I'm having the least fun time ever finding sources to supplement my paper with. It makes me wish desperately that I had chosen Gravity's Rainbow to write about just because it's older and has more written on it. Then I remember reading Gravity's Rainbow, and think better of it. It's just so frustrating to search and search but know deep down that a book that's 10 years old will not have much of a wealth of information on it. Amusingly, the best book I found on Underworld includes the essay Professor Fitzpatrick wrote, which we already read for class...so, still not as much info as I need.
It's probably not as bad as writing on some other subjects, but it's like night and day when coming off finishing my paper on Ezra Pound and ancient Chinese philosophies.
Sources
By two bird - Posted on 23 April 2007 - 12:09am.
Tagged:
- two bird's blog
- Login to post comments
It's interesting, because Underworld was published 1 year after Infinite Jest was, yet I've found so much more material to work with on Underworld. Maybe it has to do with the subject matter? I feel like Underworld would definitely be an easier novel to write critically on, so maybe that's what the critics did? Or maybe they all just like baseball a lot.