Darconville's Cat

[Anonymous No.17275391]

I've heard that this is secretly one of the greatest novels of all time, but it's out of print. Has anyone read it, and if so, would they give their opinion on it?

[Anonymous No.17276596]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17277362]

Great book, worth the 80 bucks it is going for online.

[Anonymous No.17277386]

>>17275391

>go to wikipedia to read the plot
>it's yet another book about a mopey depressed academic on a college campus

Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.17278231]

bump

[Anonymous No.17279235]

bump

[Anonymous No.17279249]

Darconvilles cat, An Adultery, Laura Warholic unsurpassed misogyny trilogy.

[Anonymous No.17279817]

>>17275391
I have his collected works

[Anonymous No.17279881]

>>17275391
A. Theroux is the best living author. He is /lit/, and simply put, he is the Melville of today.

[Anonymous No.17279940]

>>17277362
>>17279249
>>17279817
>>17279881
Based Therouxfrens
Alexander Theroux would be /lit/'s favorite author if he was still in print. It's a shame that NYRB will probably never publish him because he's not politically correct

[Anonymous No.17279957]

>>17279940
His poetry is great too.

[Anonymous No.17279969]

>satire of American academics
lmaooo

[Anonymous No.17279979]

>>17279940
why is his stuff out of print

[Anonymous No.17280001]

>>17279979
The best of America always go out of print

[Anonymous No.17280049]

>>17279979
Theroux refuses to sell the publishing rights to an indie press, and he'll never get published by a mainstream one due to the density and difficulty of his books as well as his politically incorrect content. He said last year in an interview that his Collected Stories were recently rejected by McSweeneys. But make no mistake, he's one of the best living novelists in America – the current climate of the publishing industry couldn't be any less hospitable to him

[Anonymous No.17280066]

>>17279979
Theroux's other three novels (Laura Warholic, An Adultery, Three Wogs) are still in print. He doesn't seem to want to sell the publishing rights for Darconville's Cat to an indie press, and he'll never get published by a mainstream one due to the density and difficulty of his books as well as his politically incorrect content. He said last year in an interview that his Collected Stories were recently rejected by McSweeneys. But make no mistake, he's one of the best living novelists in America –the current climate of the publishing industry couldn't be any less hospitable to him

[Anonymous No.17280116]

i bet op bought a copy of this at a yard sale somewhere for really cheap and now realized that even though his isbn scanner told him it was worth $80, but now it's not selling, so he's trying to influence some chuds into buying this out of print cack. You can probably dox op by finding whoever is selling this shit on Ebay at the moment.

[Anonymous No.17280174]

>>17275391
Overrated writer pushed by Moore-fags but even less talented than Gaddis. Would have had zero success if it wasn't for his status and ties in academia. Don't waste your time.

[Anonymous No.17280186]

>>17280174
But you don't think that Gaddis is talented? Even Harold Bloom, Cynthia Ozick, Don DeLillo, Francine Prose etc liked Gaddis

[Anonymous No.17280243]

Here's a sample of Darconville's Cat from Open Library

(you can read it yourself https://archive.org/stream/darconvillescat00ther#page/6/mode/2up))

[Anonymous No.17280254]

>>17280186
Gaddis is a good writer with a single masterpiece but doesn't deserve the very recent idolization he gets on here from Moore and his acolytes. Even if we are confined to American literature, Pynchon and McCarthy are more talented novelists than Gaddis. J R is probably one of the great novels of the American 20th century but the rest of his work is not comparable, not even close. And unlike Gaddis, Theroux doesn't even have a J R.

[Anonymous No.17280266]

>>17280243
that was quite enough for me. awful.

[Anonymous No.17280310]

>>17280254
The Recognitions is certainly comparable in quality to J R, in my opinion and that of many others.

Darconville's Cat is not a perfect book, but it deserves to be remembered. Theroux is one of the best English prose stylists of the past century. Could you expound what you didn't like about it? I don't think it's fair to call Theroux overrated, for he is virtually unknown and hardly rated at all.

[Anonymous No.17280475]

>>17280310
>The Recognitions is certainly comparable in quality to J R
Sure, Moore-Fag. Even Gass doesn't grovel to this extent for The Recognitions and Gaddis's cock has made a nest under his tongue for many years now.
>for he is virtually unknown
Ah yes, just like how Gaddis was 'unknown' and brought to the literary surface by Master Moore! Of course, he is known, he just wasn't talented enough to keep in conversation so everyone moved on. You clearly have no knowledge of who is regarded or discussed in academic and literary circles, but keep shilling 'unknown' authors you learned about last year from the internet in service of King Moore. I have no doubt he is proud.

[Anonymous No.17280611]

>>17280475
>Even Gass doesn't grovel to this extent for The Recognitions and Gaddis's cock has made a nest under his tongue for many years now.

The Recognitions has received much more attention than J R. Faggot.

>Ah yes, just like how Gaddis was 'unknown' and brought to the literary surface by Master Moore! Of course, he is known, he just wasn't talented enough to keep in conversation so everyone moved on.

Fucking HERMAN MELVILLE went into obscurity for 28 years after his death. Fitzgerald died believing himself a failure. Don't pretend as if the current zeitgeist is the final arbiter of what is great, you stupid faggot.

>You clearly have no knowledge of who is regarded or discussed in academic and literary circles, but keep shilling 'unknown' authors you learned about last year from the internet in service of King Moore. I have no doubt he is proud.

Theroux has been praised by Anthony Burgess, Saul Bellow, Guy Davenport, Robertson Davies, Jonathan Franzen, William H. Gass, Norman Mailer, Cormac McCarthy, James McCourt, Annie Proulx, and John Updike.

Go choke on a cock.

[Anonymous No.17280851]

>>17280475
Imagine getting this mad about some fringe literary critic to be militantly contrarian on fucking 4chan. Go back.

[Anonymous No.17280870]

>>17280475
Oh look it's another 20-something anon crushed until the weight of his hormonal miseries episode. Seen this one already.

[Anonymous No.17281048]

>>17275391
Haven't read it but I get the impression it's one of those novels written for academics, which is to say it lacks a heart and a soul.

[Anonymous No.17281344]

bump

[Anonymous No.17281703]

>>17280475
Gass' favorite from Gaddis is The Recognitions. Agape Agape, Carpenter's Gothic and A Frolic of His Own are great (you would know if you read them).

[Anonymous No.17283068]

>>17280611
>The Recognitions has received much more attention than J R.
No, it hasn't. You have no clue about the literary history of Gaddis in literary circles and academia. Your knowledge of Gaddis is merely his recent push by Moore, that is the only possible way you could believe The Recognitions was and is his most popular and well-regarded work.

>Don't pretend as if the current zeitgeist is the final arbiter of what is great
That doesn't make him 'unknown' you ape. He is perfectly well-known, just because you only heard of him last year from some YouTuber doesn't mean he hasn't been read and discussed in literary circles and constantly last 20 years. He just never stuck around like McCarthy and Pynchon because he wasn't even close to as talented.

>>17280851
Imagine shilling for a failed literary critic on an internet forum.

>>17281703
>Gass' favorite from Gaddis is The Recognitions.
That is my point retard. Even though Gass loved The Recognitions he always mainted that J R was better in every technical way, despite him personally having a fondness for The Recognitions.

A Frolic of His Own is a good novel but not a masterpiece like J R. Carpenter's Gothic, Agape Agape is, like The Recognitions, mediocre and forgettable (as they were and should remain).

[Anonymous No.17283276]

>>17283068
>"Literary circles"
>"Academia"

Yeah I'm going to need evidence that you're part of one of these groups and not just bullshitting

[Anonymous No.17283460]

>>17283068
>muh literary circles and academia
*tips fedora*
>namedrops McCarthy and Pynchon (each have one masterpiece at best)
Lol, this fucking guy.

[Anonymous No.17283557]

>>17283276
You think The Recognitions has gotten more attention and praise than J R. Nothing more needs to be said on your ignorance regarding Gaddis. You are just a Moore parrot.

>>17283460
Name 5 contemporary American novelists better than McCarthy and Pynchon.

[Anonymous No.17283586]

>>17283557
Dennis Cooper, Barth, Auster, DeLillo, Joshua Cohen

[Anonymous No.17283604]

>>17283586
>Dennis Cooper
Joke.
>Auster
Single good work, no masterpiece.
>DeLillo
Single great work, no masterpiece.
>Cohen
Joke.

Barth is the only one anyone would accept. Name 4 more.

[Anonymous No.17283647]

>>17283557
Modern American literature is a joke. Not so sure what you are even on about or trying to prove. Gaddis is more accomplished than both. McElroy and
Barth are the only ones that come to mind.

[Anonymous No.17283687]

>>17280611
McCarthy praised Theroux? This sounds suspect. Sauce pls?

[Anonymous No.17283709]

>>17283687
He wrote a positive blurb for The Strange Case of Edward Gorey.

[Anonymous No.17283720]

>>17283460
>Thinks they only have one masterpieces
This is gonna become an E-peen contest but you haven't read either of them

[Anonymous No.17283732]

>>17283647
>Gaddis is more accomplished than both. McElroy and Barth are the only ones that come to mind.
This fucking guy

[Anonymous No.17283802]

>>17283647
>Not so sure what you are even on about or trying to prove.
Never did a argue for some magical state of contemporary American novelists. The question was in response to calling the mention of McCarthy and Pynchon, which is who is America's best contemporaries, 'namedropping'. If you can't name 5 contemporaries better than them, why call into question my mention of them?

>Gaddis is more accomplished than both.
Keep dreaming Moore-fag.

Barth is the only one that has been named who is arguable better than Pynchon and McCarthy in terms of American contemporary novelists. McElroy sits with Delillo and Auster.

[Anonymous No.17283809]

>>17283802
>muh Moore muh Moore AGHHHHH YOU ONLY LISTEN TO MOORE NOOOO

[Anonymous No.17283900]

>>17283809
hope he sees this

[Anonymous No.17283907]

>>17283900
He saw and ignored: the ultimate rebuttal

[Anonymous No.17283930]

Who's Moore?

[Anonymous No.17283937]

>>17283930
Alan Moore

[Anonymous No.17283988]

>>17283802
Because they are worse than Gaddis.
Your obsession with Moore is very stupid.
McElroy is much better than DeLillo and he is a better writer than Pynchon. McElroy's style is incredible.

[Anonymous No.17284005]

>>17283930
Steven Moore

[Anonymous No.17284373]

>>17283930
Dennis Moore

[Anonymous No.17284548]

>>17283988
>Because they are worse than Gaddis
Literally nobody relevant believes this.

[Anonymous No.17284551]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17284598]

>>17280066
Care to share the interview, mate?

[Anonymous No.17284627]

>>17284598
https://thecollidescope.com/2020/07/05/the-apocalypse-of-wordlessness-an-interview-with-alexander-theroux/

[Anonymous No.17284629]

>>17283988
>Because they are worse than Gaddis.
Dreaming.

[Anonymous No.17284842]

>>17283647
wtf are you a retard? you must not read widely huh?

[Anonymous No.17284919]

>>17284548
Gass probably did. Who is relevant? Do you need the constant acceptance of some perceived authority to validate your opinions? That's quite pathetic.
>>17284842
Which part are you referring to? American literature is extremely overpraised overall. Only Americans gloat about it as if it was the best thing since buttered bread.

[Anonymous No.17284958]

that guy ripping moore is based. one of the most irritating things hearing the kings of midwits sucking gaddis and alexander theroux's cocks on youtube and twitter. if there wasnt an element of being a part of something underground attached to it nothing would be said.

[Anonymous No.17284975]

>>17284919
>>17284958
samefag

[Anonymous No.17285004]

>>17284975

[Anonymous No.17285042]

>>17284958
>>17285004
fuck off

[Anonymous No.17285045]

So what's actually wrong with Gaddis' books? I have never read anyone explain their opinion except some snarky it's mediocre or it's bad and then come and wave around with the response of critics to his work like that means something. I have read people who dislike Pynchon explain why they don't like him. I have read people who dislike McCarthy make a case. I have read people who dislike Gass make a case.

[Anonymous No.17285074]

>>17285045
It's just a bunch of seething faggots, don't even worry about it. Gaddis is great, you shouldn't be ashamed of liking him

[Anonymous No.17285100]

>>17285074
nobody says gaddis isnt extremely good but it's just an embarrassment people comparing him to melville

[Anonymous No.17285159]

>>17285045
I like Gaddis, and Pynchon is certainly indebted to J R to an extent, I am just tired of retarded first-year undergraduates acting like he is some forgotten Christ of American literature or postmodernism. He was a good writer but was succeeded in every way by his later contemporaries, like Pynchon or Barth. The idea that he is some recently revived or discovered author is laughable but I suppose Moore succeeded with sycophantic undergrads looking for a new Infinite Jest or Gravity's Rainbow to talk about.

Theroux on the other hand can die and be forgotten. He had Gaddis's ego and none of the talent apart from owning more Latin dictionaries.

If you want more actual criticism of Gaddis, I suppose I can provide it but my initial critique of him in this thread was merely to point out his recent elevation to idolization by the retards that surround me on this board. I'm not sure why you would think something is wrong with Gaddis if I called J R a masterpiece of American 20th-century literature. The rest of his work is just underwhelming when compared to J R, except perhaps A Frolic of His Own. The Recognitions, which gets the most attention of here (FUCK MOORE) is a skeleton of J R without the flesh, clothed only with Gaddis's own ego and contempt.

[Anonymous No.17285169]

>>17285159
Post criticism of Gaddis and Theroux, please

[Anonymous No.17285230]

>>17285159
Post criticism of Gaddis and Theroux, please. Show me you're not LARPing as an academician.

[Anonymous No.17285254]

>>17285230
Why would he be larping? All of his seething seems perfectly congruent with being a community college english professor or 14 year grad student.

[Anonymous No.17285256]

>>17284919
Gass did because he was his friend for 25 years, until his death. Do you sincerely believe he is an unbiased source? You are young if you do. Both had a really high opinion of themselves and slyly reprimanded the audience for not giving their books their "due".

[Anonymous No.17285268]

>>17285169
Not wasting my time on Theroux.

I will write something more extensive on Gaddis if this thread isn't dead later today, but in short, all of Gaddis's work is concerned with the creation and translation of the dialogue. He has 1 trick. He tested it in The Recognitions, mastered it in J R, and then continued to ride this horse until it was dead. When you compare just The Recognitions, J R and then Carpenter's Gothic, this becomes most clear. Gaddis is an extremely formulaic writer (not even in regards to the Christian symbolism + capitalism themes) and when he strays from his formula even slightly, like in Agape Agape, it has no legs to stand because all Gaddis' had was dialogue.

[Anonymous No.17285277]

>>17285004
Kek, what a pussy! Deleted like he had a name on top of the post. Can't take out the redditor yet lol.

[Anonymous No.17285304]

>>17285100
Exactly. When you have pseuds upholding him as the greatest writer since Melville, you have to dissent. He was a great writer but no better than other greats like O'Connor, Willa Cather etc.

[Anonymous No.17285361]

>>17285159
>like Pynchon or Barth
What makes them better? You could argue that they are formulaic too.

[Anonymous No.17285414]

>>17285361
Let's stick with comparing 1 to 1. What is Barth's formula? And don't just list tenets of postmodernism. I don't care about the formula of themes, like parody, irony, or metafiction. Obviously, Gaddis has all that too on top of his formula of the intersection of Christianity and capitalism. In terms of structure or form, how is Barth's writing formulaic in comparison to Gaddis's dependence on dialogue to centralize both his characters and the world.

[Anonymous No.17285632]

bump

[Anonymous No.17285840]

>>17285268
Formula is not a bad thing though. Plenty of people do that. Also J R and The Recognitions are quite different in how they handle prose. The last one - Agape Agape is completely different yet works very well.

[Anonymous No.17285967]

I hear Gaddis is funny. That’s all I care about in books. Is Theroux funny?

[Anonymous No.17286067]

>>17285967
He's much funnier than Gaddis

[Anonymous No.17286216]

>>17285967
Gaddis has a laugh every other page

[Anonymous No.17286542]

>>17285840
>Formula is not a bad thing though.
If you have 1 gimmick you aren't one of the greatest writers of all time. You can have 1 great book but if every other work is the same formula they are just bastards of the masterpiece.

>J R and The Recognitions are quite different in how they handle prose
The prose & non-dialogue descriptions of The Recognitions is the weakest part. The strongest is the characters and dialogue which are stronger in J R.

>The last one - Agape Agape is completely different yet works very well.
I said Agape Agape was the only novel he tried to break formula but it is also undeniably his worst novel. Even Carpenter's Gothic is better.

[Anonymous No.17286659]

>>17286542
We're never going to see eye-to-eye on The Recognitions (I love it, you don't), so let's stop having this stupid back-and-forth

[Anonymous No.17286778]

>>17286542
I disagree. His prose is effortless and surpasses people that get dicksucked here constantly like Pynch (except for M&D). Style is not a gimmick and he differentiated it from it enough times, considering he only wrote 5 books.

[Anonymous No.17286897]

>>17286778
>His prose is effortless and surpasses people that get dicksucked here constantly like Pynch
No one thinks this except Moore-fags and I don't even like Pynchon.

>Style is not a gimmick and he differentiated it from it enough times
Structure or form around only dialogue is a gimmick, not a style. He wrote 5 books and 4 of them are essentially the same dialogue-driven gimmick. In his final novel, he became self-aware of his and trying his best to avoid it wrote his worst novel as his final work.

[Anonymous No.17287007]

>>17286897
it is not a gimmick you fucking faggot
you are losing this debate

[Anonymous No.17287025]

>>17287007
That is a gimmick actually, whether you like it or not. Just like McCarthy’s usage of punctuation is a gimmick. The way they actually write is what is style, but eschewing descriptions for dialogue or rarely using punctuations for no reason is, in fact, a gimmick that makes their work idiosyncratic

[Anonymous No.17287032]

>>17287025
Which is actually a good thing, believe it or not

[Anonymous No.17287040]

>>17287032
Not saying it isn’t a good thing. Just saying it’s a gimmick. Just like Pynchon’s stupid songs, which I like.

[Anonymous No.17287104]

>>17280066
>"politically incorrect content"

[Anonymous No.17287124]

>>17287032
It is literally a writing gimmick retard. And if that is the only thing that supports your work. You retards have Moore's cock in one ear and Gaddis in the other: Gaddis wrote great dialogue but that was all he could write. That is why he could write a masterpiece like J R but everything else was just J R-lesser. He realized this towards the end of his life and tried to write something different (Agape Agape) but could only write a mediocre novel when stripped of his gimmick.

[Anonymous No.17287125]

>>17287104
He's not more politically incorrect than, say, Nabokov used to be. He only seems so because of the current political climate

[Anonymous No.17287134]

>>17287124
He wrote a great novel without his gimmick. It was called The Recognitions. A great, great book. Now stop bickering with me.

[Anonymous No.17287163]

>>17287134
Did you read the fucking book? The Recognitions is literally the start of the gimmick. His use of dialogue through the disillusionment and reformation of the main character is the most important part of the novel. He took this aspect from The Recognitions (because it was the best part) and made it even more centeral to J R, which is why J R is actually a great novel.

[Anonymous No.17287174]

>>17287163
Indeed, but the prose passages in The Recognitions are exceptional.

[Anonymous No.17287195]

>>17287174
>He wrote a great novel without his gimmick.
>It was called The Recognitions
>"The Recognitions is literally the start of the gimmick."
>Indeed.
Moore-fags are retarded.

[Anonymous No.17287222]

>>17287195
Can you read?

Yes, I concede that he used a lot of dialogue in The Recognitions which anticipated JR, but that novel was FAR LESS EXPERIMENTAL IN STYLE THAN JR – he also had PROSE NARRATION in that book, which was EXCEPTIONALLY WELL WRITTEN, THEREFORE HE DID NOT NEED TO RELY ON HIS GIMMICK IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL. With The Recognitions, he PROVED HE WAS CAPABLE of writing a MORE CONVENTIONAL NOVEL.

You must be retarded

[Anonymous No.17287294]

>>17286897
>Moore-fags
Just like the other anon say. Only bullshit spouting.
It's a style. Not sure how you can distinguish between a gimmick and a style, I guess what you like is a style otherwise it's a gimmick. He didn't do it to get cheap appeal. Agape Agape is great Bernhardian novel.

[Anonymous No.17287311]

>>17287124
>>17287195
>MOORE MOORE MOORE MOORE MOORE
just take the meds already.

[Anonymous No.17287398]

>>17287222
>THEREFORE HE DID NOT NEED TO RELY ON HIS GIMMICK IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL
Yes, he did, look at Agape Agape. His use and conveyance of dialogue is the strength and core of all his novels. When it isn't central he is mediocre and forgettable. This is why J R has always been regarded as the spiritual successor to failure that was The Recognitions by virtually every critic. Even fucking Gass believes this.

>>17287294
>Not sure how you can distinguish between a gimmick and a style
Because you are retard.
>He didn't do it to get cheap appeal
No, just the academic approval he fielded for and had a tantrum over when his ego was not fulfilled watching his peers and friends succeed over him.

>>17287311
He would be so proud of you.

[Anonymous No.17287445]

>>17287398
The prose narration in The Recognitions is FUCKING BRILLIANT, and I don't give a shit about you and your unsupported "virtually every critic" bullshit

[Anonymous No.17287457]

>>17287398
i agreed with you before i feel you're going too far now. gaddis isn't melville but slamming down the recognitions is a bit much imo

[Anonymous No.17287495]

>>17287457
How is J R not just an improved version of The Recognitions? If he never wrote J R, maybe I would look at The Recognitions more favorable but when you compare the two it isn't even close. And given how similar they are it inevitably makes The Recognitions the pilot/test for J R.

[Anonymous No.17287520]

>>17287398
>Because you are a retard
Yes, you sure do sound like an intelligent, well balanced person.
>No, just the academic approval he fielded for and had a tantrum over when his ego was not fulfilled watching his peers and friends succeed over him.
Don't recall him having a tantrum and it was a style not gimmick. Unless you are able to explain what makes a style a gimmick, which you are not.

[Anonymous No.17287542]

>>17287398
>The Recognitions by virtually every critic
Fire the Bastards
>>17287495
Both J R and The Recognitions are very different in content. J R is much more fractured and continuation of style in TR but that doesn't mean TR is just a pilot considering how heavily it differs in some places.

[Anonymous No.17287737]

>>17287542
>Fire the Bastards
Yes, I already know your knowledge of Gaddis doesn't extend beyond Moore and the only reason you know about Gaddis is because of him. How many times to have to call you a Moore-fag before you understand that?

[Anonymous No.17287902]

>>17287737
Moore lives rent-free in your head. I actually heard about Gaddis from Harold Bloom, years before I discovered Steven Moore.

[Anonymous No.17287926]

>>17287902
>I actually heard about Gaddis from Harold Bloom, years before I discovered Steven Moore.
you can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.17287933]

Here's why Theroux's collected stories haven't been published yet according to MJ Nicholls on GR

>According to [Steven] Moore's book, Theroux turned down Zerogram as he wanted to publish with Little, Brown or Farrar Strauss for the $$$. Moore offered to pay a $6K advance to Theroux himself(!) for Fantagraphics to publish. But as Theroux kept revising and adding to the collection, the editor Gary Groth lost interest. If Theroux keeps demanding unrealistic sums for his work (even though it is worth those sums), then this is unlikely to see publication any time soon.

[Anonymous No.17287939]

>>17287737
>moore
Mental illness.

[Anonymous No.17287945]

>>17287926
>OH NO HE LIKES MEME LITERARY CRITICS REEEEEE

Tell me about your darling critics, I'd love to hear about them

[Anonymous No.17288348]

Bump, let's talk about Theroux

[Anonymous No.17288713]

>>17287926
I personally heard of Gaddis from /lit/ like everyone else here. Who gives a shit about critics, honest question?

[Anonymous No.17288764]

>>17287926
No one fucking cares man

[Anonymous No.17289042]

If you guys want to read this book for free online, you can do it here

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2962655W/Darconville's_cat

[Anonymous No.17289274]

>>17284627
Thnx

[Anonymous No.17289300]

>>17275391
you haven't even said why you dislike Moore lmao mongoloid

[Anonymous No.17289338]

>>17275391
Is primary colors any good

[Anonymous No.17289485]

There is some serious grade-A top tier autism in this thread. Holy shit.

Imagine giving even the slightest of even the remotest of barest fucks what beta literary critics think about anything.

Also, this book looks god damn terrible.

[Anonymous No.17289575]

>>17289485

>Imagine giving even the slightest of even the remotest of barest fucks what beta literary critics think about anything.

It's just one guy

>Also, this book looks god damn terrible.

Don't judge a book by its cover

[Anonymous No.17290817]

>>17284548
Both Franzen and DFW loved Recognitions. I would like to see relevant people who dislike it.

[Anonymous No.17290822]

>>17280066
what's the politically incorrect content?

[Anonymous No.17290884]

>>17287174
That's like 100 pages in a nearly 1000 page novel and almost all in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.17291061]

I really enjoy the essay on love and the essay on hate. The Misogynist's Library is pretty hilarious because I can never tell how much of the list is fiction. The 2 pages that are completely inked out in black after Darconville puts on a dress he bought for his love interest only to realize he's in love with the idea of her/his idea of love is kino

[Anonymous No.17291144]

>>17290817
Most relevant people have not read it. Also
>Franzen

[Anonymous No.17291355]

>>17291144
Franzen was just to show that even a faggot who got filtered by Thomas Mann loved The Recognitions.

[Anonymous No.17291644]

>>17279940
>he's not politically correct
source?

[Anonymous No.17292541]

>>17290822
What comes to mind immediately is Dr. Crucifer basically "exorcises" him of the student he fell in love with and who rejects him in the last third of the book. He's basically a very over the top misogynist who bar the satanism wouldn't be out of place posting some of his shit on 4chan with about 15 (You)s calling him based.

[Anonymous No.17293177]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17293308]

>>17290822
Warholic has a character named Dicksnickers who is a racist encyclopedic anti-semite who consistently provokes and antagonizes his yid boss, he also sleeps with black girls so he essentially a /pol/ poster.

[Anonymous No.17293727]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17294468]

>>17291644
it's been mentioned in the thread already

[Anonymous No.17294831]

>>17289338
pls answer

[Anonymous No.17295086]

>>17294831
It's a great book, very much worth reading

[Anonymous No.17295815]

>>17280243
>vexed
dropped

[Anonymous No.17296352]

I found the ebook, guys

libgen dot is/fiction/?q=darconville%27s+cat

[Anonymous No.17296420]

>>17291355
Franzen also claims never to have finished Moby Dick

[Anonymous No.17296889]

>>17295815
>dropped
vexed

[Anonymous No.17296901]

So is this faggot actually good or just another /lit/ meme?

[Anonymous No.17296940]

Sample the first chapter and find out for yourself

>libgen dot is/fiction/?q=darconville%27s+cat

[Anonymous No.17296975]

>>17296901
Sample the first chapter and find out for yourself

>libgen dot is/fiction/?q=darconville%27s+cat