he spent over a decade on the work iirc.
he very likely had some sort of patronage which afforded him a great number of esoteric texts, as well. some of the references he makes are to works which aren't in publication, or if they are, they're hundreds of dollars.
i don't think he beats Joyce by any means, but I will say that his hidden goal of salvation is quite impressive, and it definitely worked in me subtleties which bore the fruits of faith, and for that I am indebted to him.
Some people think so but not really, the religious stuff is often used as an example of forgery. I would say its view of religion is that faith becomes a forgery if you don't treat it as personal as you would sex or the texture of your bowl movements, things you only discuss with those closest to you or those who have a professional interest, It is compatible with any religion assuming you are not the sort who gets triggered by other religions.
I picked this up again the other day, does he ever let up on the long descriptive passages? I feel like the reason he moved to writing all in dialog was because he realized he was too autistic to write any other way. He has some moments but he is just sort of spinning his wheels, does not actually say much, just keeps describing things in round about ways. I could see it as him setting things up and things will get more focused further in, but I could also see him just doing this for 1000 pages and I am not sure I am into that. I have started it a few times now but always get burned out on how little is actually said considering the verbosity, he does not even use all those extra words to build nuance.
So is this just setup and the narrative focuses in more as you progress or should I just skip to JR?
The narrative doesn’t really pick up in that sense, it just fluctuates between long descriptive passages in ornate prose and frenetic party scenes written near entirely in unattributed dialogue. I prefer the themes in The Recognitions but find it most engaging when it experiments with this dizzy information-overload party scenes of myriad voices that he would go on to refine in JR.
Flipped ahead and it looks like I only have a dozen odd pages to go before the first big bit of unattributed dialog, suppose I will push on through that and then see how I feel about things. Your description of the party scenes being information overload suggests an interesting contrast that suggests some sense with theme as he presents it so far, the dense and ornate but largely empty contrasted with the sparse and simple but dense dialogue, hopefully that contrast works for me.
He does do some interesting things with the language and he has my interest with the ways he is setting up theme and exploring what authenticity is but he really does not say much with all those words, I reread a few parts just to see if I missed something but I am fairly certain I didn't. The often posted subway passage is what got my attention for this one but I am thinking it is an outlier, he has yet to use the ornament so effectively with ever word so intimately tied to what he is describing, its just ornament most of the time.
Probably does not help that my read before this was The Making of Americans where you have to give each and every single word your full and undivided attention.
Personally, I would avoid it. Gass and David Foster Wallace both love it. Have you read either of their literary criticism? Tells you all you need to know.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What are you even trying to say?
https://i.imgur.com/pUnGkec.jpg
When did he deny Pynchon's influence on him??
He didn't, he said that he did not read Lot 49 until after BotS started getting compared to it. He had read V. and GR by that point and never hid the influence. Will never understand the comparisons of BotS to Lot 49, so far the only argument I have seen for it is "its obvious."
2 months ago
Anonymous
You (or some other anon idk) seem to be reluctant to continue with the book. My recommendation is to not read it based off my analysis of Gass and Wallace. Their literary criticism is so midwit and they’ve proven themselves incapable of deep analysis that I take anything either one of them likes with a large grain of salt. This book happens to be loved by both of them, ergo you (or maybe a different anon) should avoid this book like the fricking plague.
Oh? Two of the most esteemed writers of our time both love it? But you, some random incel, don't? Whose opinion should I trust? HHhhhmmmmm....that's a hard one. moron.
Seethe. I form my own opinions, buddy.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Gass absolutely loved the magic mountain though, and that book is a colossus. One of the best. Touché, mr. freshman.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Gass had the blandest literary taste imaginable. His literary opinions never step out the line, much like what you'd expect from the average IQfy pseud.
Maybe that's why his fiction wasn't very good and comfortably trailed his non-fiction in quality.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I know what you literally said, I was referring to your asinine logic and the conflicting subtext caused by your ignorance. Gass and Wallace did not engage in criticism, they were essayists, Gass has some works which overlap some into criticism and a great deal of stuff of interest to criticism but not criticism, Wallace wrote a few reviews that are not even close to criticism. Your post was just an excuse to cry about authors you don't like and probably never read.
I was not reluctant to continue the book, just was not in the mood for 1000 pages of those nearly empty descriptive paragraphs and wanted to know if things would change, anon informed me there was more and I saw a purpose to those paragraphs so continued on. Enjoying it for the most part even if I have to struggle on occasion. Surprisingly quick reading.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Oh? Two of the most esteemed writers of our time both love it? But you, some random incel, don't? Whose opinion should I trust? HHhhhmmmmm....that's a hard one. moron.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Two of the most esteemed writers of our time
Who? Because the post you're replying to says Gass and Wallace and they're definitely not
One of my favorite anecdotes is Steven Moore said DFW revered Gaddis and they would have conversations about him. Apparently DFW was already reading The Recognitions in the eighties. I don't if it had had its revival by then. But they're my two favorite authors so I'm glad DFW was a fan of him. I think that party scene where the PGOAT overdoses has a lot in common with Gaddis' party scenes with the floating dialogue, so maybe there's some debt there.
kek I do love the difficult books myself, but once you figure out the book's rhythm they're usually not that bad. so basically post-modernism, excluding Vonnegut? Surprised to see Heller on there as well. There's a couple on that list I haven't checked out at all, thanks for unintentional recs anon.
What was difficult about them for him was he was reading them for the wrong reasons, an arbitrary list of authors he singled out as signifying what he wanted to be as an author despite having not read them. But he grew up some and approached them differently later on.
for me it's the juxtaposition of high and low he pulls off so well
>Beside the empty cradle of the white telephone, a vase held erect against green six bird-of-paradise flowers, Strelitzia reginae, also called wild banana in South Africa where they grow naturally profuse, blue-tongued exotic orange protrusions from the deep purple-green bill, silently mating there among the native white pear, the red ivory, black stinkwood, and umzimbiti. >Mickey Mouse pointed to four o’clock.
900 pages of ‘you’re all a bunch of pseuds’
sounds awesome
he spent over a decade on the work iirc.
he very likely had some sort of patronage which afforded him a great number of esoteric texts, as well. some of the references he makes are to works which aren't in publication, or if they are, they're hundreds of dollars.
i don't think he beats Joyce by any means, but I will say that his hidden goal of salvation is quite impressive, and it definitely worked in me subtleties which bore the fruits of faith, and for that I am indebted to him.
>he very likely had some sort of patronage
he was a well off white dude that was able to dick around with his mommy's money
So all those years he spent employed and trying to get grants was just a hobby he had on the side?
Yea
Wasn't he intelligence
>that his hidden goal of salvation is quite impressive
Tell me more about this. Recognitions is a Christian work?
Some people think so but not really, the religious stuff is often used as an example of forgery. I would say its view of religion is that faith becomes a forgery if you don't treat it as personal as you would sex or the texture of your bowl movements, things you only discuss with those closest to you or those who have a professional interest, It is compatible with any religion assuming you are not the sort who gets triggered by other religions.
Because the Gadds is fricking angry as hell most of the time. All of his books are about being fricking pissed about art, shits great.
Is it worth trying to read JR? The dialogue is annoying
I picked this up again the other day, does he ever let up on the long descriptive passages? I feel like the reason he moved to writing all in dialog was because he realized he was too autistic to write any other way. He has some moments but he is just sort of spinning his wheels, does not actually say much, just keeps describing things in round about ways. I could see it as him setting things up and things will get more focused further in, but I could also see him just doing this for 1000 pages and I am not sure I am into that. I have started it a few times now but always get burned out on how little is actually said considering the verbosity, he does not even use all those extra words to build nuance.
So is this just setup and the narrative focuses in more as you progress or should I just skip to JR?
The narrative doesn’t really pick up in that sense, it just fluctuates between long descriptive passages in ornate prose and frenetic party scenes written near entirely in unattributed dialogue. I prefer the themes in The Recognitions but find it most engaging when it experiments with this dizzy information-overload party scenes of myriad voices that he would go on to refine in JR.
Flipped ahead and it looks like I only have a dozen odd pages to go before the first big bit of unattributed dialog, suppose I will push on through that and then see how I feel about things. Your description of the party scenes being information overload suggests an interesting contrast that suggests some sense with theme as he presents it so far, the dense and ornate but largely empty contrasted with the sparse and simple but dense dialogue, hopefully that contrast works for me.
He does do some interesting things with the language and he has my interest with the ways he is setting up theme and exploring what authenticity is but he really does not say much with all those words, I reread a few parts just to see if I missed something but I am fairly certain I didn't. The often posted subway passage is what got my attention for this one but I am thinking it is an outlier, he has yet to use the ornament so effectively with ever word so intimately tied to what he is describing, its just ornament most of the time.
Probably does not help that my read before this was The Making of Americans where you have to give each and every single word your full and undivided attention.
Personally, I would avoid it. Gass and David Foster Wallace both love it. Have you read either of their literary criticism? Tells you all you need to know.
What are you even trying to say?
He didn't, he said that he did not read Lot 49 until after BotS started getting compared to it. He had read V. and GR by that point and never hid the influence. Will never understand the comparisons of BotS to Lot 49, so far the only argument I have seen for it is "its obvious."
You (or some other anon idk) seem to be reluctant to continue with the book. My recommendation is to not read it based off my analysis of Gass and Wallace. Their literary criticism is so midwit and they’ve proven themselves incapable of deep analysis that I take anything either one of them likes with a large grain of salt. This book happens to be loved by both of them, ergo you (or maybe a different anon) should avoid this book like the fricking plague.
Seethe. I form my own opinions, buddy.
Gass absolutely loved the magic mountain though, and that book is a colossus. One of the best. Touché, mr. freshman.
Gass had the blandest literary taste imaginable. His literary opinions never step out the line, much like what you'd expect from the average IQfy pseud.
Maybe that's why his fiction wasn't very good and comfortably trailed his non-fiction in quality.
I know what you literally said, I was referring to your asinine logic and the conflicting subtext caused by your ignorance. Gass and Wallace did not engage in criticism, they were essayists, Gass has some works which overlap some into criticism and a great deal of stuff of interest to criticism but not criticism, Wallace wrote a few reviews that are not even close to criticism. Your post was just an excuse to cry about authors you don't like and probably never read.
I was not reluctant to continue the book, just was not in the mood for 1000 pages of those nearly empty descriptive paragraphs and wanted to know if things would change, anon informed me there was more and I saw a purpose to those paragraphs so continued on. Enjoying it for the most part even if I have to struggle on occasion. Surprisingly quick reading.
Oh? Two of the most esteemed writers of our time both love it? But you, some random incel, don't? Whose opinion should I trust? HHhhhmmmmm....that's a hard one. moron.
>Two of the most esteemed writers of our time
Who? Because the post you're replying to says Gass and Wallace and they're definitely not
Such beautiful prose. Too bad he went for the almost all dialogue approach after this one.
>Too bad he went for the almost all dialogue approach after this one.
yea that was cringe
One of my favorite anecdotes is Steven Moore said DFW revered Gaddis and they would have conversations about him. Apparently DFW was already reading The Recognitions in the eighties. I don't if it had had its revival by then. But they're my two favorite authors so I'm glad DFW was a fan of him. I think that party scene where the PGOAT overdoses has a lot in common with Gaddis' party scenes with the floating dialogue, so maybe there's some debt there.
>I just HECKING LOOOVVEEE Gaddis and Delillo AwwoooGGAHHHH AAAAwwwwhhhhooooggahhhh
so even back then that fraud was denying pynchon's influence on him
When did he deny Pynchon's influence on him??
>It's so hecki' HARD!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Difficult
kek I do love the difficult books myself, but once you figure out the book's rhythm they're usually not that bad. so basically post-modernism, excluding Vonnegut? Surprised to see Heller on there as well. There's a couple on that list I haven't checked out at all, thanks for unintentional recs anon.
What was difficult about them for him was he was reading them for the wrong reasons, an arbitrary list of authors he singled out as signifying what he wanted to be as an author despite having not read them. But he grew up some and approached them differently later on.
Picrel really needs more love, Elkin is great.
>Cervantes and Melville are heckin' HARD!!!!!!
School is out, morons are here.
he doesn't
some parts had me lauging so hard, surprised by how funny it is
The part about the religious aunt almost having an axiety attack because the kid said "by-goddest rabbit I ever damn saw" was hilarious.
for me it's the juxtaposition of high and low he pulls off so well
>Beside the empty cradle of the white telephone, a vase held erect against green six bird-of-paradise flowers, Strelitzia reginae, also called wild banana in South Africa where they grow naturally profuse, blue-tongued exotic orange protrusions from the deep purple-green bill, silently mating there among the native white pear, the red ivory, black stinkwood, and umzimbiti.
>Mickey Mouse pointed to four o’clock.
I've never read this book and don't own it, but I have JR, and some people say that is his superior work compared to The Recognitions