zlacker

>Gravity's Rainbow

>widely and intensely read prose

Dunno about that.

Pynchon's prose is notably colloquial, complete with lots of ellipses. Congrats on your Big Boy Book™ though.

>>viccis+(OP)
This comment is really below the standards one might expect here, a total and hominem. Why don't you open one of your own big boy books and tell us which one it was that used no em dashes?

>>viccis+(OP)
It's just a book, man. Maybe you should read more widely; it might even cure you of the obscenely stupid opinion you've expressed here.

>>AlecSc+7b2
Oh no I did a and hominem

My whole point was that opening "big boy books" doesn't actually make a point about the validity of a thing. That's just argumentum ad populum.

>>cacony+to4
I'm widely read. Enough that I'm not a pseud trying to imply that I read a lot of super duper hard books as evidence that my midwit opinion on emdashes is better than the guy here who made me mad by criticizing them.

Let me know if you're so stoked at reading Infinite Jest that you think that's proof I'm wrong.

>>viccis+565
You made this claim above:

> I don't know of any prose that relies on crutch dashes

If that's true then you are not widely read, and if it's false then you are a disingenuous troll and your comments here are exactly as worthless as they look. Either way your opinion is still bad. Sorry you're mad about it, but I'm done here.

>>cacony+x95
Good—see ya!

>>viccis+U55
And what's your argument? YOU have never read any literature that made use of em dashes? But you're showing no evidence of these dashless works at all?

N=0

And yes, you made an ad hominem, check the site guidelines. You can make your point without being a dick.