the last time I felt something reading anything post-WWII was about a year and a half ago when I picked this up. didn't make it past the first few hundred pages because of personal reasons and I never really got back to it. not Houellebecq, not no Knausgård or Beckett, not even Bernhard whom I consider to be a true titan of 20th c. literature, one I absolutely regret not being able to read in the original German, made as immediate an impression on me as Gaddis' condensed, surchargé, relentless prose. In fact, of all the authors mentioned above and their underlying projects that served as both the means and ends of their respective œuvres, Gaddis' encyclopedic approach, while not as interesting as Beckett's linguistic fragmentation as catharsis or the political predictor/provocateur whoremonger Houellebecq, seems to me the most efficient. Knausgård, just to say a few words on him and authors of the same strain en passant, the yuppie, stream-of-consciousness, refuses-to -acknowledge-they-read, or maybe even unironically chooses to not read any classics for fear of losing "voice", or some similar effeminate notion, is just that: effeminate. I don't see how the novel as a form can progress beyond encyclopedic doorstoppers.
>>24847562>I don't see how the novel as a form can progress beyond encyclopedic doorstoppers.Beckett, when he was still Joyce's follower, realized he could never succeed Ulysses in maximalism, so he headed towards the opposite extreme of minimalism. While Godot is the peak of minimalist theatre, I don't believe Beckett reached the potential of minimalism in prose. It has yet to be achieved.
Haven't read this one yet. Knausgard reads books and talks about it, though. So it seems like a strange line of attack. He don't care about voice. Cheers
>>24847569admittedly, that part was used as bait. I'm reminded of the anecdote, certainly apocryphal, involving Wittgenstein who bragged about never reading Greek philosophy and then getting caught in an alley in Oxford carrying those exact same books>>24847567all of this labeling and terminology-ing has a certain distasteful quantitative element to it. what is really meant by minimalism here? fewer words, less words? compared to what? why not write poems? can they ever surpass anything not already tried by Mallarmé, who said that the sum of human knowledge, and I'm paraphrasing, can be captured in book-form? doesn't that go beyond the maximalism/minimalism dichotomy into unexplored territory?
>>24847644my only experience with American doorstoppers (why are they only able to publish experimental writing when it's thick like a burger?) is Gravity's Rainbow, and that one, to me, loops around into a conscious acceptance of the novel as a division of the author's mind. everything 'encyclopedic' that people get from it is interesting but secondary. some knowledge, sure, but never without this warping lens. is Gaddis somewhere along these lines as well?
>>24847671“The Recognitions gives the illusion of encyclopedic scope, but its learning is the symptom of its subject: a civilization so aware of its own decline that it can only repeat, imitate, and quote.”
bump
>>24847732i have a suspicion that the entire work is a masterpiece cento poem.>>24847562this book unironically pushed me into christianity. it's undoubtedly my favorite of all novels.
>>24847644>why not write poems? Because you asked about novels in the OP>what is really meant by minimalism here?The opposite of these encyclopedia doorstoppers you keep yammering on about.
>>24847569and this is what I mean by Knausgård's strain of contemporary autofiction literati and how they glorify not reading or not having read: >Ever since 1998 his books have been recommended to me, most often The Elementary Particles, by one friend in particular, who says the same thing every time I see him. You have to read The Elementary Particles, he tells me, it’s incredible, the best book I’ve ever read. Several times I’ve been on the verge of heeding his advice, plucking The Elementary Particles from its place on my shelf and considering it for a while, though always returning it unread. The resistance to starting a book by Houellebecq is too great. I’m not entirely sure where it comes from, though I do have a suspicion, because the same thing goes for the films of Lars von Trier: when Antichrist came out I couldn’t bring myself to see it, either in the cinema or at home on the DVD I eventually bought, which remains in its box unwatched. They’re simply too good. What prevents me from reading Houellebecq and watching Von Trier is a kind of envy—not that I begrudge them success, but by reading the books and watching the films I would be reminded of how excellent a work of art can be, and of how far beneath that level my own work is. Such a reminder, which can be crushing, is something I shield myself from by ignoring Houellebecq’s books and Von Trier’s films. That may sound strange, and yet it can hardly be unusual.Knausgård - In The Land of The Cyclops, Michel Houellebecq's Submission it's a very common theme and after a while it gets harder and harder not to notice it.
>>24848506listen, pigfuck I don't make the rules. If you say shit like maximalism and minimalism and you're not a home decorator, I am going to assume you are a faggot
>>24847671>is Gaddis somewhere along these lines as well?The Gaddis of The Recognitions is more of a Classicist in the “encyclopedic knowledge” spread throughout the book, interested in Western high culture (classic art, literature, classical music, theology, and philosophy as the major sources of the allusions in the book, for example). In a way his testament to the Western canon, but also used as source-material for a grand sweeping satire that, among other things, is about the inauthenticity and unoriginality of some of our modern culture and its members; also an Eliot-like portrayal of its decline into a wasteland, having degenerated from its great roots.The way Pynchon makes his books “encyclopedic”, on the other hand, in his doorstoppers, is more interdisciplinary (with STEM allusions), also more focused on the specific historical times and places he’s portraying, and not as limited to just Western high-culture/a sort of classicism. The major way is through the historical minutiae and knowledge he infuses in the novels of his that can rightly be called “encyclopedic” (GR, M&D, AtD), from the pop culture of that historical time/place, to the slang and use of language, to the current events, news stories, and common knowledge that’d be known by those people or predominant in their minds. Then, besides that, relevant scientific fields or knowledge shows up, like from engineering, chemistry, biology, psychology, neuroscience, astronomy, geography/surveying, mathematics, etc. An especial hobbyhorse of his is the *history* of science, including antiquated scientific theories or beliefs. Then, finally, on top of that, the smorgasbord of whatever else Pynchon feels the need to include that becomes relevant to the story; like the occult, cults, and (beliefs in/practices having to do with the) paranormal, some specific point of the law, or anthropology, some non-Western religion’s beliefs/practices, or whatever. Gaddis does this a bit too but the bulk of the allusions are to Western high culture, thought, art.So I wouldn’t box Gaddis with this claim:>… loops around into a conscious acceptance of the novel as a division of the author's mind,If anything, instead, Gaddis has a more modernist-like lofty view of the novel precisely being able to transcend the author’s and readers’ ordinary limited minds/selfhoods, their subjective limitations, but instead becomes a grand panorama that’s all the greater of a true portrayal of the world, through its experimentation and allusive depth.Notably, Gaddis based the structure of the novel on Hieronymus Bosch’s triptyches, for what it’s worth (besides the framework of the Faust legend & its roots in the Clementinian Recognitions, an old Christian text). A vast sweeping view also with lots of details, meant to suggest complexity and panorama of the modern world.
>>24848518>pigfuck> shitdo we have to use that kind of language here? this is the home of the world's /literati, not some common saloon
>>24848591Yer one of those faeries or niggerlovers I reckon, he spat.
>>24847562>novel formOnly midwits use these terms and it's not surprising that the writers they love also had such midwit ambitions
>>24847671There are a lot of ""experimental"" books that aren't big at all. It's just that people who love doorstoppers tend to be loud manchildren more than others.
>>24849199seethe
>>24849199What do you mean? Genuinely curious
>>24849731You can safely dismiss a writer if he/she ever uses the term "novel form" and wants to save/revive/revise it. Only those writers who don't have an urgent vision use that term as a crutch, as if writing is some sort of job and some spice needs to be added to it once in a while to keep it interesting for the new kids.
>>24847567>headed towards the opposite extreme of minimalism.trite claim that's obviously untrue if you've read the trilogy. he was simply trying to do something else. fourfold exhaustions, amnesias, aimless trudging, autism...
>>24849775Oh that makes sense actually
>>24849775>safely dismiss whatever happened to just: not for me. or at best, should the phrasing seem too vulgar: not in accordance with my aesthetic sensibilities.
>>24849851You don't care about art
>>24849896says the plotfag retard who thinks revising, reviving, modernizing and experimenting are mere crutches and compensation for a lack of substance
>>24848436>The Recognitions as a cento poeminteresting. elaborate?
>>24849925>plotfagLol. You're a retard
>>24847562Can this book be my first gaddis? Or should i read JR first?
>>24849950just everything seems to be repeated throughout the work, and the true breadth of gaddis' research along with the obvious ottoan theme of copying down practically everything gives me the impression that what was included was everborrowed, a continuous, perhaps at times fudged, cento, an entire novel collage composed of shreds of newspapers and overheard conversations and pillowtalk moments all bundled together. i wouldn't put it past him given that it took him something like ten years, as well as how bizarre his one speech of his i've seen, wherein he appeared to be utterly incapable of charisma. it suggests to me he does a lot more listening than speaking, and some small dim thought finally occurred to me, >does he have a voice of his own at all?plus cento poems as a concept are cool, and the moment i learned they existed, was the same moment my mind connected the two. all that shit i just said is a just-now invented attempt to explicate this (probably totally wrong) intuition.as you can imagine, being this prone to impulsive misinterpretation makes literature quite the experience. like bloom's map of misreading. (at least i think so, i've only ever seen the title of it)
>>24849988solid post! cheers. Lautréamont did the same thing in his Chants, although, based off what you've described, to a lesser degree or in a less methodical way, interdiscursive/textual (what amounts to 30-45 pages of what surrealists dubbed "plagiat par anticipation" of the complete 300 page novel) rather than oral/converstional transcription.
>>24850033interesting, i figured the idea must have been used in other cases, especially considering the popularity of things like oulipo and surrealism in the literary scenes over the ages. i think if gaddis did do such a thing, he made damn sure to pick literature that was so subversive, so unknown and dusty, that it would take a genius to discover where he got everything. looking at the depths of research steven more took to just get a working set of annotations for his reference, it really wouldn't shock me to find that he was only scratching the surface with all that. i really do love the book, for whatever it's worth. it gave me insights to what fulfillment in art really might look like had i attained it, and how empty i would have still felt standing on top of the mountain. as a subgenius, the only vantages i've been afforded have been those which allowed me to see what perhaps a true genius looks like, the adumbrations of them *just* palpable enough to send me into hysterics. reading through the recognitions a second time many years later had nothing of the same effect on me, however, i did feel some sense of confirmation that being led to christ *was* his intention, in what i think is a relatively unmentioned cameo appearance of the author himself, where his purpose in writing the thing seemed to be expressed through a half conversation heard through basil valentine. (the advice given about the clementine recognitions somewhere around 60% of the way through perhaps)
>>24849988>does he have a voice of his own at all?i ask the same question about david mitchell
>>24849961Read him in order of publication.
>>24849988it's giving "business major rails fat lines and immediately comes up with an idea for a disposable writing utensil made from a renewable resource with a composite core which leaves dark marks like an ink pen, but you can erase them, we'll call it a penette, this is BRAND new we are going to be so RICH"unironically turn the screen off and go outside
>>24850191that's nice, thanks for your comment!
>>24850216what's your favorite dinosaur
>>24850227ankylosaurus i guess, though the diplodocus will always have a special place in my heart. i don't know, really. hard to say without really knowing what they're like living and breathing.
>>24848518>encyclopedic doorstopperkill yourself
>>24850240what's your credit score
>>24848506>>24849951>>24850191>>24850243a blight on this board. all of you (but most likely a single poster) posturing as cynical og 4channers, adding nothing to the conversation and chimping out for (You)s. >it's givingyou know you don't HAVE to comment, right?it was a nice effortpost from what seems to me a fairly intelligent reader, who has his own opinions and points of reference. the observation about leading the reader to Christ being the intention of the author was illuminating.
>>24850431>waaahh waaahhh why won't the other kids play nice wahhhh
>>24850431worry not. that's my son. my cruelty and negativity has all but murked up this board for days. those are the consequences of my actions made flesh. love you for defending me, though. very kind.
>>24850191>it's givingRetarded faggot.
