's) is still lovable despite her being deluded (or, again, Updike's Rabbit). But you're right: it's an objectively accomplished novel; I'd never say it's "bad," and we're in the realm of taste here.
Ecclesiastes is utterly bizarre. It is like it belongs to another religion entirely. At some point I thought I knew where it was going, it was in raise of wisdom, but nope, even that was mere breath! I can't believe they left it in the Bible. Definitely a testament to the literary sense of whoever codified the bible. The book of Job gives a similar feeling.
I’ve only read the biblical books out of this list, although I really must get around to Revolutionary Road one of these days. The poetic books & Ecclesiastes really do feel like they were brought in from another tradition, and knowing ancient Judaism they probably were. On the novel as sociology – the Academy preserved a lot of really good American books that probably otherwise would have been pulped in the machinery of capital, but it always had a bias toward novels you could use as a sort of sociological study or a window, through which to interpret the world. I love Pynchon, but gravity’s rainbow is one of the prime examples of this.
Agreed, but Pynchon (and, in a different way, Updike) are formally fun in a way that Yates isn't, for all his intelligence and eloquence.
Wow my tastes are definitely different from yalls! RR is one of my favorite books from 20th century america. I love the writing and the construction, how restrained and pitiless the book is. I also liked April and frank, and even admired them in a way, both for their bravery and their pretensions.
For me, the irony's too heavy for the characters to achieve escape velocity, the way Emma (whether Austen's or Flaubert's) is still lovable despite her being deluded (or, again, Updike's Rabbit). But you're right: it's an objectively accomplished novel; I'd never say it's "bad," and we're in the realm of taste here.
I haven’t read it, I’m just griping about a related tendency! (I do love Pynchon for the record!)
Ecclesiastes is utterly bizarre. It is like it belongs to another religion entirely. At some point I thought I knew where it was going, it was in raise of wisdom, but nope, even that was mere breath! I can't believe they left it in the Bible. Definitely a testament to the literary sense of whoever codified the bible. The book of Job gives a similar feeling.
Yes, aesthetics won out there!