I Like __ A Lot
I like William Gaddis alot
I’m going to write about books and authors I like, but it won’t be ‘indie-lit,’ because I actually can’t keep up with everything, but I want to write about writing, so I am relying on books/authors I’ve read in the past. Hopefully, this will start a dialog and other contributors will also write posts in similar fashion. The goal is to get people reading what they might not have otherwise. I’m calling this series, “I like [blank] alot.” I encourage everyone to do this.
My first installment will be about William Gaddis. He’s not necessarily my ‘favorite’ writer, because taste is a malleable thing, but I think he’s ‘blown my mind’ the most in everything I’ve read in my life.
These posts will also provide context, like an intro or something. William Gaddis is most commonly grouped with Pynchon, but it’s a one-dimensional association. Gaddis himself said he didn’t like or understand Pynchon. Gaddis can be seen to have bridged Faulkner’s modernist tendencies (e.g. fragmented objectivity) and Pynchon’s post-modernism (he also chronologically fits the bill, writing exactly between the two). Gaddis is also sorta like the american Kafka; the former had an office job at a lawfirm his entire life. Somewhat cliché, but Gaddis hated the lit world back then, and only admitted to liking T.S. Eliot.
In JR, his second book (which in my mind did something no other book as done, which I’ll get into later), he incorporated the vernacular of american bureaucracy so accurately that 50% of the book is [sic]. He has been said to have made notes quoting his co-workers and adding it into his book.
I think JR won the National Book Award, but Gaddis is still ‘under-rated’ in the sense that only sorta crazy people read him. And the award was given ambivalently, like Gravity’s Rainbow, by a committee whom some of which didn’t actually read the book. Gaddis only wrote 4 books, and his last two were inconsequential knock-offs of his first two.
The Recognitions, his first book, also ‘blew my mind,’ and this is how: Gaddis exploited the reader’s tendency to forget things, or the nonchalant faith that the author’s best interest was to ‘take care’ of the reader. He was aware of how ‘fictional reality’ is rendered in the reader’s mind, and purposely fucked with it. Jonathan Franzen, and the contemporary social-realists, don’t like that shit (and I can understand why), but if you like to be fucked with, Gaddis is your man.
Here are some examples of his method:
In The Recognitions, the characters names slowly become interchangeable. Gaddis purposely introduces other characters with almost identical names (Esme, Elise, Elsy, Elly, Elyse, etc.) to confuse the reader. But there is a surreal component to this: the story is about pastiche and the death of ‘the original,’ (a big deal back then, think Warhol) and so the characters ‘caricaturize’ themselves as being copies of one another. Gaddis also does a lot of funny things, like halfway thru the book, the main character disappears and is never mentioned again. The subordinate characters go on and struggle for position as the main character. The book is about a painter who makes more money forging painting than painting his own, though that’s a really shallow description of the book. It’s really about the capacity of ‘character’ in a novel, and the artifice of its rendering. It’s also a haunting love story.
JR is 700 pages of uncited dialog (no “said John,” “replied Lisa,” etc.) The reader basically has to ‘dive in’ and, like some archeologist, retro-actively create a logical world using a paltry set of clues. The more the reader investigates, the more he/she discovers how intricate the novel was written, and how Gaddis leaves not only the right clues, but at the right time. So the ‘writing’ is not actually on the paper, it’s 80% in the reader’s mind. And, yes, he majorly fucks with you: there’s a scene where person A and person B are talking, and person A interrupts and says, “Oh, person C!” followed by descriptions which lead the reader to believe person C rang the door bell—and the reader bases the next 50pgs on that premise. 150 pages later, the reader realizes that person C came down the stairwell when person A says “Oh, person C,” and the person at the door was actually person D, which inverts the entire preceding narrative. Gaddis said he got the idea from T.S. Eliot’s play “The Cocktail Party,” in which a lot of the actor’s dialog takes place off-stage.
He also exploits the inherent fragmented perception that comes from reading fiction, how ‘truth’ (even fictional truth) is impossible. There’s a scene where a man looks in a rearview mirror from a taxi and sees a bouquet of flowers bouncing. It’s described in such a lyrical and memorable way, that it’s embedded in the reader’s memory like some archived signifier, some mental database which glue timelines together. Then some 200 pages later, another character in the book (in the context of the day the taxi ride took place) sees a penny on the ground and attempts numerous times to bend down and pick it up. And he’s holding a bouquet of flowers. These are just one of a myriad of moments when I was like, “holy fuck.”
This post is getting too long. I’ll finish quickly: If you want to be utterly mind fucked for a month straight, and carry the reading experience in your bone marrow forever, read The Recognitions or JR, just get a pen and pad of paper to take down notes. Flow charts and diagrams won’t hurt too.
Tags: JR, The recognitions, William Gaddis
I’ve never even considered reading Gaddis before. I don’t know why. Now I am considering it.
I’ve never even considered reading Gaddis before. I don’t know why. Now I am considering it.
i’ll give it a look. good post
i’ll give it a look. good post
thank you jimmy, this was interesting and pleasant to read
thank you jimmy, this was interesting and pleasant to read
JR is a fucking AMAZING book. i spent one week of a summer reading it when i was a teenager. that’s all i did, nothing else, read JR.
JR is a fucking AMAZING book. i spent one week of a summer reading it when i was a teenager. that’s all i did, nothing else, read JR.
one week, impressive.
it took me two months
one week, impressive.
it took me two months
“Gaddis only wrote 4 books, and his last two were inconsequential knock-offs of his first two.”
Which of his last three do you not consider a book, Agape Agape? Since it was more a book about a guy writing a book about the same topic Gaddis was to have written a book about. But in that case you can’t really call most of Markson’s work “books”.
This comment rubs me wrong. A Frolic of His Own was genius, A.A. stands alone and was an impressive end-stone to a focused career for reasons I don’t have time to go into at the moment. Carpenter’s Gothic… yeah, it was OK. Certainly not an “inconsequential knock-off”, but his low(er) point for me.
Referring to Frolic of His Own in particular as “inconsequential” makes my eye twitch a little.
“Gaddis only wrote 4 books, and his last two were inconsequential knock-offs of his first two.”
Which of his last three do you not consider a book, Agape Agape? Since it was more a book about a guy writing a book about the same topic Gaddis was to have written a book about. But in that case you can’t really call most of Markson’s work “books”.
This comment rubs me wrong. A Frolic of His Own was genius, A.A. stands alone and was an impressive end-stone to a focused career for reasons I don’t have time to go into at the moment. Carpenter’s Gothic… yeah, it was OK. Certainly not an “inconsequential knock-off”, but his low(er) point for me.
Referring to Frolic of His Own in particular as “inconsequential” makes my eye twitch a little.
J:
dont take it personally. jimmy often posts things without adequately thinking them through beforehand…
which is part of his appeal for me.
J:
dont take it personally. jimmy often posts things without adequately thinking them through beforehand…
which is part of his appeal for me.
Wow, did you guys add on here recently? Gosh, the place looks bigger than it did the last time I was here. Nice and fresh. I like how you opened the windows. Well done.
Wow, did you guys add on here recently? Gosh, the place looks bigger than it did the last time I was here. Nice and fresh. I like how you opened the windows. Well done.
J: Barry is right, I don’t think things thru. Agape, agape was published posthumously, and i don’t know, that always makes me feel like the writer had ‘no say,’ and i don’t trust editors/publishing houses trying to make a buck with a book that the author might not want published.
it’s cool that you liked AFOHO and AA, that’s what makes humans so complex, that we each have our own brain, and what i wrote came from my brain, and what you wrote came from your brain.
J: Barry is right, I don’t think things thru. Agape, agape was published posthumously, and i don’t know, that always makes me feel like the writer had ‘no say,’ and i don’t trust editors/publishing houses trying to make a buck with a book that the author might not want published.
it’s cool that you liked AFOHO and AA, that’s what makes humans so complex, that we each have our own brain, and what i wrote came from my brain, and what you wrote came from your brain.
Yikes – first, you should spell “a lot” correctly.
Yikes – first, you should spell “a lot” correctly.
“and what i wrote came from my brain, and what you wrote came from your brain.”
OK, cool. Can you explain why you find Frolic an inconsequential knock-off? Winning a National Book Award may not necessarily de-facto prove a book’s worth, but it does kind of set a precedent that, should you be inclined to speak against it, needs to be addressed a little more deeply than with a couple of words. Stylistically it was an entirely different novel, and it addressed a different sector of American life than any of his others. I’m just curious how you came to this conclusion.
Frankly just glad to be hearing about something other than some HTMLGIANT/Thieves Jargon flame war.
“and what i wrote came from my brain, and what you wrote came from your brain.”
OK, cool. Can you explain why you find Frolic an inconsequential knock-off? Winning a National Book Award may not necessarily de-facto prove a book’s worth, but it does kind of set a precedent that, should you be inclined to speak against it, needs to be addressed a little more deeply than with a couple of words. Stylistically it was an entirely different novel, and it addressed a different sector of American life than any of his others. I’m just curious how you came to this conclusion.
Frankly just glad to be hearing about something other than some HTMLGIANT/Thieves Jargon flame war.
i enjoyed this post
i thought ‘interesting’ sometimes
i enjoyed this post
i thought ‘interesting’ sometimes
david:
i hope thats humor and you’re not that big of a douche bag in real life. if it is. cool. funny. hahahhahahah. i liked it alot.
jimmy:
i love you
david:
i hope thats humor and you’re not that big of a douche bag in real life. if it is. cool. funny. hahahhahahah. i liked it alot.
jimmy:
i love you
J., i read 50pgs into AFOHO and felt, formally, he was doing exactly the same thing as JR, with the crazy unquoted talk and all. maybe from pg 51 and on it was different, but i flipped thru the book to check, and it ‘looked’ the same. i know, i’m horrible.
carpenter’s gothic was okay.
thank you everyone else who responded positively about this post.
it’s friday, i’m in love.
J., i read 50pgs into AFOHO and felt, formally, he was doing exactly the same thing as JR, with the crazy unquoted talk and all. maybe from pg 51 and on it was different, but i flipped thru the book to check, and it ‘looked’ the same. i know, i’m horrible.
carpenter’s gothic was okay.
thank you everyone else who responded positively about this post.
it’s friday, i’m in love.
OK. I think that’s why out of all of them Carpenter’s is the only one I could take or leave. I don’t know if I can say its scope fits all that well with the rest.
Well, I’d give it another go, there’s some interesting stylistic things he does, using court “documents” as narrative tool etc. Depends if you’re reading it for the style or for the content. I find it a hilarious take on our legal system. I think it’s absolutely hilarious and engaging.
re: AA, I can understand that as I tend not to feel awesome about posthumous publications myself, but this:
“But it was also the case that Gaddis used much of the material directly or indirectly in his novels, and by 1989, had decided that the history, for which he had by then accumulated material over a period of nearly 50 years, was ‘over-researched’ and would never be published. So it was perhaps surprising that for his last work, he decided to return to the project. He spent two years working on the history, but then decided to re-cast it as a work of fiction. Agapē Agape was completed shortly before his death in 1998, and finally published in 2002.”
(from http://www.williamgaddis.org/agape/reviewpianolajrnl.shtml)
among other tidbits I’ve read make me think that if he were alive it would have appeared in much the same manner.
I find it an almost crushing end note to his career. He basically laid out a very hard line aesthetic in The Recognitions he felt he failed (I definitely read the narrator of AA as Gaddis himself, though there’s been some debate on the gaddis-l):
“Age withering arrogant youth and worse, the works of an arrogant youth and the book I wrote then, my first book, it’s become my enemy, o Dio, odium, the rage and energy and boundless excitement the only reality where the work that’s become my enemy got done and the only refuge from the hallucination that’s everything out there is the greater one that transforms you good God, Pozdnyshev, those words that Levochka gave you to transform the whol thing when “music carries you off into another state of being that’s not your own, of feeling things you don’t really feel, of understanding thing you don’t really understand, of being able to do things you aren’t really able to do” yes, that transforms that transfigures you yourself into the self who can do more! That was Youth with its reckless exuberance when all things were possible pursued by Age where we are now, looking back at what we destroyed, what we tore away from that self who could do more, and its work that’s become my enemy because that’s what I can tell you about, that Youth who could do anything.” (last lines of AA)
It’s almost saying that by its mere existence AA is a failure, but a completely self-aware failure that’s devastating for its self-awareness.
OK. I think that’s why out of all of them Carpenter’s is the only one I could take or leave. I don’t know if I can say its scope fits all that well with the rest.
Well, I’d give it another go, there’s some interesting stylistic things he does, using court “documents” as narrative tool etc. Depends if you’re reading it for the style or for the content. I find it a hilarious take on our legal system. I think it’s absolutely hilarious and engaging.
re: AA, I can understand that as I tend not to feel awesome about posthumous publications myself, but this:
“But it was also the case that Gaddis used much of the material directly or indirectly in his novels, and by 1989, had decided that the history, for which he had by then accumulated material over a period of nearly 50 years, was ‘over-researched’ and would never be published. So it was perhaps surprising that for his last work, he decided to return to the project. He spent two years working on the history, but then decided to re-cast it as a work of fiction. Agapē Agape was completed shortly before his death in 1998, and finally published in 2002.”
(from http://www.williamgaddis.org/agape/reviewpianolajrnl.shtml)
among other tidbits I’ve read make me think that if he were alive it would have appeared in much the same manner.
I find it an almost crushing end note to his career. He basically laid out a very hard line aesthetic in The Recognitions he felt he failed (I definitely read the narrator of AA as Gaddis himself, though there’s been some debate on the gaddis-l):
“Age withering arrogant youth and worse, the works of an arrogant youth and the book I wrote then, my first book, it’s become my enemy, o Dio, odium, the rage and energy and boundless excitement the only reality where the work that’s become my enemy got done and the only refuge from the hallucination that’s everything out there is the greater one that transforms you good God, Pozdnyshev, those words that Levochka gave you to transform the whol thing when “music carries you off into another state of being that’s not your own, of feeling things you don’t really feel, of understanding thing you don’t really understand, of being able to do things you aren’t really able to do” yes, that transforms that transfigures you yourself into the self who can do more! That was Youth with its reckless exuberance when all things were possible pursued by Age where we are now, looking back at what we destroyed, what we tore away from that self who could do more, and its work that’s become my enemy because that’s what I can tell you about, that Youth who could do anything.” (last lines of AA)
It’s almost saying that by its mere existence AA is a failure, but a completely self-aware failure that’s devastating for its self-awareness.
thank you for getting ‘deep into this’ J.
you prove that Gaddis fans are nutbags.
i like that.
thank you for getting ‘deep into this’ J.
you prove that Gaddis fans are nutbags.
i like that.
yeah wow I’m such a nutbag for trying to have a discussion regarding literature on a Web site that discusses literature.
I’m sorry that backing up my point with actual material that supports said point is somehow nutty, rather than making some uninformed, uneducated blanket statement about a book I’ve never even read in an attempt to… what? I can’t figure that one out.
I made an argument and you come back like “Oh well because it’s in my brain it’s totally valid”.
Look man, you sound like a god damned three year old. It’s this kind of surface level uneducated bullshit that’s killing contemporary literature.
‘ta.
yeah wow I’m such a nutbag for trying to have a discussion regarding literature on a Web site that discusses literature.
I’m sorry that backing up my point with actual material that supports said point is somehow nutty, rather than making some uninformed, uneducated blanket statement about a book I’ve never even read in an attempt to… what? I can’t figure that one out.
I made an argument and you come back like “Oh well because it’s in my brain it’s totally valid”.
Look man, you sound like a god damned three year old. It’s this kind of surface level uneducated bullshit that’s killing contemporary literature.
‘ta.
I mean god damnit you’re talking up a book (TR) that lashes out against exactly the sort of attitude you’re putting forth.
Know your materials, dumbass.
I mean god damnit you’re talking up a book (TR) that lashes out against exactly the sort of attitude you’re putting forth.
Know your materials, dumbass.
J, bro, relax bro.
seriously, you gotta relax.
i hate how these comments threads get all dramatic n’ shit.
what i had to say i said in the post and i’m moving on. if you got something to say, you make create a blog and write all about gaddis.
i can’t get all shiznitch on gaddis yo in this er comment thread my man.
J, chill out bro.
J, bro, relax bro.
seriously, you gotta relax.
i hate how these comments threads get all dramatic n’ shit.
what i had to say i said in the post and i’m moving on. if you got something to say, you make create a blog and write all about gaddis.
i can’t get all shiznitch on gaddis yo in this er comment thread my man.
J, chill out bro.
J:
i love the discussion man, your points are valid and your opinions are informed and i respect them, but fuck man, im starting to worry about your blood pressure.
and i understand your point, but i doubt that not being a gaddis scholar qualifies as “uneducated.” but again, i see your point and i share it in some regards. but calm down brotha.
J:
i love the discussion man, your points are valid and your opinions are informed and i respect them, but fuck man, im starting to worry about your blood pressure.
and i understand your point, but i doubt that not being a gaddis scholar qualifies as “uneducated.” but again, i see your point and i share it in some regards. but calm down brotha.
you know what would be funny, is if the J was jimmy and he was just arguing with himself. i mean, i love jimmy now, but if that shit was real my love would explode through my skin
you know what would be funny, is if the J was jimmy and he was just arguing with himself. i mean, i love jimmy now, but if that shit was real my love would explode through my skin
barry you have too much faith in me.
i am not J.
i don’t do that Kafka/K. shit
barry you have too much faith in me.
i am not J.
i don’t do that Kafka/K. shit
A great post, JC. I love Gaddis.
A great post, JC. I love Gaddis.
J –
Don’t get discouraged. Comments like yours are a welcome read. I’d talk with you about Gaddis except I haven’t read him yet. I have A Frolic of His Own but it hasn’t been cracked open. Your points have given things to consider however when I do approach him. It’s appreciated
J –
Don’t get discouraged. Comments like yours are a welcome read. I’d talk with you about Gaddis except I haven’t read him yet. I have A Frolic of His Own but it hasn’t been cracked open. Your points have given things to consider however when I do approach him. It’s appreciated
Thanks, Brad.
Look Jimmy, I was pretty happy to see someone on here bringing up an interesting topic. I’m sure there are more than a few books out there you could talk circles around me on and I’m sure there are people here who could teach me a thing or two about Gaddis, too. I think you were spot on in your bit when you mentioned the relationship (or lack thereof) between Pynchon and Gaddis, for what it’s worth.
Calling someone a nutbag after they take the time to lay something out in earnest seems to be asking for drama, especially when you’re bringing up an author with such a hard-line aesthetic system and saying you like what he’s written. Maybe I just read your tone wrong, but I thought you’d be glad someone would be interested enough in what you wrote to respond to it in a way beyond zero substance “wow awesome, I thought interesting” comments. Otherwise why would you post it to a place which allowed people to comment on what you’ve written. Right?
It isn’t the fact that you don’t know Gaddis to the extent of being able to say from memory how many wrinkles his bellybutton has that bugs me, it’s more that you seemed to become insulted simply because I engaged a few points that were off-base. That’s the shit that’ll send a sane man screaming through the streets naked. I talk to too many Republicans about politics to be able to put up with it rationally when discussing literature.
Anyways.
Thanks, Brad.
Look Jimmy, I was pretty happy to see someone on here bringing up an interesting topic. I’m sure there are more than a few books out there you could talk circles around me on and I’m sure there are people here who could teach me a thing or two about Gaddis, too. I think you were spot on in your bit when you mentioned the relationship (or lack thereof) between Pynchon and Gaddis, for what it’s worth.
Calling someone a nutbag after they take the time to lay something out in earnest seems to be asking for drama, especially when you’re bringing up an author with such a hard-line aesthetic system and saying you like what he’s written. Maybe I just read your tone wrong, but I thought you’d be glad someone would be interested enough in what you wrote to respond to it in a way beyond zero substance “wow awesome, I thought interesting” comments. Otherwise why would you post it to a place which allowed people to comment on what you’ve written. Right?
It isn’t the fact that you don’t know Gaddis to the extent of being able to say from memory how many wrinkles his bellybutton has that bugs me, it’s more that you seemed to become insulted simply because I engaged a few points that were off-base. That’s the shit that’ll send a sane man screaming through the streets naked. I talk to too many Republicans about politics to be able to put up with it rationally when discussing literature.
Anyways.
also, I am jimmy chen
also, I am jimmy chen
My guess is J is Jereme, perpetuating the schtik in the role of antagonist.
My guess is J is Jereme, perpetuating the schtik in the role of antagonist.
no actually I’m Jonathan Safran Foer
gonna go take a crap and wipe my ass with money
darby:
great stuff on abjective. i especially like this saturday and last, keep it up man, good shit.
no actually I’m Jonathan Safran Foer
gonna go take a crap and wipe my ass with money
darby:
great stuff on abjective. i especially like this saturday and last, keep it up man, good shit.
thanks barry. also at dogzplot, that ted powers piece was awesome.
thanks barry. also at dogzplot, that ted powers piece was awesome.
Have you read this?
http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/2812/prmID/1502
I’m so mad about it, she says it isn’t about me but it totally is
Have you read this?
http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/2812/prmID/1502
I’m so mad about it, she says it isn’t about me but it totally is
darby:
thanks
i am reconsidering my idea that J is jimmy. i know who it is.
darby:
thanks
i am reconsidering my idea that J is jimmy. i know who it is.
No I’m not Itamar Moses
really.
No I’m not Itamar Moses
really.
Maybe I should change my name to B so I can by mysterious too. I wanna be mysterious like the cool kids.
Maybe I should change my name to B so I can by mysterious too. I wanna be mysterious like the cool kids.
Jimmy,
I really enjoyed this post and would love to read the other giants’ entries in this “I like _____ alot” series. Especially if the writers being spotlighted were historical rather than contemporary. This would be a neat way to discuss literary antecedents.
I first came to Gaddis through AFOHO at a time when I really needed the kind of inspiration it offered (i.e. an entire text of unattributed dialogue). I never got around to reading TR, but you’ve peaked my interest.
Anyways, just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful post on an author that doesn’t seem to get talked about much.
Jimmy,
I really enjoyed this post and would love to read the other giants’ entries in this “I like _____ alot” series. Especially if the writers being spotlighted were historical rather than contemporary. This would be a neat way to discuss literary antecedents.
I first came to Gaddis through AFOHO at a time when I really needed the kind of inspiration it offered (i.e. an entire text of unattributed dialogue). I never got around to reading TR, but you’ve peaked my interest.
Anyways, just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful post on an author that doesn’t seem to get talked about much.
J is not me. I do not really go into deep discussions about books. i would say ‘i liked it’ or ‘fuck that book’.
i’m an idiot like that.
i just woke up from partying. jimmy hurt my feelings. so i went out and saw a cloud, pissed on a street, almost got in several fist fights, pointed my middle finger at some police officers and i did some other shit i cannot recollect.
i am currently reading ‘stranger in a strange place’. i will tell you if i like it or not.
the writing is horrible though. like pushing needles through my gumline.
J is not me. I do not really go into deep discussions about books. i would say ‘i liked it’ or ‘fuck that book’.
i’m an idiot like that.
i just woke up from partying. jimmy hurt my feelings. so i went out and saw a cloud, pissed on a street, almost got in several fist fights, pointed my middle finger at some police officers and i did some other shit i cannot recollect.
i am currently reading ‘stranger in a strange place’. i will tell you if i like it or not.
the writing is horrible though. like pushing needles through my gumline.
‘stranger in a strange land’ sorry. i am hung over and just woke up.
‘stranger in a strange land’ sorry. i am hung over and just woke up.
i think J is jason jordan…….
i think J is jason jordan…….
i’ve been playing this new sherlock holmes game on the pc so now i think im all sleuthy.
i know i know. sherlock holmes pc games, what a fucking dork i am.
i’ve been playing this new sherlock holmes game on the pc so now i think im all sleuthy.
i know i know. sherlock holmes pc games, what a fucking dork i am.
you’re fantastic, bg.
i’ve never read gaddis and may never. hm. but i like this “writers i like” category. great idea.
now i’m going to google jason jordon
that guy had a great story in keystone.
Jason Jordon is freaking awesome. Even though he rejects me that doesn’t dent his awesomeness. He has that undentable type of awesomeness which makes me salivate and to which I aspire.
Jason Jordon is freaking awesome. Even though he rejects me that doesn’t dent his awesomeness. He has that undentable type of awesomeness which makes me salivate and to which I aspire.
indeed. jason jordan is a great human being.
indeed. jason jordan is a great human being.
I posted that at 5:03PM and was slightly drunk. Does that speak ill of me?
I posted that at 5:03PM and was slightly drunk. Does that speak ill of me?
Donchu forget the last coupla Gaddis books eiver. They’re pretty damn good.
Donchu forget the last coupla Gaddis books eiver. They’re pretty damn good.
[…] pieces you mention bring to mind William Gaddis’ intricate chaos, which I went into detail here. I’m still not over my reading of JR, which I will say is the most intense reading experience […]
[…] (thus being more influential, economically viable) though I love Jimmy Chen’s-William Gaddis-like writing, deconstructing ideas to the root suffering of man. That man’s sin is not Eve’s, and […]
[…] Further Reading The Gaddis Annotations “Stop Player. Joke No. 4″ by William Gaddis “Mr. Difficult” by Jonathan Franzen “Books People Wrote Because They Were Pissed About Writing” by Blake Butler “I like William Gaddis alot” by Jimmy Chen […]
[…] Further Reading The Gaddis Annotations “Stop Player. Joke No. 4″ by William Gaddis “Mr. Difficult” by Jonathan Franzen “Books People Wrote Because They Were Pissed About Writing” by Blake Butler “I like William Gaddis alot” by Jimmy Chen […]