You guys review the best books!

This is enormously comforting. I'm on my second reading and I still feel a bit overwhelmed. I loved Austerlitz and Emigrants too!

This podcast is a jewel, it made me realize I hadn't pieced together some aspects of the stories. Ps: I recommend "The Book of Fantasy". It's an anthology of fantastic short stories compiled by Borges, Bioy Casares and Silvina Ocampo published in 1940 for the first time.

Interesting dialogue to paint to, believe it or not! One question from a pleb : I don’t understand why Seth disidenties your interpretative discussion with “quasi-academic readings”specifically the Orphic point ? Surely this isn’t necessary as your whole discussion is fundamentally quasi-academic. Thankfully it’s not a discussion within the impoverished intellectual limits of the university system. What makes the discussion worthwhile is that it’s following thoughts down rabbit holes. I get the low brow stuff as not typically academic but I wdnt imply a reference to mythic figures or historical references means it’s merely quasi academic. The whole thing is interesting to the extent it remains quasi-academic as it’s an obviously intellectual talk not within the academy. ‘Quasi academic’ is everything here… maybe embrace it as you guys drop German words, an extremely close reading of history and paint the chaotic allusions in the book, the 780 page prose poem. Quasi academic means freedom from the hackneyed readings of the Academy, whether it’s literature, philosophy or psychiatry.

This was great content! Love your bits on the book you're discussing! I now definitely have Miller on my (future) reading list. Much appreciated!

Another great ep!

Thank you hon. Just discovered your channel. Blessings from cold chicago❤

I am Buddhist , your story does not tally with mine.

Shaggy dog story - not about finding the answer, this allows to focus on systematic issues. Slothrop being made aware of pain and destruction as opposed to Predicting rockets Failure of system in 60s. Only expression is left: Only way to stop their systems of order is to use their systems of chaos. (??) Wagner - ring cycle power is bad itself, not just one person. Control is wanted by the gods too.

I saw there is a movie about this book. I can't help by wonder why Anna Wintour wasn't cast as Coronell Joll, instead it was Johnny Depp.

Great episodes! Thank you for the good work!

Great episodes!

Is it the complete book?

Awesome 😎🤘

Nixon to DJT: how did we end up here? Quartermaster Bodine in several Pynchon novels might have been the same q’master on Wm M Wood 1966-68 during my navy years.

Paraphrasing a Biden razor: capitalism is the worst system, except for all the other systems.

Watching this vid today - the convo about convention subversion has it occur to me that “A Thousand Plateaus” by Deleuze and Guattari could not have been written nor culturally invested without GR’s precedence. I read GR around 1974 shortly after its release amid a severe paucity of correspondence or adequate commentary. Thanks for the YT!

Marvellous episode and channel! Keep it up guys!

I grew up favoring non-fiction over fiction except for John Steinbeck because what I read of his rang true and believable. He demonstrated an exceptional ability to perceive details about characters and events that made them real. By my mid twenties, I was well into an independent study of Swiss Psychiatrist, Carl G. Jung. I was beginning to wonder if Steinbeck was also influenced by Jung. It seemed to me that Steinbeck’s story lines and characters, and events evidenced some concepts and theories from Jung’s analytical psychology. This was confirmed later by biographies and in the non-fiction “The Log From The Sea of Cortez” written by Steinbeck and his marine biologist friend Edward F. Ricketts. Later in my life I became interested in Steinbeck, the writer. I wanted to know what gifts, attributes, and resources he possessed that attracted me to his publications. I concluded that an outstanding journalist must be able to faithfully, without passion or prejudice transfer his or her observations to the journal, that is, objectively without subjective influence. The one mature functional type that would qualify best, namely one with Sensation (a perceptive function) and Thinking to convert the perception logically into words. Steinbeck’s functional type was a level four Introverted SENSATION/Thinking. I know I mentioned “objective” and Steinbeck’s default attitude was “introverted” which is subjective. Steinbeck’s fiction was driven by his subjective mission or his wish to positively influence the reader. The Cannery Row books, as a result, portrayed the Row better than it was in reality. Even his essay, “About Ed Ricketts” found in later issues of “The Log From The Sea of Cortez” described his friend more honestly than the “Doc” character in Cannery Row and Sweet Thursday. Please forgive the poor editing. Please see the following: www.steinbecknow.com/author/wesley-stillwagon/

guys, this conversation is terrific!

You make your self sound so stupid, is this moron so stupid read crock of gold by James Stevenson or of course the ginger man i mean we don't even have to go into the classic look at Cormac mc cartay blood you know the one, it's know wonder you are classes as one of the most stupid people in the world, i mean how the f..k did this so called interview get on the net,just a Harry chrisnaa I've read the book in Justin in two days and i love it

원더풀 독자 여러분, 제 작업에 대한 여러분의 성원과 열정에 진심으로 감사의 말씀을 전하고 싶습니다. 여러분의 말과 격려가 매일 저에게 영감을 줍니다. 저와 함께 이 여정에 동참해 주셔서 감사합니다. 이렇게 열정적인 독자들이 있다는 것에 진심으로 감사드립니다. 진심으로 감사드립니다, 한강

This is so good - I can't believe other people exist that talk about this haha - I have been a huge fan of Sebald for years and never looked into the authenticity of pictures or anything like that and I am having a re-awakening over here haha. So glad I found this podcast.

Is there any credibility to Pynchon being invovled with the CIA as either an asset or part of an ongoing psy-op? I think it wouldn't be surprising if definitive evidence came out that he was contracted to both criticize the empire but also showcase its pillars, that true awe of balancing an appreciation of craft with the terror of content. Perfect propaganda, because the best lies are 99% true.

We are so far from the world that existed we doubt every single manifestation of happiness, every idea collective goodwill, geniality and cringe at the possibility this idealistic’ sentimentality existed in reality, or could be authentic. My mother, a serious person, said she missed the days when men of all neighborhoods were heard greeting one another arriving home after work with a hiya Joe, back and forth .something simply unimaginable to us today. It’s impossible for us to believe this could be a reality, and we only see Mickey Rooney cinematically overacting young naive positivity…but as corrupt as systems were… there was a lot more of goodwill in general and subscription to ideals that have been bankrupted and discredited in some form or another. We should question ourselves as well that we have excised and strangled any idea they can be a happy endings, or success without exploitation, love without angst… Harold bloom pronounced that Cormac McCarthy’s novels are the end point of our human literary evolution. The end story and there is nowhere to go from this point. Have we talked ourselves out of every belief in goodness- individual and collective? Can we only see the collective possibility of ourselves as mass shooters, or victims of…in perpetuity?

You two guys are terrific reviews. Thank you for the good analogy.

Raw movie by Julia Ducournau but Make it Vegan

Han gang!!❤

Interesting discussion. I wanted to discuss my thoughts on why this novel was structured in 3 parts and why the different perspectives were selected. To me, it seemed very natural for Yeong-Hye to not have an actual voice in her own story. I felt it most acutely when In-Hye comments later that even in regards to our own bodies we don't truly exercise the autonomy we imagine we should. Thus, it only feels "right" that we only ever hear Yeong-hye's thoughts via observations or select quotes from those in her familial circle. I personally did get a true sense of who Yeong-hye was and why she rebelled in her own quiet but powerful way in contrast to those who actively speak for her. I also find it interesting that you felt so much compassion for In-hye and for Mr. Cheong to a certain extent, but none for In-hye's husband. While I would argue that he did in fact use Yeong-hye, I felt he was the closest in spirit to her as well since he too was being slowly suffocated and just as doomed as Yeong-hye.

Great foresight by reviewers in predicting the October 10, 2024 literary event. These guys have great radars.

Book as trying to elongate time through memory, change time, make it longer Swanns way not objective narrator Book as focussing on ideas, not matter. Even swanns love. Memories etc. as real as matter Interesting, his technique seems to be go back in time, recount something in vivid description and detail, lovely, and then to include a 'universal' comment on what is happening when it comes to human actions. E.g. imagine past where wear hoodie, explain road, explain clothes, explain person moving away to other side of road, and then write extensively about how humans are wont to stay away from the unfamiliar and the dangerous, and yet to pretend they aren't moving away, to lie to themselves

Thanks for this. Just finished reading and happy I found you.

True to oneself, not one way, following voice and listening to what it has to say. Don't follow me, follow yourself Gauvinda followed Buddha all his life but not 100pcent happy with it Nobody finds salvation through teaching. Only life experience Unitarian - below dogma, practices there are mystics who had these similar ground experiences Ground of reality not found in human made constructs like tech, like language.this means even the book itself is to be taken with scepticism, not to just believe the philosophy/rhetoric developed Spinoza: good as leading to higher state of being, but don't know what is higher being, break leg, feels bad but then exposed to philosophy. Who knows. Can lose the voice completely, or it changes Life experience means it doesn't come from a book necessarily. It's yours, not to follow

His 'Monterrey stories' were mighty popular in Jugoslavija: pocket editions, congenial traductions, a few renditions were available in the late seventies. At school 'twas "East of Eden".

Hearing the three differing opinions you expressed at the beginning about the book, summed up how it felt to read this book.

If there is a centre, I don't think it's going to hold

I find this discussion very interesting, particularly as someone who loved the book. There are too many points to go over, but I did love the play of it - it really felt playful to me. That it is so deliberate and so carefully constructed to seem improvisational and spontaneous doesn't make it just a dry facsimile of something 'genuinely soulful,' but rather that craft *is* its mode of expression and that very much reached me, as Zampano's writing reached Johnny. It feels to me like the book's relationship with the act of interpretation is very direct, in that like the House, its reality is shaped by those moving through it, experiencing it. But then, I suppose an inherent problem of that is that you might always shape an uninteresting or unenjoyable path, depending on how you engage with it. I, for one, was very grateful for my compelling journey through the House of Leaves. Good talk, at any rate!

Mary Cat kills because her parents are getting in the way of her relationship with Constance.

Also her first paragraph is considered "quotable" and is listed along with "Haunting of Hill House" in the "best first paragraphs" list. I mean, do you know who Richard Plantagenet (Richard III of England) is? He was a king accused of killing his family members. This stuff is gold. "My name is Mary Katherine Blackwood. I am eighteen years old, and I live with my sister Constance. I have often thought that with any luck at all I could have been born a werewolf, because the two middle fingers on both my hands are the same length, but I have had to be content with what I had. I dislike washing myself, and dogs, and noise. I like my sister Constance, and Richard Plantagenet , and Amanita phalloides, the death-cup mushroom. Everyone else in my family is dead." Steven King loves Shirley Jackson btw. I found Jacksons stuff and a teenager in the "teen" section of the library when I was 14, where she was put, because she was a female writing about other females and men deciding where to put her "didn't get it." ALL of her books were there. Might be still. It's a shame there were no women on your panel. Let me know if you do another SJ book, I'll talk about it. I have no literary background but I do have degrees in philosophy, economics and law.

I wrote a paper on her, she is my favorite author. She wrote about women for women. This book is about sisters. I wrote in my paper that the all the men in her stories are all either "diseased, disabled or dead." Read "My Life With R. H. Macy," it's great, no men in it though. Great xmas time short story, in her funny view of earth. The movie of "Castle" is absolutely true to the story. Nothing about the father locking them in. I was also worried that it would be horror, but it wasn't, therefore its lack of success with the millennials and zoomers, who only seem to enjoy movies that give them the feeling of rollercoasters.

I loved the book. It is my favorite book (for right now), and my interpretation of it is how we cope with the unknown and trauma. Johnny is not a great person, and his many vices are the only way he could escape his past and to escape the affect the book had on him. He tried to escape, run, and face everything that has happened and is happening to him. It's hard to relate to him, especially through all his rants and his experiences, yet I found a overall meaning of it. Johnny's story is about sinking to rock bottom, and through facing his own past and current troubles, he made a small step forward. He's not as well off as he was at the very beginning of the story, but he has stepped up from rock bottom and the story ends with him going forward and facing the unknown madness that spoils his mind. Navidson was different. Instead of avoiding the unknown and the trauma of being close to death, he puts everything to the side in order to explore what he doesn't know. While hesitant, at least at the start, he was willing to lose a lot (if not all) of what he had in life in order to explore the unknown and to triumph. He is seen by the people around him as a person that has to be the hero, that he desires to be the one at the front of every grand event in order to cope with the sacrifice made along the way. That was until he actually started to lose everything, and it broke him. Eventually when he sees himself as a man with nothing to lose, he went to adventure the house with a reckless abandon. Even when he was saved, he was permanently scared. He learned what was at the bottom and understood at the very end that by looking too deep, he can lose everything. I see the two stories of these characters as separate lessons about the same topic. One that says you can lose everything if you venture to deep into the unknown by using adventuring as a way to cope with one's past and to avoid dealing with other matters at hand. The other lesson is that when you can also lose everything by distracting yourself about what really matters with vices that cause such self destructive habits. And when the need to avoid the problems in life by looking for distractions, a person can hit rock bottom without even realizing that they have started to plummet in the first place. And such things can be avoided if you stop trying to cope and face these problems head on, even though the solution is still unknown. It's just two different stories around the same principal on facing the unknown and one's past trauma and mistakes.

I think im just stupid. I read it and was like "okay. Im finished. I dont know why this book was considered to be such a big deal." And so now im watching all these videos on it, and now i feel so dumb. 😂

Whats the music in the intro?

Thanks for this. I was browsing info about Harrison, now I know about Pallbearer too. Great records. I'm planning on coming to a show.

In a way the bankruptcy was declared. Not by writers pushing "Art is Art" rather publishers pushing "Everything is Art". It became easier to market, distribute and convince a Zeitgeist transformed by lower attention spans and desire to be seen more than live of it. The writer has moved on leaving the act orphaned in the eyes of general reader, which is according to them a great thing. The act of communication has become easier and less 'dense'. Everything needs to be fun, so we have a circus that's falls apart regularly being called genuine attempt at Art.

That was a really insightful and satisfying conversation. Thanks, guys, I got a lot out of what you discussed!

I think "creative non-fiction" is a good definition of Sebald's genre. The Rings of Saturn is certainly not a novel.

Why isn't there a Californian Bakery called " Yeast of Eden"?

What a beautiful channel you have here! Pynchon changed my brain chemistry nearly 20 years ago, and I revisit GR, like Seth does, a lot. I still haven't got to the 'end' of it, in terms of using up its inspirational, philosophical, and emotive powers. I think that makes it a pretty great book, and I'm heartened that people keep coming back to it despite the challenge, even now. As much as that fetishisation of 'big brainy books' can be kinda silly, people *never* know what they're really getting in for with this book - it has a habit of cracking people open, either in an aesthetic sense, or an intellectual one, or even an emotional one (despite some people's idea of it being 'unfeeling'). It's so cool to see a podcast that really seems dedicated to solid, long, and open conversations about great books. Big fan!