Reading Inherent Vice

This is the first time I can remember I'm going to be buying a book on the day it comes out. Who else is on board?

I'm super tempted to do this too. Could save $16 bucks from buying it on Amazon tho.

i want to read it but i'll wait for the paperback.

I should be getting mine Thursday.

I thought it was coming out in September, and as a result I haven't finished my rereading of all the previous novels yet. It'll be sitting on my bookshelf, taunting me, for weeks.

will be in my hands tomorrow

Out in the UK on Thursday.

Damn, I'd been assuming it was out today.

You can read this until Thursday. It came out last week.
http://chicagoist.com/attachments/Marcus%20Gilmer/2009_6_16lucashilderbrand.jpg
Actually it does look quite interesting.

Some places in London have the Pynchon in stock now. It was for sale in Blackwell's at the weekend, and I bought a copy from the little bookshop down Exmouth Market yesterday. 50 pages in and it's very good so far. Pretty hilarious, too.

I just got mine from Waterstones in Leicester. I guess the official date is flexible.

I can walk to Exmouth Market at lunchtime. Win.

I bought Against the Day on the day it came out, but this time I'm testing the local library system to see how quick they are (I'm second in line, apparently, and copies are "processing" now). I reread Vineland last week and liked it way way more this time around (quite disliked it last time), which makes me more positive about this one.

Just bought the last copy in Exmouth Market. The dude in there seemed kind of overwhelmed by the demand, until I pointed out it was probably only in about three shops in London right now.

After reading the New Yorker review, I'm quite interested in this, even though I've only read The Crying of Lot 49 and about half of V.

Managed to pick up a copy myself too, which I wasn't expecting. The only copy in my local Waterstones.

Decided to grab a copy at my local Barnes and Noble. Ended up being one of the last three or four I saw in the store. Was like $22, which wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

Looking forward to diving in sometime relatively soon. Haven't read any Pynchon except for part of Crying Lot before...

I too wanted to go the library route for this one, but I'm taking a flight this weekend and wanted it for that. I always have good experiences reading while travelling.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/08/pynchon_speaks_maybe.html

The voice in the trailer is so not the voice in the Simpsons clip, even assuming that one of them is actually Pynchon.

I've been tied up and distracted by various things today but made a bit of headway. Surprisingly accessible so far. For all the noirish overtones, what makes me think we won't be getting a straightforward resolution to this one?

the Simpsons one is Pynchon!

Does it ever end, he wondered. Of course it does. It did.

<3

it looks very short, which makes it very tempting

very short compared to mason & dixon, that is

I'm only a chapter and a half in, but this is fucking funny.

finished this now

weird to read a pynchon novel with, like, an actual central reflector

can't decide if the crime novel's apparent fit with his usual 300 theses on paranoia works or not

quite explicit about his historical project being the projection of 60s counterculture us-vs-them notions onto all of time and space; but probably less new ideas about it than either of his last three; but a smoother read than any of them

sex scenes getting kind of embarrassing tho; doper comedy scenes less so but totally seen it already

bigfoot's apologising for "having interrupted some complicated stoner deduction like trying to remember where to find the glue on a Zig Zag" made me lol tho /:

I LOL'ed so much I was really annoying my wife. Pynchon is often funny, but this is the only one of his novels that's a flat-out comedy.

I was hoping he would do a more thorough-going take on the whole Hammett/Chandler tradition, but this is not quite that. The brief passage about the Santa Anas is a nice tribute to the opening of "Red Wind."

Daily Breeze piece on the setting in time and place, plus a map of the area.

Further link in that article to this earlier webreport, "Thomas Pynchon and the South Bay":

http://www.theaesthetic.com/NewFiles/pynchon.html

The voice in the trailer is so not the voice in the Simpsons clip, even assuming that one of them is actually Pynchon.

I was just going to say they sound alike! One sounds older than the other but maybe the Simpsons one is slightly speeded up?

would you all recommend this book to someone who admires some aspects of pynchon but is annoyed by the generally annoying ones - is an elmore leonard filter the solution - sounds like it could be

What do you mean by the annoying ones?

just got this for my birthday, will prob. start reading this afternoon

This is shaggier than an Elmore Leonard book, with a lot more characters and the usual random Pynchon shifts between realism and goofiness, but yeah, I think this might be accessible to people who like Elmore Leonard.

Our library doesn't have it yet, but it has spiked a marked increase in requests for "Gravity's Rainbow." I've tried to push "The Crying" and "Vineland" as well, to no avail.

PS: I almost checked out a collection of early short stories, "Slow Learner," that I'd never heard of. Worthwhile?

i dont really like elmore leonard it sounded like leonard + pynchon

last story in it, 'the secret integration', is fantastic and joyful — the early stuff, apart from fleshing out a buncha shoulda-never-gone-past-undergraduate-level theses on 'entropy', is of little value

the introduction, autobiographical, in which pynchon basically writes off his entire writing career of the 60s, is probably the most referenced bit of it nowadays. it's interesting that it exists, i guess?

"I counted."

I've had trouble getting a clear run at this, so I'm only 90 or so pages in, but I'm loving the shaggy dogness so far. A ridiculous lurid twist in every paragraph seems kind of fitting, I almost punched the air when Beware of the Golden Fang appeared.

I've been paused at "I counted" b/c I'm like, there's no way this can get better.

This New Yorker review tries to put the book in the Chandler context and is pretty much spoiler-free.

ehh, it's kinda hardboiled 101 stuff. which kind of makes me think there's just not that much to say about this record

1 - read chandler essay
2 - read pynchon novel
3 - quote liberally from both
4 - collect check

The friend who linked the New Yorker piece on her blog noted that its author had apparently not seen "The Long Goodbye" or "The Big Lebowski," which are both better points of reference than "The Simple Art of Murder."

tracer i would have said much the same except i have a grudging fondness for louis menand

lebowski is actually a really apt comparison, sadly /:

hey, it's really him

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2009/08/11/thomas-pynchon-speaks-inherent-vice-trailer/

swallowed this fucker more-or-less whole -- finished in about 24 hrs.

really very funny & enjoyable. the chandler reference in the new yorker review is only relevant in attempting to include IV into the formal definition of hardboiled noir via the protagonist -- there wasn't a lot of chandler here beyond the common geography. i haven't read any leonard but i imagine there's a greater similarity. i was reminded at some points of ross mcdonald, but for all the shaggy freaks and lemuria references and cointelpro shit, i kept thinking of the illuminatus trilogy, of all things.

On what page does "I Counted" turn up? I'm a bit worried I either missed it, failed to get it, or just forgot about it because I read a chunk of this while a bit drunk last week.

I thought it was fine as a choice -- adds to the confusing haze the characters are in -- and certainly deliberate, deadpanning here but I can re-watch with subtitles one day.

went out to see this last night. disappointed, though i don't know why, as i've never been much of an anderson fan. it just felt so lifeless. the plot, while complex in the manner of paranoid free association, was easy enough to follow in its general outlines. it seemed irrelevant, though, mostly just a framework for stoned lurching. problem is that the stoned lurching, while kind of funny at times, was far more often dull and repetitive. lots of endless, expository conversations full of pointless detail. margin doodling carried out at feature length. performances are generally great, especially brolin & phoenix, but they weren't enough to hold my interest. a few good jokes ("something spanish"), but not many. did love martin short.

the scenes with short are among the few where the movie comes alive for a time. sportello's taxi driver-quoting escape near the end is another, along with the highly-charged seduction & sex scene with doc & shasta. loved those moments, and i can see why the latter has attracted so much commentary. it feels like the film's emotional center as well as its real conclusion. it's hard not to read shasta's self negating power kink as yet another commentary on the selling of 60s idealism, but honestly, i don't think the film really has much to say on that score - beyond dutifully rehashing the familiar complaints, i mean. whatever its politics, that scene at least manages to suggest for a moment that something's at stake. unfortunately, everything afterwards (except for bigfoot's final milkshake-drinking tray-gobbling, another standout moment) felt pointless.

I thought it was fine as a choice -- adds to the confusing haze the characters are in -- and certainly deliberate, deadpanning here but I can re-watch with subtitles one day.

― xyzzzz__, Thursday, February 12, 2015 10:40 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes - this totally makes sense. i think the stoned mind has an tendency to wander and often you'll start listening to someone before concentrating on other thoughts.

"i don't think the film really has much to say on that score"

otm. this is PTA not only channelling his 70s heroes, but the same subject matter. aesthetically magnificent but otherwise just hollow and redundant.

"stoned lurching" = 20th century history imo

i keep thinking that if this was actually made a bit more 'whimsically', or a bit more 'indie', i.e. shambolic, micro-budget, etc, i think it might have worked better. but its directed with such heft and power, and all that power kind of ends up being used for very little. its an imposing piece of filmmaking but with a feeble core.

"stoned lurching" = 20th century history imo

okay, sure, and it's certainly a potentially interesting lens through which to view the era: lots of competing interests each deeply paranoid and armed only with enough information to be dangerous. i just don't think the movie does much of anything with the idea. mostly about j phoenix looking mad rumpled while herding confusion.

I was kind of j/k but I thought it expressed the idea by the whole 'not doing'. I know it can lapse into Adam Curtis bollocks.

StillAdvance - idk for how long you've been posting on here but we don't take too kindly to ppl asking for things to be 'more indie'.

Joking aside its still a ridiculous ask.

Anyone seen Impolex?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/movies/impolex-directed-by-alex-ross-perry-review.html?_r=0

omg the BBC tried to film GR!!

http://www.pruefstand7.de/e/download/download.html

ha, im not really someone who wants things to be more whimsical or indie, its just the description you made i think made me think that was what it might be better suited to!

I think if you read and love Pynchon, it's great they made the movie but it was nowhere freaky enough to accurately capture what his books are like

not seen imipolex but besides its being long and having lots of characters i honestly think GR would be really easy to adapt. huge chunks are already a treatment and film as physical medium and language is so central to its metaphor system. (e.g. the section where the peenemunde engineer isn't sure if the daughter the SS periodically allows to visit is the same girl every time; this is already about cuts and frames and continuity.) the only thing that comes up more than movies is parabolas, plus every other scene is a chase. you've certainly got a lot of stuff to decide whether or not to include but whatever you do include barely needs adaptation.

Judging by how cagey PTA was when asked by Marc Maron if he had read GR (he said he hadn't which is frankly unbelievable), I think it's a good bet that he'll do the movie

Godard's Goodbye To Language => watching it last night and it did have a feel of "stoned mumbling" through 20th century history...

I haven't seen the Adam Curtis doc but actually would be interesting to. Its almost like the right move to have bunged on the internet.

yes, i've seen Impolex -- i was lost, never having read TP.

On seeing IV twice:

I found myself finding whole scenes funny that I didn't even realize were comedy the first time. Again, I didn't not enjoy the film during my first go, I just had a whole different part of my brain switched on. Furthermore, once I kinda-sorta knew what the characters were all about (and where they'd end up), I found a richness to the third act's more somber tone. (Here's a tip for first-timers: this movie is basically a tragedy.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/01/inherent-vice-second-viewing

Great article.
I cam think of a few films - 2001, Children of Men to name but two- where I've enjoyed it a lot more on second viewing. often a film blindsides me the first time because I'm expecting something slightly different that never delivers. second time I'm more likely not to worry about that and feel comfy in its universe.

this movie is basically a tragedy

otm. i love that death of the era shit

finally saw the 70mm print at the Castro last night, really impressed. couple random things - where are they in the last shot? I couldn't tell if they were in a parked car or what, with the light occasionally flashing across Sportello's face. And the last scene with Doc and Bigfoot, it seemed to me the culmination of Bigfoot always being shown easting and now he comes to Doc's place, nothing to eat, might as well eat the weed lol. so many great little moments, expressions, and throwaway lines. easily his best or at least most enjoyable since Boogie Nights.

the only TP i've read is the crying of lot 49 (about 4x), so i knew to expect that i've have no idea what was going on plot-wise. this movie really felt like TP - not that i have much authority on his style, but it felt a lot like lot 49 - so i found it to be a really... admirable film, but i'm still not sure if i actually liked it. joaquin phoenix and josh brolin were absolutely amazing.

i dont think a 35mm print has shown in NYC.

Looked like a 'stylized' moving car to me, ie probly a studio shot.

yeah that was totally a fake moving car without bothering with a process shot. fits with the almost complete disinterest in place or setting through the rest of the film - you'll take faces and like it!

this disappointed me compared to the book, which is so concerned with the travel between places, the tedious* futility of returning to the same settings over again, and the general concern with being immersed in (an impression or memory or construction of) the 1970s

*in a gumshoe / shaggy plot sense

I'd guess Anderson didn't want to be tagged as repeating himself w/ Boogie Nights' glorious 70s production design and location exploitation - but the locations and environments his characters exist in have been such a significant part of ALL his other films.

after seeing the long goodbye this evening (which is SO brilliant), i am now thinking that obv that is the kind of film PTA should have made, but also, that this is the very film he was *trying* to make and had in mind, but couldnt as the source text was different, but also because hes trying to actively resist the altman comparisons, which is a healthy thing for anyone as cinephilic as he is, but at the same time, its like he stripped out all the parts that might have made it more altman/TLG-ish (ie made it more accessible and more openly enjoyable) but didnt put anything much back in to replace it, so youre left with this somewhat obtuse, difficult film, but one with little reward beyond its own self-aware challenge that it is posing for the viewer. might also have helped if IH's lead character was half as likeable/amusing as elliot gould's marlowe.

didn't find this obtuse/difficult at all

i felt like it was PTA's version of an old RPG like monkey island - main character walks around having pointless conversations with other characters, repeat, repeat...

picaresque is the more appropriate term. I didn't find any of it pointless, it all fed back into the film's themes of corruption, misdirection, the blurring of cultural and ethical lines - which involves disillusionment to some extent - but then has a really obvious redemption arc (he's JESUS do u c) with Owen Wilson's character. Plus everyone is funny and engaging and diverting during there little turns. Couldn't ask for more afaic.

I don't think this was at all obtuse or difficult for viewers. It was obtuse and difficult for doc sportello

heyoooo

I think maybe I was too, um, sober for this movie.

extry

http://thefilmstage.com/news/watch-the-deleted-and-alternate-scenes-from-paul-thomas-andersons-inherent-vice/

We saw it in a very small cinema, with not a lot of people attending. However the middle-aged man, who had come alone, sitting behind us was laughing uproariously all the way through; even at parts that were only tenuously funny/quirky. Maybe he'd read the book or something? We couldnt' work it out.

maybe his idea of what's funny is different to yours.

it could even be possible that every other human being has a different mind to your own.

really going out of your way to be a patronising shit, ronan. do you always project this much?

really enjoyed this, difficult to hear the dialogue but not difficult to follow (inasmuch as following mattered)

A cinema in London that does overnight film marathons is doing one of films that influenced Inherent Vice: Chinatown, The Big Lebowski, The Naked Gun, The Long Goodbye, Zabriskie Point, and ending with the film itself. Not sure of all the through lines, but there are worse ways to spend 12 hours (if I was a younger man).

Finally screened on the 4th. Kind of loved it, if not to the degree of the prior two PTA's. Really enjoyed how un-jerked off the homages were in addition the neat balancing act of capturing the feel of 70s Burnout cinema while neatly sidestepping the obvious moralizing inherent (tee-hee) in same.

One seemingly obvious influence that's gone without mention (unless it has) is "The Rockford Files". Doc's visit to Mrs. Wolfmann, and some of the interactions between him and both Bigfoot and Penny felt like Rockford through a Psychedelic filter.

Absolutely, yeah - unannounced drop-ins at humble beachfront homes, creeping around recently-constructed office buildings, fistfights in platted deserts.

That said, I also noticed the "almost complete disinterest in place or setting through the rest of the film" sic mentions upthread, at least outside (aside from the empty development and the Golden Fang block) - some of the blocking and framing was so weirdly tight that I started wondering if they were shooting around non-period details. But it's more fun to try to cram it into some grand thematic vision - I'm still trying, tbh.

This was such an embarrassment of riches--the narration, "does he eat pussy," Brolin and the frozen banana, Phoenix's scream at seeing the picture, "Harvest," Short, the fake anti-Commie movie, that aching Ouija board flashback sequence--that I feel kinda guilty for not out-and-out loving it. I stopped giving a shit about the plot after a certain point, but I didn't really consider this a flaw; if anything, always barely knowing what the fuck was going on adds to the whole stoned and confused vibe of the thing (I should add to the things I liked about the movie those little notes that Phoenix was always making to himself when he was faking detective work). But the looseness of the thing + the 2.5 hour running time just meant that I got really restless and fidgety after a while, so much that I didn't even delight as much in seeing Martin Donovan again as I should have. I dunno, maybe reading the book first would have had me more invested in it?

TWBB still my fave Anderson, and by far my fave Anderson 2.0 (as someone referred to his recent work above). This one and The Master both had a roughly similar effect of dazzling me for a good chunk of their running time but ultimately leaving me wanting when all was said and done.

I finally saw this a couple of weeks ago & enjoyed it so much I'm entertaining the notion of reading Pynchon

but in terms of the film, Phoenix & Brolin were to me at their absolute peak of perfection. Could not stop watching every single moment of them both, and I thought Phoenix was amazing in The Master so I'm
kinda thrilled that he upped his game even more

saw this less than a year ago and already time to rewatch
= the sign of a great film

xp VG the book Inherent Vice is quite fun and imo similar to the movie, not as dense and knotty as other Pynchon. Crying Of Lot 149 is also great, and short.

joaquin's vast array of confused expressions was something to behold

i think if you enjoy the movie you should enjoy the book even more. (the book is actually funnier imo) now if you hate the the movie you should stay the hell away from the book...

movie gave me a Chinatown/Lebowski vibe, more w/r/t futile investigations & red herrings etc

joaquin's vast array of confused expressions was something to behold

really loved the opening, with doc running a hand lamely along shasta's departing car, sloooooooowly succumbing to an expression of total paranoid dread, and getting hit in the face with the neon title

also iirc some v good faces as eric roberts (also slooooooooooowly) describes his bad hippie dream. for free.

i thought this was wonderful. joanna newsom is a totally great actress! the woman playing jade was incredible! yeah PTA has woman problems but he does cast well. god knows what he was up to casting belladonna but she was great too.

I really like Pynchon, especially Vineland and Lot 49, and I /hated/ this. We rented it on iTunes and couldn't be bothered to watch it to the end. Just felt way too forced and dull. Phoenix is fascinating but he's super annoying to watch art length. That sense of meaning being just out of reach, which works so well in Pynchon's prose where there's goofy jokes and all those amazing sentences to keep you going - Phoenix making googly eyes is not a substitution for that.

(Sorry)

Re reading this shit. So good.

A game of "drink whenever someone rolls their eyes at how dumb Doc is" would be fun.

"there's a problem with Ouija boards" - best part of the movie for me. A little joyful moment in the middle of the madness, a little (valid) paranoia still there tugging at you. Brilliant realization of a distinctively Pynchon moment, good job PTA.

yeah PTA has woman problems

Yeah.