Reading "The Recognitions", Drink in Hand.
The Gaddis Annotations Site and their annotations of the Recognitions.
RSS/XML Site Feed
[Section] [pages] [date]
2.3 390-445 (1/16)
2.4 446-486 (1/23)
2.5 487-541 (1/30)
2.6 542-567 (2/6)
2.7 568-646 (2/13)
2.8 647-699 (2/20)
2.9 700-720 (2/27)
3.1 723-732 + 3.2 733-768 (3/6)
3.3 769-823 (3/13)
3.4 824-855 (3/20)
3.5 856-900 (3/27)
Epilogue 901-956 (4/3)
Hey, I actually made it in time for the Thursday discussion. I'm "in the club" as OPTR would say. Anyone around for Gaddisy goodness?
posted by Scott Esposito @ 9:19 PM
(Here) I am I said.I amenable to any kind of goodness. My reading for this section was done in two well separated stages thanks to some Christmas vacationing, so I may be stoopider than usual.
What do you make of Otto/Esme and Wyatt/Esme? That Esme sounds like one interesting woman.
Pardon me from going off topic, but I am curious to what response/reaction if any you have to this:"As a writer, it is important to understand how critics look at fiction, what they look for, how they analyze structure, symbolism, plot, etc."I put this here b/c I presume some of you are writers/crtics/both (I am neither a writer nor critic). To me this idea sees curious -- that you need to understand the critic to write ficion (as opposed to understanding say, more generally, "the reader" -- also a curious idea to me)(I found this while goggling for "the medium of fiction" that mr. esposito had blogged about today.)http://www.towson.edu/~sallen/COURSES/SYLLABI/676-Spr03.htmlIt also reminded me of the passage from T.Recs (pg 335)"It's [criticism] the most important art now, it's the one we need most now. Criticism is the art we need most today. But not, don't you see? not the "if I'd done it myself..." Yes a, a disciplined nostalgia, disciplined recognitions but not, no,...."I'm not sure I understood that passage clearly, so I'm curious for your takes on that as well. Why would critism be more important than "real" art? (real meaning orginal in my inarticulate head).
I agree that Esme is intriguing. Initially I didn't give her much thought when she was introduced as part of the party scene. (Most of my attention was on Otto at that point). Now, it looks like there really is a lot more to her and she may be the most intriguing to me along with Basil.Also, the way Gaddis introduces the characters and then connects them later is amazing. I fear my disjointed reading habit may be doing a diservice to this, but at times I feel like I am reading a soap opera where references to past & future allow me to catch up in a short time after not watching for a while. Particularly, at the end of this section on the morning after the Saturnalia...also reminds me a bit of the adventures in Confederacy of Dunces -- (which I am reminded of often as of late). But what Gaddis is doing is truly remarkable.
I'm finally here. Considering points made above. More TK.
Re: criticism.It's ("nameless") Wyatt who sez that about criticism, I believe. I'm guessing he desires a sort of corrective criticism that would act as a cure-all to the philistinism he sees around him, one that separates the wheat from the chaff. (And also one that helps place a work in its historical context, I'm guessing--perhaps that's what he's getting at with "disciplined nostalgia, disciplined recognitions").I dunno; I could be way off. That's not a very comfortable idea of criticism for some people, but it would make sense for Wyatt to say it, especially given that he's surrounded with fakes, self-publishing poets, bad playwrights--with nauseating ad campaigns blaring from every radio.
Post a Comment
Drunken Gaddis Readers are not responsible for the content of their posts... unless it sounds really smart and you want to steal it.