[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 21 KB, 223x270, pinecone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7065030 No.7065030 [Reply] [Original]

do you ever read about an authors life and then realize that they are so out of your league in every way that you will never come close to them because you just aren't smart enough.

>tfw no 190 iq
>tfw you will never study rocket science at Cornell
>tfw you will never be reclusive yet intriguing
>tfw you will never get a called a genius for writing about fucking bananas

>> No.7065045

>>7065030
You know Pynchon was an ugly, introverted, repressed pothead nerd, right?

For a faggot like me reading him feels like talking to a dear friend

>> No.7065049

>>7065030
There are heaps of writers and artists who aren't "geniuses" and just worked hard to get where they are. Some off the top of my head,

Fitzgerald
Don DeLillo
Hemingway
Richard Yates
Raymond Carver
J.D Salinger
Roberto Bolano
Flannery O'Connor
Charles Dickins
Shakespeare

>> No.7065057

>>7065045

He's dead?

>> No.7065077

>>7065049
Shakespeare had an iq of like 170

>> No.7065080

>>7065049
>Shakespeare

no, he acuall was a genius, jus no well educaed

>> No.7065082

>>7065077
stop with this IQ meme.

Shakespeare lived in 1600, we know fuck all about his IQ

>> No.7065084

>>7065030
You probably don't know yourself as well as you think you do.

>> No.7065086

>>7065080
Shakespeare was well educated.

Read Will in the World

>> No.7065088

>>7065082
There has been studies done on discovering his iq

>> No.7065090

>>7065084
not op, but this is probably the nicest post ever

>> No.7065091

>>7065077
>>7065080
lel he wrote pop lit, he was the seth macfarlane of his time

>> No.7065093

>>7065088
Who gives a fuck? He never took the test so we can't know.

>> No.7065095

>>7065088

Which are usually jokes. Have you ever read criticism in the methods of gaining historical IQ? Protip it's not good

>> No.7065097

>>7065045
>You know Pynchon was an ugly, introverted, repressed pothead nerd, right

no way

>> No.7065101

>tfw you never learn at the depths where disparate fields of knowledge begin to unify structurally under parallel architectures

>tfw your multiple esoteric interests will never all trail backwards to the point of deep convergence

>tfw even if they did you will never possess a command of the English language necessary for expressing the insights, let alone forming them as works of poetic art

>tfw when you will never wield a cynical oversight which subsumes thousands of historians, politicians, scientists, artists and authors within its scope, and all the while secretly remain a goof-troop pot-head

>> No.7065107

IQ is a fucking retarded measure for literary genius anyway. How good are you at solving weird fucking puzzles??? Shakespeare was CLEARLY a genius though.

>> No.7065112

>>7065107

>weird

They area pretty straight forward.

>> No.7065121

>>7065091
Seth MacFarlane didn't coin hundreds of new words in the English language that will see continued use for centuries onwards

>> No.7065123

This meme never ends

>> No.7065131

>>7065084
aww :3

>> No.7065152
File: 3.03 MB, 3696x3166, job.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7065152

>attending the lowest of the ivies

>> No.7065159

>>7065080
The Patricians of his time used to make fun of his plays, he was literally laughed at; his work is only considered great in retrospect.

>> No.7065160

>>7065088
lmao lit is the dumbest board on 4chan

>> No.7065162

>>7065121
first usage on record doesn't imply coinage.

>> No.7065173

>>7065030
>150 IQ
>studied biology at a university at the forefront of biotech and cognitive science
>mildly introverted and mildly interesting but I can get laid without ruining my friendships
>get called pretty talented for writing about bananas

I can live with this, actually.

>> No.7065176

>>7065173

ucsd?

>> No.7065185

>>7065162
Seth MacFarlane didn't first use hundreds of new words in the English language that will see continued use for centuries onwards

>> No.7065187

>>7065159
Another funny observation; if Harold Bloom was a critic in Shakespeare's time, he would have completely torn his work to pieces.

>> No.7065188

>>7065176
>150 IQ
>State school
No, it was a private university in the Boston metro area. Just memeing about the state school thing though.

>> No.7065191

>>7065049
>Shakespeare
>not a genius

kek

>> No.7065193
File: 110 KB, 500x282, oie_1423829Ubjjl6TF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7065193

>tfw universally recognized as a genius

>> No.7065195

>>7065185
We aren't centuries onwards from Seth's time. Just wait my pleb friend.

>> No.7065198

>>7065091
>>7065159
This is not true, what so ever. His patron was King James I, and he performed LLL for Queen Elizabeth.

>> No.7065209

>>7065152

pynchon didnt go to brown tho

>> No.7065232

>>7065209
It pains me to say this because my bitch ex-girlfriend went to Brown, but Brown is a damn fine school and Cornell is objectively the dumbest and leas-ivy ivy.

>> No.7065234

>>7065159
That's simply not true:

What needs my Shakespeare for his honoured bones,
The labor of an age in pilèd stones,
Or that his hallowed relics should be hid
Under a star-ypointing pyramid?
Dear son of Memory, great heir of fame,
What need’st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thyself a live-long monument.
For whilst to th’ shame of slow-endeavouring art,
Thy easy numbers flow, and that each heart
Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued book
Those Delphic lines with deep impression took,
Then thou, our fancy of itself bereaving,
Dost make us marble with too much conceiving;
And so sepúlchred in such pomp dost lie,
That kings for such a tomb would wish to die.

A poem written by Milton in 1630, less than a generation after Shakespeare's death praising him as the literary GOAT.

Or how about Ben Jonson's poem on his death:

Tri'umph, my Britain, thou hast one to show
To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age but for all time!


The meme that Shakespeare was considered pleb or unappreciated until 100 years later has to die. It's simply not true.

>> No.7065253

>>7065234
>The meme that Shakespeare was considered pleb or unappreciated until 100 years later has to die. It's simply not true.

While it stretches the truth considerably, there is an element of truth to it. Shakespeare was much less acclaimed in his own time than now for that he wrote plays, which were not considered high culture in the way they are now. Shakespeare and Jonson were both instrumental in changing that, and it's definitely true that his reputation was on the rise throughout his career and after his death, but it wasn't until after the Restoration that bardolatry began in earnest.

>> No.7065264

>>7065253
>Shakespeare's plays not originally considered high culture
>Performed for Queen Elizabeth and was loved by King James

>> No.7065275

>tfw you want to innovate but don't know how to
tuskete

>> No.7065296

>>7065086

I haven' read i and I won' lie, I'd raher read somehing abou his work iself raher han his personal life. Bu from wha I know alread, didn' he drop school a 15 ears old? He probabl knew some Lain and Greek and mabe some French bu ha's abou i, and mos of his learning I assume wen on b his own pace. He cerainl wasn' educaed a he level of sa, Marlowe.

Self-educaed, obviousl, bu I was impling universi/radiionall-educaed.

>> No.7065308

>>7065264

Kings and queens in the boxes, and poors down on the floor. It was an entertainment all across social classes, like when the president goes to throw out the first pitch of the season or whatever. Doesn't mean that baseball is high culture. After the Restoration theaters were private affairs and didn't let in poors, hence plays became restricted to the world of high art and ole Shak-sper got talked up to the rafters of western civilization.

>> No.7065395

>>7065088
goddamn, coming here from /tv/ is the best transition. Everything on here is elevated. Shit's so funny.

>> No.7065434

>>7065395
>Everything on here is elevated.
that's the usual response to walking out of the underworld

>> No.7065436

>>7065191
You mean Francis Bacon right?

>> No.7065446

>>7065436
More like Francis Gay-cunt.
Fuck off idiot.
You're stupid.

>> No.7065477

>Implying pynchon is that smart
He doesn't even understand the maths behind thermodynamics ffs.

>> No.7065478

>>7065446
He's technically right though

>> No.7065483

>>7065478
Technically he can drink litres of piss.
Try it.

>> No.7065493

>>7065478
Stop that.

>>7065483
Something you've tried I guess.
Don't think I'll ever get that thirsty.

>> No.7065496

>>7065493
I know about you do to that but when was I if ever haha.
Talk about backsliding...

>> No.7065501

>>7065030
If you keep comparing yourself to everybody else you'll never give yourself the chance to try.

Just pick up the fucking pen, nigger.

>> No.7065502

>>7065483
You can go kill yourself. He is right and you can't handle it because you have an inferiority complex and are secretly gay for Shakespeare. Stop being so defensive you ignoramus.

>> No.7065526

>>7065502
What the fuck a you talking about freak?
I replied to a post about Franky B what are you talking about Shakespeare for and fucking claiming I'm gay for Shakespeare?
Kill yourself you autistic little internet weirdo.
Fucking loser getting pissy over some creepy misinterpretation.
Freakkkkkk.

>> No.7065550

>>7065493
Idk why but your "stop that" triggered me. Like I imagined an ugly fat girl, saying it because she thinks she's hot and can say that kind of shit

>> No.7065572

>>7065526
I think he's just talking shit to get people pissed at me.

>>7065550
You read way too much into it.

>> No.7066408

>>7065049
DeLillo's a genius.

>> No.7066419

>>7065049
Lol Bolano is smart as fuck and lived one of the most interesting live ever.

>> No.7066447
File: 115 KB, 769x478, 1426745767489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7066447

Literature is my only passion, but I feel dumb as a brick and I don't think I will ever write anything worth being remembered. I've dropped out of college twice and I spend my time doing nothing on the internet. The only constructive things I ever do are read and write when I'm not lazy.

I just want to write works that will give people the same feeling I get whenever I finish reading a truly amazing book.

>> No.7066455

>>7066408
Im not saying their work isn't genius, Im just saying they weren't born that way and actually had to work really hard to attain that status. Dellilo is amazing, same goes for all of the authors mentioned, but I would save the word "genius" for people like Joyce, Pynchon, Nabokov etc. Those guys where just born that way in my opinion, no amount of hard work will get you to the level that they attained unless your born with certain traits and sensibilities.

>> No.7066456

>>7066455
***were, you're

sorry for the bad spelling

>> No.7066461

>>7066419
im not saying he wasn't smart, just that he wasn't born a genius and only attained that status through breaking his fucking back to get there. Bolano is 10/10

>> No.7066480

>>7066455
I don't mean DeLillo is a "literary genius." I mean he's a genius. Born with high IQ.

>> No.7066488

>>7066455
Also, I don't know where you get the sense that Joyce and Pynchon and Nabokov worked not at all or far less than DeLillo or Shakespeare to achieve their proficiency.

You mentioned Dickens above a non-genius who toiled to get where he got. The Pickwick Papers came out when he was 24.

>> No.7066508

>>7066461
Fair enough, amigo.

>> No.7066546

>>7065395
/lit/ is pretty lit, fam.

>> No.7066959

>>7066455

Nabokov lierall jus was surrounded b hundreds of millions of dollars worh of wealh (were he american in 21s cenur) and was augh languages when he was 6 or 7, which an 6 or 7 ear old can gain complee fluenc in -- here's nohing impressive abou his rilingualism. And he was born ino a famil where he was read french poer from he age of 6 or 7, and was augh almos anhing and everhing under he sun b high-end visiing uors. He was inelligen, sure, bu esseniall all of his "genius" is having been augh all his from he age ou were jus learning o read Shiloh or Berensein Bears. If ou were moderael inelligen and were pushed o learn o read a ha level a ha age, ou would be a "genius" oo.

here's no compeiion like ha oda hough, almos everone who goes ino lieraure now sars in high school or college.

>> No.7066975

>>7066959
You afraid of t's and y's, buddy? I do though appreciate your post, it does make me feel better about being a monoglot cuck

>> No.7066990

>>7065030

Who cares? He is stil a bad and boring writer that only a few literature students (and that even in his time) read.

He is probably very intelligent (although not with a 190 IQ), but intelligence is not the same thing as genius or even raw talent, and he is not very good at writing.

>> No.7066999

>>7065296
ty dude, for that comprehension exercise. Kindly buy a new keyboard or stop being cute

>> No.7067005

>>7065077
I have a verbal IQ of 149 and I'm an average writer.

>> No.7067051

>>7065121
Why is this impressive again?

>> No.7067097

>>7067051

The creation of words requires appropriate times, golden times of verbal fermentation. These are times when the language and its rules have not yet been crystallized, times in which the words are still soft and a steaming in a chaotic cauldron (The Elizabethan England, for example, didn’t have any rules for spelling: the only rule was that if you wrote a word in some way and people could understand that that was the word you wished to write, then it was OK. Shakespeare, in the “Sir Thomas More Manuscript”, wrote the word sheriff in something like 5 or 6 different spelling ways).

Furthermore, most of the creation of words come from such times when a language is appropriating itself of another language. Most of the verbal creations of Shakespeare and his contemporaries (not only him, but many other authors were creating neologisms) comes from the processing of words and expressions from Latin to equivalents in English. Since there were no words in English to describe such terms it was necessary that English writers plunder the fertile nest of the Latins.

The creation of words in epochs such as this occurs in large proportion: bunches and more bunches of new words are plucked from the vines every year. And words created in such times has a special taste, a special flavor: they are words that really seem appropriate and necessary, words that seem to really help with the common language and would soon turn out to integrate the oral heritage of the country.

But in times when the language is already crystallized creating words rings something false, something artificial. Joyce, for example, in the case of English, and in the case of Portuguese and Brazil (my homeland) with João Guimarães Rosa, creating words (ingenious as these creations sometimes may be) produces no adequate and well-aimed neologisms such as those born in the spring time of a language, when that language is finally blooming in glory for the world. Is almost as in such times a kind of orthographic pollen is hovering over the Land and its people.

About Shakespeare is important to note that it is unclear whether he created all the words that its said that he created; what he did was to be the first person to make use of such non-dictionarized words, but they could have been circulating for a long time in the mouths of the common people.

>>7065091
>he was the seth macfarlane of his time

Nobody in history had the same verbal power and metaphorical inventiveness. No, he was not just a popular writer of his time: he was indeed a genius.

>> No.7067118

Fahrenheit 451 is making me hate all of you

This site is the epitome of beatty's monologue

>> No.7067129

>>7067097
Why did you write 5 paragraphs of steaming bullshit?

You know that languages do not have an inchoate period?

>> No.7067146

>>7065502
Aren't you 40 years old?

>> No.7067476

Okay so I realise this post is ironical, but..
The reason most posters in this thread will never surmount to genius is precisely because threads like these are a waste of energy. Shit in shit out, it's that simple.
Stop wishing and start working. No genius in the history of ever reached their level of capabilities without massive dedication.

>> No.7067597

>>7065049
>hemingway
>working hard
kek
He had so many connections that he could have been the pope.

>> No.7067764

>>7065030

I'm not interested in impressing the literary establishment. So, no, I'm not worried.

>> No.7068105

>>7066447
Please write them, bud.

>> No.7068149

>you will never simultaneously be a great literary and musical artist

Life is snickering behind me at a joke I didn't hear.

>> No.7068152

>tfw I used to think I was a genius but quickly realized I wasn't after reading A Confederacy of Dunces.

>> No.7068174

>>7066990
>boring

I can't really attack your opinion about his being bad as you didn't elaborate in the least, but to claim Pynchon is boring is equivalent to claiming Joyce isn't lyrical (which, by the way, one of my English professors once did. While I ended up making an A in the class, I was sure to avoid her from then on).

>> No.7068189

>>7066990

He's a good writer and fun as fuck, but he falls flat in that he never really advances beyond writing literary comic books -- his overarching ideas are generally juvenile.

>> No.7068206

>>7065232
>What is UPenn? Dartmouth?

>> No.7068213

>>7065232
Nah, Dartmouth is the lamest Ivy. It's only claim to fame is that beer pong was invented there.

>> No.7068252

>>7065477
what is your evidence of this. Lot 49 seemed to me to be a pretty informed take on it

>> No.7068274

>>7068189
bad sign that the only thing I can find by googling is my /lit/ post from a while ago but I believe that Pynchon once told Rushdie that he writes "comic books for intellectuals" - the ideas are deliberately juvenile.

Of course that's neither a reason to like or dislike him.

>> No.7068318

>>7066990
>>7065477
http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/thomas-pynchon-bleeding-edge.html

>> No.7068322
File: 41 KB, 498x310, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7068322

>>7065077
Candy-ass buzzfeed cucks like you are the reason nobody respects psychology. IQ is EXTREMELY difficult to measure, which is why tests are so often inaccurate. To test IQ is to attempt the appraisal of a human being's mental capacity by way of arbitrary exercises with billions of variables. Do you know how complicated the human brain is? How the fuck are we supposed to asses Shakespeare's pattern recognition? His short term memory v. his longterm? The answer is that we can't. You can't use art to determine intelligence, particularly on such a finite level.

I'm hecka mad ik but i'm so sick of these spergy snowflakes ascribing IQ to niggas from thousands of years ago and creating their bullshit little MBTI circlejerks and saying they have a 200 IQ because they answered basic questions on a bullshit website. I hope you gaylords have the decency to stay away from neuroscience.

>> No.7068344

>>7065232
>>7068213

UPenn and Dartmouth are ranked clearly ahead of Cornell/Brown nationally. Brown and Cornell are definitely the bottom two ivies, don't even try to drag others to their level

>> No.7068348

>>7068322
I still haven't seen anyone make a convincing case that that IQ is like actually something there to measure at all

>> No.7068388

>>7065152
>valuing the institution over the individual professor
>studied with Nabokov and M.H Abrams

>> No.7068389

>>7065121
Anybody and their mother coined words in English's time. Modern English was still blooming. We could do it too (actually we're doing it, we're just less willing to admit it).

Specialist of the Elizabethan era now say the number of words Shakespeare has coined has been way overplayed.

>>7065296
He went to grammar school although he couldn't finish it for financial reasons. That still makes him more educated than over 90% of the population at the time.

>> No.7068396

>>7068322
IQ isn't just hard to measure, it barely even exists outside of measuring itself

this is coming from a "genius" as described by IQ tests/SATs/other completely circular scales

>> No.7068397

>>7068348
Well what exactly do you mean by "there"? IQ, in theory, is the measurement of a person's ability to analyze and understand his surroundings. It's not a "thing" in that there's some region of the brain reserved for it; IQ is just the cogitation of brain functions into what we call "reason." To say that there is not disparity between individuals in their ability to reason is simply not true. Of course, all of this is difficult, if impossible, to acurrately measure at the moment, but The question as to whether "intelligence"---all IQ is, really---is a "thing" that exists within people is pretty obvious to me.

But like I said: we can't acurrately assess it, so don't take scores too seriously. The test measures your ability to take tests as much as it does your talent. Regardless, assessing the IQ of Newton or whoever the fuck makes psychology in itself look retarded and slows its crawl toward concrete understanding of how to measure things like IQ.

>> No.7068414

>>7068397
>>7068348
IQ especially shouldn't be in the conversation when assessing genius, unless you're talking about a genius of reasoning or test taking. Shakespeare and Mozart were certainly geniuses, and their genius in their field had nothing to do with their ability to analyze and understand their surroundings, so their IQ doesn't really mean shit

>> No.7068425

>>7068396
I agree with you, if only because current methodolgy is shoddy as fuck. Intelligence is still a measurable thing, in my opinion, but I don't think we have the tools to measure it yet.

>> No.7068432

>>7068397
"ability analyze and understand surroundings"
"ability to reason"

these are really abstract conceptual ideas that I'm non convinced have real-life analogues that are reliably divorced from other types of thinking or intelligence. people tend to justify IQ by saying that it correlates to real-world success, but if that's the case why not put stuff to evaluate people's ass-kissing abilities on the test? that correlates to real-world success too.

trying to measure "intelligence" it feels like trying to measure "sexiness" as a number - sure we can all agree that it exists in some abstract form but assigning objective values to it feels like missing most of the point. some data is more informative if it's qualitative, not forcibly quantitative.

>> No.7068455

>>7068414
Another huge problem with IQ tests: ability to analyze is conflated with bigger, more overarching concepts of what defines a "good" mind. Is the ability of a great artist "intelligence," or a wonderful talent supported by intelligence? The truth is that artistic and analytic genius compliment one another, and one cannot be a genius in one of these field without being at least proficient in the other. How proficient, however, is where problems arise and people attempt to measure what cannot be measured. Whether or not Shakespeare was a "genius" is barely a question. Whether or not he had an IQ above 145 is something we will never know.

>> No.7068475

>>7065030
>because you just aren't smart enough
>King Wen
>Cervantes
More like because I didn't spend enough time at war

>> No.7068530

>>7068432
I wasn't suggesting that IQ is some objective, universal thing in the way something like eyesight. IQ is more like "what is good eyesight," and then measuring that based on tests measuring their ability to see far distances (just way messier and less accurate). "Good" eyesight isn't technically an objective thing, but we can pool cultural context and agree upon judgements like "ability to see far=good eyesight" and "inability to read=bad eyesight." Abilities like pattern recognition, speech, memorization, etc., are by no means "objective" qualifiers of "intelligence", but they are talents that objectively exist in different people in different capacities. Like, it's unquestionable that I recognize patterns differently than a squirrel does, now the real question (IQ) is determining whose is more valuable.

Let's say, in years to come, that we could perfectly analyze IQ by way of brain scans and chemical measurement; it still wouldn't be anything objective, because what the fuck defines reason? We just make due with our ultimately philosopical definition, and ascribe measurements based on it, because it's useful. (Except it's not because there are a million fucking variables and we can't yet test a million other attributes like creativity which would ideally fit into IQ)

>> No.7068543

>>7066480
*citation needed

>> No.7068552

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/agordon/pynchon.htm
This makes Ruggles sound like a pretty ordinary stoner-nerd tbh

>> No.7068559

>>7068388
The nabokov thing is a myth.

>> No.7068574

>>7068530
Yes but testing eyesight is straightforward and obvious. That is not the case with IQ.

>> No.7068592

>>7068530
this is a horrible analogy

>> No.7068595

>>7068425
but determining which dimensions constitute intelligence are completely objective and always favor whoever is making the test

If you made a test that values interpersonal skills and proprioception instead of maths and reading comprehension, you'd have a completely different set of geniuses

>> No.7068607

>>7068530
I think we basically agree here, but it seems obvious to me that it is much easier to come to a consensus definition of "good eyesight" than it is to come to a consensus definition of "intelligence."

>> No.7068620

>>7068595
I mean subjective, sorry

>> No.7068650

>>7068455
is 145 the cutoff for being a genius anyway? it seems that each test's scores mean different things so the score doesn't even matter if you don't know the specific test.

>> No.7068656

I got a perfect score on my SAT whats my IQ

>> No.7068664

>>7066480
Any source on this statement?

>> No.7068680

>>7068656
Probably 150+ if you took it a few years ago.

>> No.7068686

I find it really hard to believe Pynchon's IQ was in the 90's. I mean, admittedly, I don't know how good at math the guy was and IQ translates very poorly into humanities. But he just doesn't seem that nerdy.

IQ is terrible at measuring genius anyway. It's super handy for figuring out if someone's retarded, but once you get past the 115-125 range it starts to become meaningless. Look at MENSA; bunch of useless retards jacking off about how smart they are.

>> No.7068716

>>7068574
Well, this is the problem and my reason for the rant at the end of the post. Intelligence, like eyesight, is a thing that exists and could (idealistically) be measured based on some standard, the problem is identifying said standard and then quantifying how well it is met. That's why I don't think anyone should take modern IQ tests seriously. Maybe in 60 years we'll have come up with something more useful.

>> No.7068722

>>7068650
On some tests it is and on others it isn't. I think the standard dictates 145 as "genius" (hatever the fuck that means).

>> No.7068739

>>7068595
All true, and I wasn't arguing to the contrary. That's the cultural context I was referring to. It's philosophical and subjective, not concrete. US standards might place importance on one's ability to articulately describe abstract concepts, and tribesmen on one's ability to survive in the jungle. Neither standard is wrong or correct, they're just things that can be measured and are useful within certain contexts.

>> No.7068740

>>7068592
How so?

>> No.7068834
File: 20 KB, 499x499, 1437102449969.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7068834

>>7068722
>tfw genius

>> No.7068859

>>7068680
2010. It was with the essay, so 2400.

>> No.7068868

>>7068740
I misread it, you actually made a good point.

>> No.7068883

I read a bunch of biographies on Pynchon. I absolutely adored them until I broke down one night crying.

>> No.7069290

>>7066480
He just seems like a normal guy who worked his arse off to get where he is today tbh.

>> No.7069322

>>7069290
I feel the same about Franzen. Obviously intelligent, but not genius level. His skill is more a product of determination and work-ethic than inherent aptitude

>> No.7069351

>>7068883
What set you off, Anon?

>> No.7069368

>>7069322

>Franzen

oh god I tried reading The Corrections after a friend recommended him to me. I cringed every two sentences at how hard he was trying to be DFW

>> No.7069513

>>7068883
I don't think any biographies of Pynchon exist...

>> No.7070443

>>7069513
They don't, only hearsay.

>> No.7070930

Radical idea: when that woman said she saw Pynchon's IQ and it was "somewhere in the 190s," maybe she just meant it was really high.

>> No.7071572

>>7070930
but he was also in the super duper smart kid enigneering class at Cornell despite graduating a year early.

>> No.7073271

bump

>> No.7074599

>Down the toilet - lookit me,
>what a silly thing to do!
>Hope nobody takes a pee,
>yippy dippy dippy doo...

What did he mean by this?

>> No.7074830

>>7065030
pinecone looks like fanboy from that nickelodeon cartoon