A new Pynchon is huge news. And contrary to what some posters here seem to believe, he's not hard to understand, other than certain passages in "Gravity's Rainbow" in which even he apparently doesn't remember what he was talking about. I think a lot of people are simply thrown by his constantly shifting perspectives from one character to another and his weird humour. Plus he has a technical background so he throws a lot of offhand engineering references in there.
I recommend starting with "The Crying of Lot 49", then "V." Both are amazing and both were written when he was quite young (20s). "V." in particular is a stupendous debut novel. I've read it twice and both times I felt a sort of buzz that lasted for a few days, a sure sign I've read something meaningful in some sense (to me, anyway).
V. is a disjoint "novel" with parts cobbled together from short stories. I wouldn't recommend it as a first (even though it was my first). Instead, try Vineland. It has a more or less straightforward plot and is quite entertaining.
Plus some absolutely brilliant passages. Here's an apropos one:
"If patterns of ones and zeros were 'like' patterns of human lives and deaths, if everything about an individual could be represented in a computer record by a long string of ones and zeros, then what kind of creature would be represented by a long string of lives and deaths? It would have to be up one level at least -- an angel, a minor god, something in a UFO. It would take eight human lives and deaths just to form one character in this being's name -- its complete dossier might take up a considerable piece of the history of the world. We are digits in God's computer, she not so much thought as hummed to herself to a sort of standard gospel tune, And the only thing we're good for, to be dead or to be living, is the only thing He sees. What we cry, what we contend for, in our world of toil and blood, it all lies beneath the notice of the hacker we call God."
Pynchon writes two distinct types of novels. V., Gravity's Rainbow, Mason & Dixon, and Against the Day are is big (literally) complexly plotted novels that frequently involve hundreds of characters and huge forces of history. They are my favorites, but they require serious commitment and even then can be difficult to read (I've never actually gotten through Mason & Dixon.)
He also writes smaller stories that generally focus on a single primary plot with a clear main character driving the story. These are The Crying of Lot 49, Vineland, Inherent Vice, and from the sound of the review, Bleeding Edge. These don't capture his insane manic complexity except in tiny flashes, but they are far easier to acclimate yourself to Pynchon.
I do think of his "simpler" novels, The Crying of Lot 49 gives the best taste of Pynchon's common obsessions. I enjoyed Inherent Vice and Vineland, but Lot 49 is much more finely polished.
The Crying of Lot 49 contains IMO one of the most hilarious sustained passages in all of modern American Lit. It's a parody of a typical Jacobean revenge like Webster's "Duchess of Malfi." The parody is pitch-perfect. It mocks every convention of the genre, including -- especially -- the preposterous violence.
The Crying of Lot 49 is also good to start with because it's only 150 pages or so.
His collection of short stories, Slow Learner, has some gems in it. I really liked the second story, Low-lands, the last time I read it.
Around 20 years ago, when I was in college, I collected as much of his non-book stuff as I could and put it on a web page. Oddly, it seems it has survived: http://www.pynchon.pomona.edu/uncollected/index.html
My favorite from Slow Learner was "Under the Rose", which he later turned into a chapter of V. I loved the absurdism, steampunk-ish bits, and theme of history as chaotic. They're all pretty good, though.
That's Pynchon. You're describing Pynchon. At least some of the time, and FWIW the reviewer definitely seems to get him & his style.
The 8th paragraph in there is an excerpt from the new book, you'll notice it is 3 sentences, and the 3rd sentence begins about 10-15% of the way in and the 2nd sentence is a mere 8 words. This is typical and there are times where you will stop and take 5+ minutes to review and unpack and digest a single sentence of his when he's really digging his heels in. The payoff however can be absolutely immense.
I'm a big fan of Mason & Dixon, which was the most difficult fun I've had reading a book in English. Gravity's Rainbow was also great fun. If you're a Buckaroo Banzai fan, and why wouldn't you be, you can thank Pynchon for the defense contractor Yoyodyne, which was appropriated from his novel V.
The reviewer is indulging in Pynchon-esque language here. Pynchon is hard to read, and people still debate the meaning of his books. You might enjoy them if you let go of expecting every sentence to make logical sense.
Pynchon is a lyricist and a madman, and he's damned good at being both. I wince when I read others trying to cop his style, even if momentarily. Troy Patterson is good, often really good, but he sounds fake here.
You left out "glinting rich and strange", which helps to make sense of "into our eternal souls".
Black pearls are rare with a somewhat subjective beauty, "unfathomable" can be interpreted literally in the analogy but also holds its normal meaning, and "any other diver" refers to any author but Pynchon.
Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
For this to work beautifully, we would fathom pearls when finding or collecting them. afaik only depths of water can be the literal object of the verb to fathom. It doesn't quite succeed, here. Which is likely why Pynchon is celebrated and the reviewer is reviewing him, rather than the reverse.
Like Yolesaber suggests, this is a gross mis-characterization. You need to read more and more widely. It's no longer 1935. And even then, at the height of modernism, a wide spectrum existed.
Edit: Obviously, reading literature is an entirely optional activity. I don't mean to suggest that you are obligated to do so. Only that to be familiar with the subjects that one makes claims about isn't such a horrible idea.
Except that the current vogue in modern literature is hyper-realist memoiristic writing which eschews the Moderist approach of purpled prose in favor of more intimate relations between characters without overbearing literary flourishes e.g. Jonathan Franzen
I recommend starting with "The Crying of Lot 49", then "V." Both are amazing and both were written when he was quite young (20s). "V." in particular is a stupendous debut novel. I've read it twice and both times I felt a sort of buzz that lasted for a few days, a sure sign I've read something meaningful in some sense (to me, anyway).