<story><title>Read “Gravity’s Rainbow” fifty years later</title><url>https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-the-preterite</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>karaterobot</author><text>I wrote a paper on Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow without reading it, and got an A- on it, from which I conclude the professor either had not read my paper, or had not read Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow. Either are possible. I prefer to believe that nobody has ever actually read Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>itronitron</author><text>They probably did not read it.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve read the first third of the book, at some point I&amp;#x27;ll make another attempt. Pynchon&amp;#x27;s writing style is rather interesting in that reading it, for me at least, requires dedicated concentration for multiple pages until the point when I get &amp;#x27;sucked into&amp;#x27; the book and then it flows. The only person I know that has read through it did so on a road trip and just plowed through without trying to make sense of entire chapters.&lt;p&gt;Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow is also more challenging because it spans a lot of different characters and subplots. The Crying of Lot 49 is much easier, and Vineland is an aberration. I know one person who thinks that Pynchon hired a ghost writer for Vineland because the writing style is so different.</text></comment>
<story><title>Read “Gravity’s Rainbow” fifty years later</title><url>https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-the-preterite</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>karaterobot</author><text>I wrote a paper on Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow without reading it, and got an A- on it, from which I conclude the professor either had not read my paper, or had not read Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow. Either are possible. I prefer to believe that nobody has ever actually read Gravity&amp;#x27;s Rainbow.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>paddw</author><text>I think you can get an A- on a paper these days for writing anything remotely representing a cogent or lucid train of thought.</text></comment>