Ah, drats! I knew I’d blunder something. This isn’t (necessarily) to be an excuse, but I was on prescription migraine medicine during this whole video. Your comments here are such that I’m pinning this to the top. As far as a near-plagiarism itself, this highlights Eliot even more. I want to engage more with your thoughts here but I need to help the family decorate for Christmas right now.

“Originality is a device that untalented people use to impress other untalented people to protect themselves from talented people...”

@@LeafbyLeaf i can’t believe this was a year ago 🤣

Wild!

@@OttoIncandenza And now it's two years ago.

Very, very well put, Jacob! Thanks for that!

I really appreciate your comment here, Evan. It is such a treat to have a hand in inspiring a richer reading life. All my best to you! I may need to hire Bela Tarr to film my eventual BD video!

So glad you enjoyed the first half of the video. I tried my best to do this masterpiece justice!

I like your metaphor there, Marc! Glad you grasped the goodness that is Gaddis. Thanks for dropping in!

Hear, Hear!

the third policeman by flann o'brien has a similarly spoiler-laced introduction. why the publishers feel they have to preface any great work with another author's writing is beyond me. i've taken to never, ever reading an introduction (unless it's by the author, of course) until i've finished the book

@@christiancox972 Yeah, or Brian O'Flann or whatever his name is. One is a penname, the other his real name. I just did the unthinkable: wikipedia. But since was blissfully ignorant of this 3rd cop I now have a great intro to it. Will put it on my reading list, won't read the preface. Thanks, christian, for the recommend. Got ~200 pages into Infinite Jest before giving up; this 3rd policeman sounds like it will be worth finishing.

Reading introductions before the novels is a bad idea in general, I save them for after

Better to have Sontag’s self-obsessed chatter. The only thing she’s spoiling is the reader’s patience.

This is one of the highest compliments I’ve ever received. Thanks, Rick!

Hear! Hear! Glad you enjoyed the video. 🙏

Thanks for saying so! Very encouraging. Glad you got something out of it!

Excellent! Thanks so much! It's an honor to be able to share this stuff!

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks so much for the kind words. So thrilled you find the video helpful. You’re in for a real treat next year! It’s definitely not just another book.

Bravo! Gaddis is a master for sure. Just think-you have this book to look forward to revisiting throughout the years!

That whole position of “everything is plot” was revelatory for me too in my struggle to articulate why the text can feel so alienating at the same time that it is giving us everything we need.

Congratulations! 🎉🍾

Of course everyone only agrees fully on the fact that modernism and postmodernism (and postpostmodernism) aren’t cleanly defined. But-speaking of IJ (which I started rereading yesterday), Stephen J. Burn has a good point: modernism seems concerned with epistemology and postmodernism with ontology. I think that is very insightful. As for the need for more theory-as someone who went through the rigors of literary theory in graduate classrooms I’m ambivalent. :-)

@@LeafbyLeaf I like Mark Fisher’s grounded theory that modernity was never really manifested in social terms. Post-modernism is simply an academic term and post-post-modernism is academia searching for meaning… ironically.

Thanks so much! It's a pleasure.

TR is the hinge of modernism-postmodernism like Baron Corvo was the hinge from fin-de-siecle to modernism. You’re right in that this book definitely warrants a series of videos-there’s just too much going on to capture in one take. I’ll give this some thought. It’s encouraging to see so many with such a high interest. Thanks for your comments!

@@LeafbyLeaf please!, consider doing it, it's a fantastic idea

Steven Moore is such a treat. Those alternative history books are his crowning achievement. So thankful for them. I'm going to do videos on both of them (and My Back Pages) next year. It's great to hear you were able to relish the majesty that is The Recognitions. Great literature indeed!

Grazie! Ciao!

😜😜😜🙏🙏🙏

Thanks! I’ve been getting lots of questions around that. The two books I recommend are How to Read (Adlee) and The Well-Educated Mind (Bauer), but perhaps I will do a video and try to derail my approach to reading in a concise way.

That sounds like an excellent and rich comparative study!

Indeed!

@@LeafbyLeaf They had me at The Anatomy of Melancholy.

Thanks so much for sharing these insightful points, and feel free to post more! I particularly liked: - "Wyatt is more genuine in forgery than many contemporary artists trying to be original" - "Pynchon's "side characters" are in general more interesting than Gaddis'" Best of adventures (in advance) with your next read of TR! :)

Me, too!

Thanks! I think that’s a pretty solid plan.

Niiiiice! High five!

Aw, man--hate I missed the live talk! But I think I can watch it still, right?

@@LeafbyLeaf You bet, Chris 🤠📚😎

🙏🙌🔥

👏👏👏

@@LeafbyLeaf I would like to note that I've completed this novel for the first time last year and I often reflect on it but to this day I still feel like I was not smart enough to actually read it

That’s probably because it’s one of those novels made for rereading. I’m in the same boat!

@@LeafbyLeaf I agree, it will forever be added to the rare list of my re reads next to gravity's rainbow and infinite jest

Good company!

Grazie! Nice hear from you.

I don’t but people are beginning to ask that more and more. Thanks for the idea and the compliment!

😜😜😜

I'd say that's a great use of gift cards. I, too, used gift cards to splurge on that Montaigne book by Donald Frame.

Hey there! Thanks so much for your kind words! In general, I usually take on books like this "cold" (without reading any supplementary material) on the first read. I just throw myself into it and experience it in all of its uncanny idiosyncrasy. Then, on the second read, I'll start nibbling secondary material in parallel. In some cases, though, I will use a reader's guide even on the first read so I am not totally bewildered (e.g. Finnegans Wake). Hope this helps! My general rule of thumb: do whatever allows you to get the most out of a text.

It is very difficult, so just read through and pick up what you can. Reread it a couple years later with more supporting materials. For me, this is the only approach. Trying to thoroughly understand a work this dense on the first read will sabotage you.

Not a silly question at all! I can only speak to the Dalkey Archive and NYRB editions (I don't have the Penguin), but the only _major_ differences are the typeset (I actually prefer the older-looking Dalkey, though the NYRB is easier on the eyes) and the introductions: Dalkey's is the William H. Gass and NYRB's is Tom McCarthy. Hope that helps!

Oh, man-“the night journey” episode. There’s so much to this book! Really I would have to just read the book from cover to cover and make comments to get it all.

I'd also love an exploration of how events are only alluded to obtusely when they occur.

Two of the essays in In Recognition of William Gaddis go into that. That is a brilliant collection.

Definitely going to second this. It was so interesting to come across this in my reading as it felt so jarring, but at the same time pulled me through with its extremely ferverous and driving moments.

@@LeafbyLeaf my bad from last year. Watching this again you mention the plot being only alluded to multiple times LOL

(In Borat voice) Very niiice!

It’s a cheap-o Timex made to look like a Hamilton Khaki Field which I plan to buy but wanted to try out the 38mm dimension on my wrist for a while before committing. Also, you’re welcome.

Hey, Tanner! Thanks, much appreciated. You know--I hadn't really thought about Plato's Republic as an optional pre-req for TR. Having read The Republic last in January 2020, I'm mulling over my notes and considering this connection. More thoughts to come. Thank you!

​@@LeafbyLeaf To try and cut down your work, since I'm sure you're busy: I'm thinking the Republic is a valid pre-req because of the many passages that include references to "forms," which I read to be references to Plato's 'forms' from The Republic's Books 6 & 7. Most of the scenes in TR referencing forms are during Wyatt's artistry, but there are others too. From my notes (which I hope are thorough) this includes pages (from the NYRB edition): 39 "[Wyatt] terrified with guilty amazement as forms took shape under his pencil" 70 "As she exposed the side of her face, or a fall of cloth from her shoulder, he found there suggestions of the lines he needed, forms which he knew but could not discover in the work without this illusion to completed reality before him" 124 "Yes, the um...masters who didn't have to try to invent, who knew what...ah...forms looked like" 184 "Some of them have set out to kill art, and some of them are so excited about discovering new mediums and new forms, that they never have time to work in one that's already established" 238 "No, I...it isn't. I was going to, I wanted to, but then I got started on this other...this other idea took form and..." 247 "the art historians talk about everything having its own form and destiny" and lower down on 247, "Like everything today is being conscious of being looked at, looked at by something else but not by God, and that's the only way anything can have its own form and its own character, and...and shape and smell, being looked at by God" 269-270 "With each motion of his hand the form under it assumed a reality to exclude them both..." and lower down on 270, "She had both arms around his shoulders; and the breath denied by the form before them came the more quickly" 271 "translucent colors were fixed in intimate detail upon the established forms" 277 "even on order forms" (Here I think Gaddis is making a joke that 'forms' for Pivner are actually just documents, whereas every time forms are mentioned for Wyatt, it is in reference to high-mindedness) 467 The Republic is mentioned explicitly on the last line of this page 615 "When art tries to be religion itself, a religion of perfect form and beauty, but then there it is, all alone, not uniting people, not...like the church does but, look at the gulf between people and modern art..." 852 "fear of leaving any space for transition, for forms to...to share each other and..." and lower down on 852, "until he reaches the ideal form which was there all the time" Also, the sun metaphor throughout the book can easily be likened to the sun from Plato's divided line metaphor for reality (Republic 509d-511e), making Wyatt's quest for completion of originality even weightier, as he turns from the sun (Plato, Gwyon) to the moon (Aesthetics, Camilla) for inspiration. There are many other allusions in the book that I tend to also connect to Plato, though more tenuously. Also, criticism wise, where if anywhere have you read about Gaddis' study of Plato? Anyway, thanks again for making a video on this book!

Thanks, Tanner! This is great! I think you’ve made a solid case for Plato in Gaddis. As for all the sun metaphors, I think I was narrowly focused only on Mithraism (and the father/masculine v. mother/feminism as you pointed out). Thanks for widening my lens. Now I want to read TR all over again.

I cut out nearly 45 minutes of this video to keep it palatable. But I’m not sure if I expanded on that or not.

Completely agree.

What luck!

Yes, and I would recommend chronological-though if this is too daunting, Agapē Agape is a good entry into Gaddis’s works.

​@@LeafbyLeaf Thank you very much! I'll definitely try chronological. The Recognitions has been on my TBR for a while...

No problem! I will throw this out there too. For me, I sometimes save the reputedly best for last with an author I haven’t read before. For example, with Alexander Theroux I read all his work and saved Darconville’s Cat for last. With Joseph McElroy I’m saving Women and Men for last. I didn’t start this practice until well after I read The Recognitions and Gaddis’s other books, but it could be something to consider.

@@LeafbyLeaf Ah good point. I guess I'll try to start with The Recognitions but, similar to your feelings on Mason & Dixon, I feel ready and not ready at the same time. I'll see how it goes... Thanks for your advice nonetheless!

I can't wait to do videos on GR and BM! Thanks for the feedback.

@@LeafbyLeaf Thank you for all you've done over the past year, your service to the book readers out here can not be overestimated. Truly.

Really, really appreciated. This is a labor of love and has been extremely rewarding. So thankful to know so many serious readers.

Leaf mentions Harold Bloom and you, timkjazz, mention Blood Meridian. In his preface to BM, Bloom gives a way a key plot element to BM, and I highly suggest that those about to read it for the first time DO NOT read Bloom's preface first. Read it after.

Glad you enjoyed it, Noah! You’re in for a treat.

For what it's worth, I think reading JR is much more challenging, in general, than reading TR. Maybe I'm biased since I was taken with TR from the first page. With TR it is probably the density of allusion, but it's nothing the online annotations can't help with. For reading JR, it's all about paying attention and "hearing" the novel. TR is an "internalized" novel whereas JR is "externalized." My advice, though, would be to trust yourself as a reader and not what other readers have to say. Be empowered and go for it!

@@LeafbyLeaf thanks! And this is helpful. It’s just you never know what people really mean when they say it’s “difficult”. So I appreciate a little more context. And yeah, I just need to dive in and not worry what the online conversation seems to be on it.

Pretend like it’s 1955 and you just bought the book brand new.

You know, I am a heterosexual, white, male, so I should be able to do that without too much difficulty.

Thank you so much for your detailed and civil(!) comments, Tony A.! You are certainly not alone in your experience with Gaddis (or Melville, for that matter). For every reader who clasps The Recognitions to their heart on their deathbed (to borrow from Steven Moore about Darconville's Cat), there is a reader who wants to defenestrate the book--as the gentlest response. Where we go wrong as a community of readers is to start judging each other's worth as readers based on one (or a few) books. You are no less of a reader than I; you and I just look for different experiences (in the context of this book, anyway, for when I read The Three-Body Problem, for e.g., I adopted a completely different rubric for evaluating my experience). To offer just one thought about The Recognitions: The best that I've heard this put is Gregory Comnes saying that one strange property of TR is that everything is plot. I think that is absolutely right and it takes us off guard. And this is an irony, too, because very often things are presented as what David Letzler calls "cruft" (I disagree with his theory, but the definition works here) but it's actually crucial information. And, as you say, there's a certain reader who wants to investigate why this was done and how it enhances a second (and subsequent) reading. It is, in the end, one of those books written to be reread, which will baffle some readers and titillate others. As for your video suggestion, I think I would probably be the Internet's most hated individual (of, at least, the bookish world) if I did this, based on the book that springs to mind (though I am convinced the appeal is not the book but what would eventually become an HBO sensation)! I'm not very conditioned to speak about books I don't like--I typically just toss them aside and move on in search of something I like instead of trying to articulate why I didn't like them (I like to save that for strengthening how I talk about book I do like). But, nonetheless, this could be a really great exercise for many reasons and I appreciate your challenge! Thanks once again for this civil rejoinder concerning TR! Here's to your Forester recovery. All my best, Chris

@@LeafbyLeaf Hi Again Chris. Thanks for your kind and generous reply. Yes, I suspect that we all look for something different when we read whether to be entertained, thrilled, enlightened or whatever. I tend to prefer book series that tell a story that is too big to fit into only one novel. I have read (and can highly recommend) the 20-book "Aubrey and Maturin" series by Patrick O'Brian starting with "Master and Commander". (21 books if you include his unfinished final manuscript.) These are absurdly well written works and all of the naval battles described in the first few books were actual historical events which gives them a solid ring of authenticity. Other book series I've enjoyed include Frank Herbert's "Dune" (six books and, like TR, filled with allegories that I know you'd enjoy), the "Thursday Next" series by Jasper Fforde (seven books, equal portions of "Alice in Wonderland", Monty Python and a Masters degree in English Literature), and the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett (41 books, starting with "The Colour of Magic" and "The Light Fantastic", should be read in order of publication as there are dozens of side stories that slowly evolve the various characters over time). I've got many more, but those are my top favorites. If you want a suggestion for a book most serious readers can agree to dislike (and I suspect all of your viewers are serious readers) I'd vote for anything by John Grisham. I was given a copy of "The Client" by a friend in the office years ago and it wasn't so much a novel as a screenplay. The prose was thin to invisibility, it was pretty much just bare-bones exposition, dialog and action with nothing else. I won't say that I hated it but it ranks very high on my list of "Worst Books I've Ever Read". Perhaps some of your other viewers would like to make suggestions as well? Finally, I am happy to report that I am thoroughly enjoying "Beat to Quarters" by C. S. Forester, a ripping tale! BTW, I am reading a copy from a three-volume set I found when going through my parents' home two years ago. I strongly suspect that this is the very same book that my mom read shortly after this work was first published in 1938. "Captain Horatio Hornblower" was a popular series, too, so I'm sure I'll enjoy the other books as well. Thanks for listening to my rant about books. I have very few friends who read as much as I do (one, actually) and it is nice to vent to someone. Yes, I know that there are hundreds if not thousands of chat rooms and such for just this kind of thing, but it's not quite the same. Stay well and I will look forward to your future video essays. Tony A.

From Steven Moore's annotations: "3.9] Reverend Gwyon: according to de Rougemont, Gwyon was a Celtic divinity whose name "(whence 'guyon' meaning 'guide' in Old French) means the Führer who has in his custody the secret of initiation into the way of divinization" (LWW 210 n.1). Also relevant are Gawain from the Grail romances (see FRR) and Gwion, a semilegendary bard whose poetry hides "an ancient religious mystery - a blasphemous one from the Church's point of view - under the cloak of buffoonery" (WG 55); one of Gwion's poems is quoted at 467.5. (Asked once how to pronounce Gwyon, Gaddis said he didn't know; he had never said it aloud. It probably should be pronounced as one syllable, like "Gwynne," its modern form.)"

@@LeafbyLeaf Wow, thank you for this! Above and beyond as always.

😁

Perhaps my Recognitions redux video will fit the bill. Speaking of super long videos-I’m at work on one right now. 😁

@@LeafbyLeaf 🤯🙌🏼

Other than the intro to this edition of TR, I've not read anything of McCarthy's. Thanks for the recommendation!

My favorite twentieth-century American novel ;-)

@@LeafbyLeafmiss lonely hearts by Nathaniel West

Indicative of the time and (hopefully) how much we’ve grown since.

I know! 😁

You could read them for the “first time” again! 😁

@@LeafbyLeaf I will do eventually

🤟

I've long wondered what an audiobook for J R would be like. :)

Noted. This was right before I cut my hair and was tired of flipping it out of my face every five seconds.

@@LeafbyLeaf Forgot to say: otherwise, very fine report on our man Gaddis .... cheers!

Thanks!

Thank you so much! I'm thrilled you got some value out of the video!