Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
The Recognitions
The Recognitions - Spine 2012
>
Questions, Resources, and General Banter - The Recognitions
message 51:
by
Aloha
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 14, 2012 06:49AM
Wyatt is at the point where he's treating religion in much the same way he treats art, knowingly selling out for religion. I'm hoping that when I reach the end of the book, I can figure out what the author is trying to say.
reply
|
flag
I'm wondering about the symbolism and significance of the bull. That popped up throughout the story.
Mod
In Message #8 and #41, there are links to a Jonathan Franzen article about Gaddis and an interview with Gaddis, respectively. If you haven't already read them, you might enjoy them now that you're well into the book. One thing that Gaddis said repeatedly in the Paris Review interview is that he wanted The Recognitions to be "a large comic novel in the great tradition." There is a great deal of dry humor in this book, but sometimes the delivery seems so serious it isn't always apparent.
Thank you, Jim. I figured that since I got a good laugh out of Wyatt father's speech about sacrifice for religion. Also, the whole art scene machination was portrayed satirically. I will read the article.
Mod
"The song was the subject of a column by Sigmund Sp..."
Since you're reading ahead, can you modify your message and put it inside a spoiler alert? Thanks!
Jim wrote: "One thing that Gaddis said repeatedly in the Paris Review interview is that he wanted The Recognitions to be "a large comic novel in the great tradition." There is a great deal of dry humor in this book, but sometimes the delivery seems so serious it isn't always apparent. ..."The reason I love this book is the incredible humor. There's not a page in it that doesn't make me at least chuckle to myself if not laugh out loud. I think I was hooked from the description of the funeral carriage as a 'baroque confectionary stand' in the first paragraph, and hopelessly caught by the time of Aunt May's imprecation of 'buried over there with a lot of dead Catholics".
Mod
De nada... you can unspoiler them as we reach each of the chapters...
I'm picking this up again now that I can have more focus time. I wouldn't give up on this book. This is one of the best satire on everything we hold value to and think we need to guide our lives. Absolutely wonderful in originality and wit. Taking a day off from the book made me laugh all the more harder when I picked it up again. If you enjoy wry political commentaries or on news that are ridiculous, I think you would enjoy this book. It's a non-stop biting satire on our values.
Undoubtably influenced by the experience of reading The Recogntions, I have a confession to make. I have been a lurker and non-participant in the discussion.With that said, I am eternally grateful to Brain Pain, Jim and all paricipants in this read. You have given me the courage to overcome my greatest literary phobia ever.
I am now deep into TR, after having tried multiple times in the past only to have the novel stare at me from its prominent place in my bookshelves.
And, I am blown away. I know that I should be giving the read far greater patience than I am; there is so very much to unearth. But, I know now that I will complete it thanks to your support. And, contrary to my praxis, I will re-read it many times to come.
Mod
With that said, I am eternally gratef..."
Lurking is not a sin - so long as you read the books! LOL!
Isn't it strange how the reputation of certain books can cause such stress? For me, after reading Ulysses, I can't imagine avoiding any book because of its reputation - except maybe Finnegan's Wake - although I did look at a few pages and for now, wouldn't read it because it looks more annoying than intimidating.
Sometimes I think a culture of the privilege of the consumer has created a kind of expectation that whatever "product" we consume must meet our expectations or we reject it like a child who doesn't like their carrots. If you read GR reviews of difficult books like Ulysses, you can find these kinds of "I'm not satisfied" tantrums posing as witty putdowns of Joyce.
To each his own, I suppose. For me, literature is an opportunity to learn and explore, no matter how difficult the terrain. These books were written to add to the Great Conversation - not to garner GR stars or make best-seller lists. Their purpose is to explore human existence and enrich the mind.
Anyway, thanks for confessing Mark. I'm happy you're enjoying TR. In the end, that's all BP is about - reading the challenging books.
Jim wrote: "Sometimes I think a culture of the privilege of the consumer has created a kind of expectation that whatever "product" we consume must meet our expectations or we reject it like a child who doesn't like their carrots...."This is an excellent point, Jim. There are endless GR reviews out there where the main criticism is because of what the book is NOT instead of what the book is.
Aloha wrote: "Most people do not major in literature or have any interest in being a writer. They read as an escape and to be entertained. If they don't like a book, they have a right to reject it, much as we ..."Sure, they have a right to reject it. And they have a right to judge a book by its cover or write a scathing review based on the fact they don't like the author's cover photo, but that doesn't make it a good or reasonable review.
House of Leaves is an excellent example. When it came out as a novel with a significant buzz, a lot of people gave it a poor rating because it didn't meet their expectations for a 'horror' novel. That's fine if they don't want to read it, but review it for what it is, don't trash it because you wanted a Stephen King novel (not disparaging tastes here, I enjoy Stephen King). I'm sure there are at least a few people who gave it a real try and found it pretentious. I tried to read "Only Revolutions" and found it pretentious. I also agree it's maddening when people declare something pretentious simply because it doesn't follow the same formula as their usual cotton candy (nod to Ellie). (Also not a slight, I read my share of cotton candy as well.)
As for people who declare that if you disagree with them about a book/movie/TV show etc. it must be because you don't understand it, they should all have their heads held underwater until they die.
Yes. "It's a free country" or "I have a right to my opinion" only means neither the government nor I can put you jail for your opinion. Or -- and I'm sorry Whitney -- legally hold your head underwater until you die. (Maybe that varies by state. You can't do it in New York. :-) )It doesn't mean anyone has to respect your opinion or take it seriously.
Anyone can think Shakespeare, Homer and Tolstoy are crap writers. Fine. I can't lock that person up. But I am within my own rights to think that person has no sensitivity to literature.
But you know, I don't think it's really that interesting to evaluate books. It's more interesting to discuss what's going on in them. And if they bore you to death, read something else.
Have a nice day, mes amis. :-)
I hop genres often. Romance, Horror, SciFi, Fantasy, YA, NonFiction, Literature, you name it, I was or am into it. I do notice that although genre is a marketing tool, there are also significant reasons why genre marketing work. Each genre has its own hooks into the readers that go for that genre. My rating of a book is based on how effective it is within that genre, and not only based on whether it is a "quality" book. When I'm in a forum and participate in the enthusiasm for a book, I feel strongly the book's successful persuasion. If a book isn't persuasive in what it's trying to do, then it loses a lot of its "quality" factor. Isn't that what writing is about? Communication? If it doesn't communicate well to its target audience, then it's not really successful. It doesn't have to be smart literature. A successful romance makes the reader root for the hero/heroine, and a feeling of love/lust when it's over. Horror drives the suspense and fear. Then there's also the charm of pulp fiction, the possibilities of SciFi, and the heroism and world-building of Fantasy. All of these genres have their charm and fun.
Mod
One element of TR which caught my attention is the presence of advertising as an additional voice in some of the scenes. This is especially conspicuous in the scene in Mr. Pivner's apartment. Gaddis (and others likes DeLillo's Americana) recognizes the role marketing and advertising was/is playing in our daily lives. Aloha is talking in marketing terms about genre and target audience in a way that underlines the consumer culture I mentioned above. We are not only manipulated and influenced by Madison Avenue, we are participants in its language, customs, and criteria for what constitutes quality. This recognition is one of the hallmarks of the post-modern era and is explored in Warhol's early soup cans, brillo boxes, and calling his studio "The Factory"
The entire GR site is one not-so-carefully disguised market research tool. Every comment, poll, rating, rant, and rave review is being collected, analyzed, and mined for insights into what genre/theme/writer will be a success for its target audience.
The Matrix has you Neo...
1) Just for the record, my comments about discussions about the value of a book apply largely to classic literature. Deciding whether Flaubert or Fitzgerald or Tolstoy or Keats or Wordsworth are any good seems a little silly.If we're talking about new books that people aren't familiar with, then it's a different story. But pretty much, these days, I'm reading classic literature.
2) Marketing isn't sales. Theoretically, marketing should be trying to understand what the market wants to read and provide. But that approach is a little tricky with fiction.
Moonbutterfly wrote: "Of course being pretentious is a form of 'fakery'. I think he knew what he was doing. ..."Not to get into a semantics argument, but 'pretentious' implies that someone is pretending to a worth they don't possess. I don't think Gaddis needs me to defend his abilities as a writer. I'll also say the obvious, that if two different words exist for similar meanings, there are usually subtle shades of difference in their meanings, and a large difference is the rhythm of the sentance depending on the choice (see 'Faulkner' in that discussion across the hall :-).
I do think (as you implied) that Gaddis' large, occasionally archaic or gothic vocabulary is in keeping with his subject, but it's not pretentious if you earn it. Gaddis' characters are, he is not.
Moonbutterfly wrote: "I'm aware what the word means. We disagree and that is my opinion."Uh, yeah, we disagree, and that was MY opinion. Don't discussions usually involve different opinions? I restated the definition of the word to clarify what aspect made me disagree, not to impugn the extent of your vocabulary. Sorry if my post seemed insulting, my intent was to provide a differing opinion, not to offend you.
Bill wrote: "1) Just for the record, my comments about discussions about the value of a book apply largely to classic literature. Deciding whether Flaubert or Fitzgerald or Tolstoy or Keats or Wordsworth are an..."Ah, yes. I was thinking more of contemporary. It is a bit ridiculous when a topic like 'is this book any good?' is posted for a classic. Although sometimes these discussions do morph into something more interesting . A post like this about "Catcher in the Rye" led to a discussion about whether the book had lost its relevence since it was published, which was far more interesting that the initial 'thumbs-up' or 'thumbs-down' that had initially followed.
Aloha wrote: "but I never felt or cared much about the difference when they happened. All I felt was the monotony of the satire...."I'm wondering if maybe this is partially a case of his satire becoming overstated with the passage of time? In this 'post-ironic' age, his repeated cataloging of the hypocrisies of religion and society may be overly repetitive, given that most people today are already at least somewhat cynical on these scores.
Mod
And the result is product writing instead of great literature. I'd rather read the wolf than the sheep.
It was after he stopped trying to produce to the publishers specifications that Faulkner was freed to write The Sound and the Fury.
Jim wrote: "Aloha wrote: "The Matrix has a symbiotic relationship with its inhabitants. The population gathers where it most prefers to be, marketing moves to the most populated area, the population is influe..."Relating this to The Recognitions, this reminds me of the Komar and Melamid project wherein they determined America's most wanted painting based on professional market research. Here's the resulting painting: most wanted. Outdoor landscape, historical figure, animals, family - who could argue this isn't the painting we all want in our living rooms?
Jim, doesn't your point about Faulkner show that the market pressures were always there, and artists always had to defy them? And is it possible that The Matrix, by allowing more targeted marketing, actually encourages better (or at least more diverse) work by making it easier to divide people into groups with different tastes for more individualized marketing, instead of just creating for some perceived largest common denominator?
Whitney wrote, "Jim, doesn't your point about Faulkner show that the market pressures were always there, and artists always had to defy them?"Actually, the notion that an artist was someone who'd "defy" anything to be true to a personal vision is extremely new, a product of the French Revolution and the romantic movement.
Artists created for patrons or a market period. The standard intellectual history explanation is that after the French Revolution when the natural patrons of the arts were separated from their heads, a number of different conceptions grew up.
1) Artists as gypsies, criminals, fringe members of society. (Henri Murger, Scènes de la Vie Bohème 1847-49 from which Puccini wrote La Bohème, 1896). Bohemians are so-called because it was thought gypsies came from Bohemia. Murger's book might have been called, Scenes of Gypsy Life.
2) Artists as aristocrats of taste, and here I'd look at the whole aesthetic movement, of which Oscar Wilde and Swinburne are among the best examples in literature, and I'd think A Rebours would be an example.
3) The visionary. Blake or the speaker in any number of romantic poems. I think the last lines Coleridge's Kubla Khan as an example of t he artist as prophet par excellence.
The question is whether we are better off with these notions. Certainly one can question whether the division between high art and popular has done high artists much good. From what I can see it's left them with a diminishing market.
The fight in the Renaissance was for visual artists to be considered more than manual laborers. That's rather funny when you considered the quality of Renaissance painting -- but there it is.
Could be, Whitney. What may be shocking or thought-provoking in those days is commonplace nowadays. I mean, you can't beat an art work like Christ in Piss in being cynical about religion.Whitney wrote: "Aloha wrote: "but I never felt or cared much about the difference when they happened. All I felt was the monotony of the satire...."
I'm wondering if maybe this is partially a case of his satire b..."
Bill wrote: "Actually, the notion that an artist was someone who'd "defy" anything to be true to a personal vision is extremely new, a product of the French Revolution and the romantic movement. ".."I am now crawling out from the crushing weight of Bill's scholarship to change my original statement to "doesn't this show that market forces affected art long before the internet and intensive marketing data collection?" The later blah blah blah about the matrix and diversity I'll leave intact. At least until someone shoots that down as well.
Art is a product that people consume. Why shouldn't it be affected by market forces? Art was always affected by market forces, if the artist expected to be paid for it. Anything you get paid for will be affected by the people doing the paying, whether it's the public, aristocrats, the NEA, or the government.My comment was to suggest that being affected by market forces isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it may actually be a good thing. The tension between what an artist wants to do and what those paying for it want may be healthier for art than pure freedom.
Aloha wrote: "I hop genres often. Romance, Horror, SciFi, Fantasy, YA, NonFiction, Literature, you name it, I was or am into it."And you're very hip when you hop, Aloha.
I'm not "against" art being affected by market forces. I am very much against the momentary market value of anything being the sole determinant of value. Market forces are one factor of life-but not the only one.Art is a product but not just a product. People consume it but they also gain values that are not precisely equal or even equivalent to consumption. There are possibilities of perspectives outside or in addition to capitalism. Aesthetic, governmental, religious positions, etc. may overlap but do not have to be exactly equal to economic systems.
There are a couple of sections in the novel where the history and origins of collecting art in Rome are discussed. The value of art was recognised (as "bullion"), probably in a more aesthetic or high art manner than today.
However, as a result of the recognition of [market] value, forgery began around the same time.
In today's book market, I think we have to recognise that different people seek different things from books and entertainment.
Currently, 5,384 people have The Recognitions listed. 895 have rated it.
822,102 have listed The Hunger Games. 640,114 have rated it.
There's no use complaining about it. Our task is to invite more people to read and understand "The Recognitions".
Maybe we could double the number of ratings, which presumably means that we have doubled the "reads".
How do you find out how many people have listed a book?And well stated, the goal should be to get more people appreciating the great books, not to carp about people enjoying the less demanding ones. As far as I know, "Berlin Alexanderplatz" and "World War Z" have never started throwing punches at each other on my bookshelf.
And I loved Hunger Games. I know that's not the point of your post, but I couldn't help saying it.
The listings appear on the book's home page where the "community reviews" start.On the right hand side, it will say 1-30 of 5,384.
The total number of ratings is up at the top of the page on the right of the average rating and to the left of the number of reviews.
Funnily enough, books do throw punches in "Celebrity Death Match Reviews" (there are a few in My Writings").
I agree that we should have the right to like both. I like meat and potatoes.
"I'm not "against" art being affected by market forces. I am very much against the momentary market value of anything being the sole determinant of value. Market forces are one factor of life-but not the only one."People attach value to all sorts of things from art to a favorite old bathrobe to the family dog to the house they grew up in.
I'm not sure how that's related to the artist needing to sell the artwork (which is all market forces mean) in order to make a living. :-)
If you want total artistic freedom, then the best way to do it is not to depend on your artistic income to make a living.If you need to make a living, then first you must respect the idea of "intellectual property" and copyright, and second you have to multiply the unit price of a book (I'll use fiction as the example) by the size of your purchasing audience and then deduct the costs of everybody in the supply chain.
If you write a book that only 3,000 people in the world want to buy, then you're not going to make a living.
This doesn't mean that you have to go mass market in your taste, but it does mean that you have to respect your chosen audience and write at a level that they can appreciate or with your help learn to appreciate.
My purpose in analysing some books at length is to increase the understanding and appreciation of the books, in the hope that the authors (and their families) might derive some financial benefit.
Bill wrote: ""I'm not "against" art being affected by market forces. I am very much against the momentary market value of anything being the sole determinant of value. Market forces are one factor of life-but n..."Artists need to find a way to support themselves, no question. This problem is written about by Arnold Bennett & goes back a long time. But art that is only for the marketplace is the winner of a popularity contest that neither negates nor affirms its artistic value.
There is no easy answer to how to balance market place forces with artistic vision and no doubt they sometimes coincide.
But not always.
Many of the books we are reading were not major sources of revenue for their author. Does that diminish their artistic value?
I feel we would all be poorer-spiritual, intellectually, emotionally-if only best sellers were published.
Except for those artists who create solely for themselves or intend to distribute copies for nothing, all art is written for a marketplace -- some bigger, some smaller.How the market responds is not a determinant of artistic value. Herman Melville decided to write something different with "Moby Dick" -- something odd and unexpected -- something very unlike a traditional narrative. As a result the book didn't do as well as his earlier ones. Melville eventually gave up writing.
Melville eventually gave up writing.
That does not change the fact that Moby-Dick is a masterpiece. How much money a book makes does not diminish or enhance its value as art.
Book are published for small markets all the time. But books published for small markets are not likely to allow the author to make a living.
Today's patrons, governments and private foundations, will sometime subsidize an author's efforts. Sometimes authors with small market can get jobs teaching.
But author's who don't write for large markets frequently have to find other ways to make a living.
My response, Ellie, was simply about the notion of author as someone who has a rarefied vision whose specialness and purity must be respected.
I prefer to think of writers as craftspeople, who work hard to perfect their craft, and occasionally write something that transcends craftsmanship and is a a work of art.
Bill wrote: "I prefer to think of writers as craftspeople, who work hard to perfect their craft, and occasionally write something that transcends craftsmanship and is a a work of art. ..."On another somewhat related note, your craftspeople comment reminds me of the article by Malcolm Gladwell, drawing on the work of David Galenson, about the precocious type of artist (Picasso) vs the late bloomer (Cezanne). Galenson found the same split in writing, poetry and film.
There's interesting discussions of the philosophies of the two kinds of artists (simplifying, one creates in order to discover, the other discovers in order to create), the fallacious belief that genius is always precocious, and the point that the late bloomer almost invariably needs a patron of some kind (whether wealthy arts patron or long suffering spouse) to achieve success.
A link to the original article in The New Yorker, for those interested: Late Bloomer.
Bill wrote: "Except for those artists who create solely for themselves or intend to distribute copies for nothing, all art is written for a marketplace -- some bigger, some smaller.How the market responds is ..."
I agree. Although some authors have a vision that sets them above others.
We should remember that Gaddis started writing "TR" when he was in his late 20's and it was published when he was 33.
Ellie, I don't know what that means. I think some writers are better than others. But I think it's not "vision" so much as "writing" that sets them apart.For example, Shakespeare -- notoriously without a particularly identifiable world view -- is better than all.
Or Tolstoy, who is probably the best of all novelists, was filled with vision and it is the least interesting part of his work.
Vision/shmision. I think it's about writing. I think an author's vision is interesting only because of the way it is expressed.
Mod
For example, Shakespeare -- notoriously w..."
Maybe a better way to describe is vision and writing being the two elements of great work - or the way I think of it theme (vision) and form (writing) being the elements of all art.
I think Shakespeare's "vision" was in a fabulously rich, full concept of what it meant to be human. Vision, to me, doesn't particularly mean something abstract. Shakespeare vision was, literally, that he "saw" people of all kinds, with great depth.Vision without craft is, of course, meaningless. Craft without vision may be art. But vision and craft together create Shakespeares and Melvilles and, yes, a William Gaddis.
I may not always like or agree with Gaddis' vision of our society-corrupted at its source (in an almost Catholic vision of human brokenness) by greed which is then pandered to and manipulated by advertising, of people pursuing goals which do not satisfy but hungering for something which will (thinking of Thomas Wolfe's "lost...lost") but which may not exist in any form or may not be visible to us. I think Gaddis has tremendous vision and drive to manifest this vision to us, to wake us up to the world.
All of that being said, I don't know that I care whether an artist has vision. I on the other hand have to feel that there is some meaning to the work that makes it worth my giving my most precious asset-time-to it.
Just craft doesn't do it.
It reminds me at one point when I was going to the theater a great deal & finding well-produced, well-crafted but ultimately meaningless spectacles. I said to my Dad finally, I don't want to see one more show about which I say the scenery or the costuming or the special effects were great. I want life-changing experiences. Or at least life-effecting ones.
Like Anna Deveare Smith. Or, for me, Kafka. Or lots of artists.
I don't need entertainment, for the most part. I'm very good at entertaining myself. I can't awaken my self to new perspectives or beauties or even ugliness. New dimensions of being.
That's what I need from art.
There is room for more than one kind of artist. There is room within me for more than one kind of book. I am more than one kind of audience. I love going to ComicCon and with a group of friend to The Matrix. But I also love Gaddis and Emily Dickinson and Susan Howe and feel they have made my life-my self a richer place to be in.But I have friends-more than one, by far-who make fun of me for reading obscure writers, for being what they call an "ivory tower intellectual"-based on my conversation, I suppose, and my reading and little else. How ivory towered can a single mother of 2 children (now almost grown), one with a disability, who works as a special ed teacher in the NYC school system with no other resources really be? What kind of ivory would this tower be made out of?
I should add, they're not very close friends.
But the masses have little to worry about-there will always be people producing pleasurable texts for them. It's the art for the smaller audience that is in more danger of being squeezed out. Even if a book a great art is sold and published, its cost often puts it out of my reach, especially when I was younger (as were the children) & I had little money to spend. Often, even the libraries don't carry some of these books.
I could always get my hands on a copy of Thrones or Da Vinci. So I don't feel any need to protect or defend best sellers. By definition, they will continue to be produced and made available.
I agree that if what you love is an underdog, then you do need to support it to help it survive. That does not only apply to "high art", but to art considered radical or deviant. We wouldn't have countercultures such as the Beat Generation or the Modernists, if there weren't artists persevering despite being considered deviants or hacks. Books like Naked Lunch or Ulysses would not have made it if the status quo had their way. The funny thing is that once the tide have changed to support the radical artists, artists who create art considered passe became the underdog.Unless an artist has some means of support, such as William S Burroughs from his family's meager stippends, they have to either rely on the patronage of the elite, or the enthusiasm of the masses. It makes life more interesting to see what dominates in each generation.
It doesn't inevitably follow from popularity that you have diluted your vision. It can sometimes be a product of the quality of the communication of your vision.
Agree! In fact, having financial and emotional support because you managed to communicate your vision can stimulate your creativity.
It's more that poverty is not a great stimulus for creativity in 2012.
Ellie wrote, "What kind of ivory would this tower be made out of?"The kind of ivory from a very, very special breed of elephant.
Bill wrote: "Ellie wrote, "What kind of ivory would this tower be made out of?"The kind of ivory from a very, very special breed of elephant."
"Your neck is like an ivory tower"
Brain Pain
Books mentioned in this topic
Omensetter's Luck (other topics)House of Leaves (other topics)
The Sound and the Fury (other topics)
The Recognitions (other topics)
Naked Lunch: The Restored Text (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
William S. Burroughs (other topics)Arnold Bennett (other topics)
William Gaddis (other topics)
