[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 28 KB, 220x316, 220px-Recognitions[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7094651 No.7094651 [Reply] [Original]

What should I know going into The Recognitions?

Is there anything that is not obvious that will improve my enjoyment, analysis, and comprehension?

Is there one edition that stands out among the others as the best?

>> No.7094668

>>7094651
Franzen says it's not worth it so I wouldn't bother.

>> No.7094677

>>7094668
I'm sure it's worth it.

>> No.7094727

>>7094651
I found this VERY helpful

http://www.williamgaddis.org/recognitions/29anno1.shtml

>> No.7094741
File: 35 KB, 514x600, franzendark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7094741

>>7094677
>contradicting based Franzen
Nigger where do you think you are?

>> No.7094750

no one here has read it

>> No.7094757

>>7094741
after Purity (Pure shitty) he is absolved of any authority or credibility

>> No.7094764

>>7094741
I love to kick his ass

>>7094750
I know people IRL who have and I've seen posters on here who seemed like they knew what they were talking about

>>7094651
I've only read Carpenter's Gothic and it was pretty underwhelming so that bumped this one down the list. Will get around to it eventually. I don't know that it's gone through particularly or notably different editions

>> No.7094771

>>7094668
>>7094741

In that essay where he criticises Gaddis and other "difficult" writers, he says this:
>I grew up in a friendly, egalitarian suburb reading books for pleasure and ignoring any writer who didn't take my entertainment seriously enough. Even as an adult, I consider myself a slattern of a reader. I have started (in many cases, more than once) "Moby-Dick," "The Man Without Qualities," "Mason & Dixon," "Don Quixote," "Remembrance of Things Past," "Doctor Faustus," "Naked Lunch," "The Golden Bowl," and "The Golden Notebook" without coming anywhere near finishing them.
He's a pleb.

>> No.7094773

I actually would take Franzen's advice on this; just doesn't seem very interesting or accessible. He also really knows what he's talking about.

>> No.7094779

>>7094773
Actually, he is too stupid to know what he talks or writes about. Or too lazy to bother finding out.

>> No.7094791

>>7094651
That cover really pisses me off

3 lines for 1 word?
Whoever designed it needs to be taken out back and shot

>> No.7094795
File: 16 KB, 298x224, MD_cover_sm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7094795

>>7094791
wew lad

>> No.7094800

>>7094795
son & Thomas Pynchon & Mason & Dixon xon

>> No.7094815

>>7094727
Thanks, bookmarked.

>> No.7094904
File: 1.85 MB, 2448x3264, IMG_20150718_174430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7094904

>>7094750

I've read i wice and annoaed he fuck ou of i, I probabl know i beer han anone around hese pars. I believe ha like Mob-Dick which I hink is he onl American novel i compares o in scale of ambition, i is a highl flawed bu ulimael sublime work. Ask an quesions awa.

>> No.7094986

>making a thread about the book before reading it

don't even bother

>> No.7094992

>>7094773

>taking the advice of someone who thought this was a 'difficult' book

>> No.7095007

>>7094904
get a new fucking keyboard you shekel-burying kike

>> No.7095027
File: 262 KB, 1294x566, The Recognitions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7095027

Good choice, OP. If you want to get the most out of the Recognitions you can read:

TS Eliot's Lovesong of J Alfred Prufrock, The Wasteland, Four Quartets
Rilke's Duino Elegies
Goethe's Faust

And a knowledge of Christian history wouldn't hurt. Augustine and Aquinas are good for that. Also there's a ton of European art history that would be good to know, but isn't necessary.

There are hundreds of other literary references throughout the novel. Gaddis was extraordinarily well read, but a lot of the texts are esoteric and would be too much trouble to read in full. Don't focus on getting every reference, you won't. But those are the main ones.

>> No.7095227

Franzen likes this book you clowns. The Corrections is names after it.

He does not like JR.

The essay, for those interested:

http://adilegian.com/FranzenGaddis.htm

Besides his turboplebness about Moby Dick and M&D, its actually a good, thoughtful piece of writing. The "jonathan franzen is bad" meme was started by the likes Jennifer Weiner, and I'm surprised /lit/ has bought into it.

>> No.7095313

>>7095227

Jonathan Franzen is bad

>> No.7095321

>>7095227
Jonathan Franzen isn't very good at all.

>> No.7095334

>>7095227
Jonathan Franzen is lazy and stupid. And bad. And insipid. And facile.

>> No.7095341

>>7095227
Jonathan Franzen is good. The previous sentence is a lie.

>> No.7095487

>>7094800
>this autism

>> No.7095705

>>7095227
That was depressing. He knows he writes shit and he's proud of it.

>> No.7095729

>>7095705
>>7095341
>>7095334
>>7095321
>>7095313
For all the memery, The Corrections is a good book.

>> No.7095897

>>7095027
I have essentially all of that under my belt, so I'm feeling confident.

I still need a good paperback edition, though.

>> No.7095902

>>7095729

We were talking about Franzen, not The Corrections.

>> No.7095907

>>7095897
dalkley archive

>> No.7095944

>>7095729
it's totally mediocre. it's not awful but it has some genuinely shitty writing in it. good stuff too tho

>> No.7095947

Like another poster said, read up on your Eliot. Gaddis at one point wanted to work in every line of the Four Quartets into the work. Definitely read up on some protestant history if you aren't well versed.

I'm surprised to see people shitting on this book, it's easily one of the best I've ever read.

The dalkey edition is pretty good, but can be hard to find.

>> No.7095969

>>7095897
They are all the same edition. There is only one format between all the editions, so go for whatever. Dalkey is the only one in print right now

>> No.7095994

>>7094791
Read the book

>> No.7096110

>>7094651
>>7095897
Just avoid a second-hand copy of the edition in the OP, it's riddled with typos.

>> No.7096165

>>7096110
As is the electronic edition I got God-knows-where. Bad original, bad scan, bad OCR, or some combination of the three. Can't tell rn from m.