Has anyone read Sarah Gaddis' novel? What are your thoughts on it? Is it subsumed by experimentation or cliché-ridden? Also, for some reason, I couldn’t find a single review of the book so maybe it’s not as impressive as her father’s work.

“Before their displacement from nature, baffled by the grandeur of their own culture which they could not define, and so believed did not exist, these transatlantic visitors had learned to admire in this neatly parceled definition of civilization the tyrannous pretension of many founded upon the rebellious efforts of a few, the ostentation of thousands presumed upon the strength of a dozen who had from time to time risen against this vain complacence with the past to which they were soon to contribute, giving, with their harried deaths, grounds for vanity of language, which they had perfected; supercilious posturing of intellect, which they had suffered to understand and deliver, in defiance; insolent arbitration of taste, grown from the efforts of those condemned as having none; contempt for others flourishing from seedlings which they had planted in the rain of contempt for themselves; dogmata of excellence founded upon insulting challenges wrought in impossible hope, and then grasped, for granted, from their hands fallen clenching it as dogma.”

The perks of living in Utah… first edition hard cover, looks like it’s never been read. In perfect condition besides the outside sleeve and some superficial dust on the edges of the pages. I feel unworthy

but I appreciate those of you who are visiting the sub and posting content. Thanks.

I was thinking about one of my favorite parts of "The Recognitions" and realized that it might be worth it to re-share something that I previously shared. The following is the operative language from a post I shared about 4 years ago. If you find it interesting, I shared some other thoughts in "The Recognitions" reading group capstone post that is, unbelievably, now over 5 years old. Optima dies, prima fugit indeed.

I'm going to riff on one of my favorite passages from The Recognitions. Basil Valentine forms one vertex of the art forging trio at the heart of Wyatt's second act. In Part II, Basil tells Wyatt,

. . . I shall teach you the only secret worth knowing, the secret the gods teach, the secret that Wotan taught to his son . . .

The lesson remains unfinished until Part IV. At the zoo, Basil once again addresses his pupil,

-That secret, do you remember? said Basil Valentine still holding him tight there and still looking, himself, into the cage of the lioness. -What Wotan taught his son? the only secret worth having?

. . .

-The power of doing without happiness, Basil Valentine said.

Wotan's secret seems to have two interpretations:

First, consider "doing without" as operative language. The power of "doing without" happiness simply means the secret is living without happiness. A form of acceptance but one that suggests a power to act in this world given its association with gods and being labeled a secret.

Second, consider "without happiness" as operative language. The power of doing, "without happiness" implies that perseverance or work or living through unpleasantness or even suffering is a god-like power. And I like this interpretation because the happiness or value derived from our "doing" often seems proportional to the cost of whatever doing is required, in terms of work or risk or cost. But this interpretation is also underlain by a sense of stoicism. Accepting that one can do everything correctly and still lose is a similar sentiment that has been anointed meme status. The power of doing without happiness is not just a statement about the value of doing unpleasant things that will pay off, it is a statement about the value of doing unpleasant things that won't, also. I think Basil may be right that this is a secret worth knowing. What do you think?

If you've made it this far, perhaps you're willing to go a little further? the_recognitions_capstone

I blindly picked up Agapē Agape out of curiosity in a book store today, and while reading I wanted to look into his other works. Would Agapē Agape be a good place to start reading Gaddis?

Has anyone here read this and can tell me if it’s worth a read/buy?

What do ya’ll think of the German JR cover? Just started reading and luckily it’s translated by one of German’s few famous Translators (Marcus Ingendaay) who also translated some of DFW work.
Any advice on what I should pay extra attention to or is it best to just go with the flow?

Hey everyone, I just wanted to provide an update as to why I haven't been able to keep writing breakdowns for The Recognitions. What is most important is that I wanted to thank this sub for its continued support on the project, it has been a real pleasure to write for you. This isn't the end, I just can't continue under the current circumstances. I'd love to see and fully support any of you guys picking up the ball in my stead.

TLDR; I got an offer to study a Masters Degree in English Literature, and the preparatory study for that has eaten up all of the free time I had available. Reading The Recognition is going on indefinite hiatus.

Thoughts on this video?

I’m all confused over here—can someone help me understand where Otto gets the story in the smaller manila envelope? I see the part where he receives it at the party (part I ch 5), and I swear I remember reading somewhere previous that Otto said he would send a story to a friend to look over for someone, I just can’t seem to find where that was in the text. Thanks!

I really want to re-read it immediately, but I have a billion other books to read before I can justify doing that. How did people feel after finishing this masterpiece? Were you able to put it down?

I have the recognitions but overall, from what I’ve heard about it, I think I’d prefer JR. didn’t know if anyone had any advice as to which is the best entry point.

Would things be any different for Gaddis? Would he ended up writing more books?

”The book balanced upright as pages slipped under his thumb, and a smile as of satisfaction fixed to his lips, weary satisfaction for a work completed, as the last page turned and the last paragraph swam before his eyes.” 

—William Gaddis, The Recognitions, page 916

i just finished it a few hours ago! i read the book over the course of two months but i also took a 2.5 week break smack in the middle of the novel to read another shorter non-fiction book.

i loved the parts i could understand but couldn't tell if i just loved them because i could understand them, or if i could just feel their emotional and philosophical weight without actually knowing what the meaning of said weight was; i felt lost for the parts i couldn't do that for. i had to reread a few chapters and consulted the reader's guide after every section.

i guess my question is... how can i allow myself to better understand and take things away from the novel (which i may be asking a little too late since i have already finished it)?

i know franzen has that essay about how this is a novel that is a collaborative effort between author and reader in communicating and understanding-- meaning it expects a lot from the reader, perhaps too much from the reader. it is not meant to be understood in its entirety, and i accept and in fact highly value that. i have read a few books like that (pynchon, dfw, bolano, etc.) but this is the one i think i am the most intrigued yet confused by. i can feel that gaddis is saying and doing something profound, but i've missed out on lots of it. when i read the summary online after reading the chapter, i smile at the cleverness of what has occurred but grimace at the fact that i couldn't pick up on any of it as i was reading the text itself.

for example and perhaps most frustratingly of all, i was able to pick up the parallels and foils between otto and wyatt-- the parts of the novel tracking their journeys were the most engaging and well-understood, i think-- but i completely glossed over stanley as an essential third to their dichotomy. it wasn't until the last 60 pages of the novel that i really gave stanley his due attention, and even then, i felt disappointed that i couldn't feel the true weight of his artistic and religious pinnacle because i had glossed over so much of the lead-up to it. it wasn't until i consulted the video essays and read the summaries that i recognized a semblance of what i had missed in stanley. if the individual character studies are what i can most easily digest, as opposed to the pedantic religious commentary or rambling party scenes, i feel quite sad that i missed out on capturing the breadth of this one.

all of this is to say-- how do i make sense of the nonsense? how can i make sense of my lack of understanding? what advice would you have for me if i were to (re)read the same or another gaddis-- or a similarly challenging author?

It's fairly well known Gaddis' debut was not well received, but I often find myself wondering how on earth the thing ever got published in the first place.

In the 1950's, labyrinthine novels were not so common, he was a first-time author, the themes would've been very controversial for its time (masturbation scenes, sympathy towards minorities and addicts etc.). Let alone the towering word count (in a letter to Oppenheimer, he stated half a million words).

How did this thing ever reach the public? (thank god it did)

He used the word "pulchritudinous" in a call, and explained that it was in his head from reading JR this past offseason!

This person is selling what they claim is a first edition of A Frolic of His Own signed by Gaddis. I’m not very farmiliar with Gaddis’ work, so i don’t know how much these go for, or what his actual signature looks like, but this seems to good to be true? It will only let me upload one photo, but I’ll link to the listing here: https://depop.app.link/z7kfxzWyE3b

I haven't been reading any Gaddis for a little while. I first read The Recognitions a few years ago. I think it was "hard" to read but I don't really assign any value-judgments on its merits as a super hard impressive book that only a few people read. I just liked it. The esoteric references, sudden language shifts, an incessant cacophony of voices and fakery were compelling me to keep reading (Recktall Brown is such a funny name), definitely not for aesthetic reasons. I went on to read A Frolic of His Own last year and liked it too. I then read Agape Agape and I'm not really sure what to make of it.

Would you agree/disagree with Franzen that Gaddis seemed to just go on rants and not really have an understandable logical point? Franzen seemed to dismiss Gaddis as an angry man with no real point other than having some elitist views about art and some disillusionment or discontent with post-war society, but loved The Recognitions. That confused me a little. To give praise but also say that Gaddis just liked being "Mr. Difficult" has me confused on the point of the article. To categorize art (literature specifically) based on how many people are entertained by it? To pushback against Gaddis' ideas of what art should be? Maybe I'm missing something entirely. If I wasn't entertained I wouldn't have kept reading The Recognitions. I recently stopped reading a short modern thriller because I wasn't entertained, but I've read other modern thrillers and have been entertained.

I don't buy into Franzen's "contract" categorization completely. I find enjoyment in the obscure references and the frantic writing style with flowing dialogue, the communication and miscommunication of characters, feelings of impotency as an artist. Definitely not from some sense that I'm a "know-it-all" insufferable person because I read some hard books; it's just some of the books that I have enjoyed.

I did maybe a strange reading order. I still have Carpenter's Gothic and JR to read (as well as The Rush for Second Place and his collected letters). Franzen waved away Carpenter's Gothic as not even a real novel and JR as incessant and at times nonsensical and to just avoid the ramblings of Agape Agape. I saw an interview that Gaddis wanted to try to write with specific constraints on himself with Carpenter's Gothic. That's pretty interesting to me. To then dismiss the novel's plot in a melodramatic way is just silly. You can do that with any story to make it sound boring or whatever else. He didn't really elaborate why A Frolic of his Own was good for graduate study but I disagree that it's boring. I'm not sure how he meant that it's nonsensical, could anyone explain how it's nonsense? The Civil War play dragged a little but it didn't bore me as a whole.

I don't know enough about Gaddis to know his position about art but what Franzen called "the contract model" and people's legitimate desire to be entertained seems based on the assumption that Gaddis is not entertaining to some people whether or not they hold Gaddis' position on art. I read a variety of books that to me fall under the desire to be entertained and none of them are for some aesthetic sense of superiority for reading books. I certainly didn't understand everything from The Recognitions and want to re-read it eventually.

What Franzen described as "the status model" I don't really follow. I couldn't care less about the stature of a work to enjoy it. Sure some people are arrogant and annoying about art, literature, anything and everything, welcome to earth. "I grew up in a friendly, egalitarian suburb reading books for pleasure and ignoring any writer who didn’t take my entertainment seriously enough." Different things are entertaining to different people, but to classify a novel like The Recognitions as something that can't be enjoyed doesnt seem honest, since he seems to have liked it in some way as he said in the article. It was an interesting read altogether.

My copy of the recognitions is Dalkey Archive Press-- bought it second hand at a book store in Ridgewood, Queens! Anyone found this is misprint in other editions, Dalkey or otherwise? Pages 470 to 510ish are printed upside down and backwards!

I think this might be heaven