I suppose sarcasm does not translate well on the internet. In response to a rebuttle to my vitrolic Gravity's Rainbow review, I did not literally mean that the judges for the book took crack. It was a metaphor for "what the hell had they been thinking?" I'm sorry the review gives out the impression that I lack any understanding of the book. I don't give out in depth criticisms of most of the books that I read simply because it's done better elsewhere. Besides, it wasn't really the core message that turned me off. That in itself does not doom a book. It was the execution and the style that gave me the feeling that somebody had attempted a lobotomy on me. If the story theme had just been an adventure story with a happy ending but had been written in the same way as Gravity's Rainbow, I would have also given it a thumbs down.
Also, if you have to be picky about my metaphor about crack, please do not imply Gravity's Rainbow won the Pulitzer because it didn't. It won the National Book Award. And as far as I know, the Pulitzer and the National Book Award are not the same thing.
* * *
Is anyone addicted to Sudoku? I've heard about it a long time ago but I've only started playing a couple days ago. I jumped in immediately to the harder levels in the hopes that I would be able to learn how to solve them more quickly than if I started on an easy level and worked my way up.
Oh, you don't need to 'splain yourself to the whiners.
I tried "Gravity's Rainbow" and thought it doth suq, too. And it's not that I'm opposed to such fiction, as "Infinite Jest" is still one of my favorites.
I think the secret to liking either book is to have enough references and outlooks in common with the author.
Been limiting meself to the Sudoku puzzles in the back of my wife's celebrity magazines (in the firm belief that, were I to start playing on-line, my participation in real-life/meatspace would likely cease entirely, save perhaps for the most basic biological necessities...)
