From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the V. article.
edit From Pee Review
This is my latest work, an article the Thomas Pynchon novel V. I think it's good, but then again, I'm in the process of reading the book. I'm not sure those who aren't familiar with the work would find it that funny. That being said, I like what I have written so far, so please, comment, add, remove, give me ideas or something. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The headings were funny, I especially liked 'Pencil surprise. Pens for dinner, paper for lunch, and what's that on your head?' Prehaps some pictures to illustrate each title would improve it? Or some pretentious drivel from literary critics about the novels'Significance'and how it:
visually dimemebers the pretentions of a generation. Leaving the gutted husk within. I think deep down we all lead empty pointless lives before we read V. I know i did. It's sublime fusion of ink and paper, speaks to us all, it says: anguish! I think we all know why. I least i do. There was no real literature before V. Just scrawlings on the lavatory wall of history. And if other authors have any respect there'll be no literature after V either. No thoughts can ever supass V. I think we should all stop thinking right now, i know I have.
--Winstanley1 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I might steal that from you. Keep writing. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok here's some more:
'If we dig deep enough in the swamp of our own loathing will we unearth despair? What will he say? What will he wear? Where will he live,in a box called reason? All these questions metamorphasise into the novels 'being' and 'kenetic self'. Of couse one can never be sure of the true 'intention' of the 'insight' which the author depicts, is it madness? or the reviled flesh which he seeks to eliminate. This quest, this essay will tell us just that. Because if you actually look it's not really a book at all, it's a phliosophy, do you see? No? Well no one really does, not in a physical sense,thats the point, one never 'gets it' because its never 'their' to 'get'. It's not until we've deconstructed the Fraudian fallecy of 'Being' and 'thought'. That we understand: What is Being? Who is thought? We don't have all the answers, neither does this book, well not on the first 12 levels of meaning, of couse the essence of the novels metphysical concisance, lies within the pivitol passage, the Crescendo of meaning, the embodiment of the physical realisation of 'the-other-self-called-mike' I quote it below:
Beautiful, simply beautiful.
- I like it. Thanks. Feel free to add directly to the article if you want to. I approve. I mean, less work for me. :) --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
--Winstanley1 23:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!--22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)