Why haven't you read this yet?

It's not. It's not that hard. Jonathan franzen is just a stupid faggot. J R is also better. But both of them are some of the greatest works of English literature of all time.

heres the aesthetic cover i got

Thanks guys think I'll dig into this next then, been awhile since I read a good doorstopper

I will be getting a copy soon

>slightly higher in canada

DUDE

Why though?

>he doesn't have the black/white cover

I'm reading it next month you prick, cool your jets.

>1000 fucking pages just to end with "just b urself lol"

The honest truth is that I don't think a 25-year-old New Yorker has that much to say about life, and its length just demonstrates his youth and inability to concisely express himself.

But thats not how it ended. It ended like no matter what you do your fucked desu senpai.

not everyone was/is as ignorant as you

also, where did you get 25?

worked on it for seven years, published 1955, gaddis born 1922, 33-7=26, so he's not too far off.

Hahahaha kill your self my man! Hahahaha just hook up a generator to the cab of your truck and get in hahaha

Aw, do you regret wasting three months on an average book?

Have you read it Lmao?

recognitions published in 1955
born in 1922

~33

I think his views on duplication etc. are primitive at best. Pierre Menard came out 15 years earlier and is light-years ahead of TR.

I was my high school's valedictorian. I was my class president while at Yale. Harold Bloom was a mentor. I keep an annotated copy of Gravity's Rainbow on my toilet, always catching quirky new references while SHITTING. You can't think on that level EVER, let alone when you're scrunched over the toilet.

I speak in Iambic Pantameter. I love in trochees. After I come, I whisper in couplets for dramatic effect.

I have an IQ of at least 150. My friend Don DeLillo sends me his manuscripts for revisions, which I drastically change, because he needs all the help he can get.

I know so much about history, it's almost as if I'd experienced the World as Idea first hand. My friends call me the Count of St. Germaine.

I don't write on laptops because it's unethical. I send handwritten letters to women I like. I write 15,000 words a day and have been published by Nautilus, the New Yorker, Penguin and Random House.

I am the past, present, and future. Je me casse, you pleb trash.

>implying that's the only way recognition is used in the book, duplicates
arguably the term is used with different effect every time. i doubt the guy wanted a pierre menard effect.

>his revisions helped make underworld
this is nothing to be proud of, man.

It extends throughout copies, imitation, forgery, influence, etc.

Yikes. You know that one's edited in a funky way to where it's not the real Recognitions, or at least missing so many crucial parts it's radically different?

Sorry ya got Dalkey'd :/

I'm into this

and more. not just those themes are covered under the mantle of the term.

Sorry you didn't buy Dalkey and then made some shit up about to feel better.

how truly hard is GR?

bravo

its ok but it's a bit heavyhanded. and highly derivative of "i'm 19 years old" and "oxford," both of which struck a finer balance between satire and realism. the schizophrenic tone that oscillates between toilet humor and highmindedness is disorienting without discernible effect w/r/t "saying something about the modern human condition." the references, while amusing, serve more as meme fireworks than any underlying thematic motif.

6/10. i look forward to your next work because there is promise here.

Not him but pretty difficult/exasperating but then you finish it and it starts to make sense and you do a bit of research and reread it and it becomes the best novel ever and is easy to read.

Thank you. Not one of my best but I do see its potential.

tell me everything wrong with this edition

>edited in a funky way
lmao what the hell are you on about

way harder than recognitions

what does "tee on tons" mean?

you fucked up.

> reviewer is oblivious to the fact that it's a parody of a Sam Hyde quote and then goes on to write in too many words "there's too much high and low contrast and you were only joking."

3/10
bad critique

go back to r/books

more like, go back to litcord, you mean

-le secondhand cringe-

This book literally made me reconsider my atheism and begin my ascent into christianity, user.

i'm considering going into catholicism.

lmao you didn't understand it if that's the case. the book is indifferent to religion at best. Just because it has cool christian imagery and le references doesn't make it a christian book, dumb dumb

12/10

Lmao XD XD

I hope you contract aids.

I have testicles for eyes

i didn't say it was a christian book, you fool. besides, the climax of the novel is hardly indifferent to religion. you mussantive read the book.

if it isn't a christian book (by this I meant pro-christian), then how would it make you consider going into catholocism, bud? The whole point of the book is that it is about the attempt to replace religion with art. I don't really see what you're saying about it being pro-christian.

>actually being familiar with hydes material
>reddit spacing
do i even have to say it

i didn't say it was a pro-christian book, you navel-gazing gibberfaggot. the book is decidedly not christian or pro christian. it inspired me in ways that doubtless would be misunderstood by you who has taken great strides in the science misinterpretations thus far.

look, the book showed me something. that's all.

Because I'm fed up with narcissistic amerifags from the 20th century who wrote giant post modern tomes filled to the brim with drivel to compensate for their tiny, limp dicks and their painfully low IQ. I read good literature instead.

lmao someone got their feelings hurt.
Would you not say that it's an honest appraisal of your post to think that if you said the book "made me begin my ascent into christianity" that you would be thinking the book was pro-christianity? Jesus, dude. When people say "Brothers K made me become a Christian," everyone assumes at first thoght that thus this book is pro-Christian.

>great strides in the science misinterpretations thus far.
what are you even saying right now?

>the book showed me something. that's all
What did it show you then? Just the aesthetic of Christianity?

Bait

desu, there are only like 3. it's just that they get memed

>feelings hurt
the master misapprehender strikes again
anyway, the book is influential in unexpected ways. one unexpected way was my total ideological shift away from an emptiness derived from patterns in The Recognitions. I saw and understood one of the most important meanings of the term recognition.
I'm sorry to have wasted so much of your time, presenting things for you to be perplexed by ad infinitum.

oh, and insert an "of" between science and misinterpretations. my wife interrupted me for a moment to offer me coffee.
i'm sure you understood, however, and used it merely as some sort of argumentative advantage.

Stop saying this in every thread. We get it already.

I think I see what you're saying, now. After all, the book after all isn't quite pro-art either in terms of the solution to resolving/compensating for the lack of faith in the modern world. You'll have to forgive me, though, for shitting on your original post because without elaboration it seemed like you were posing to have read the book and were thus deserving of being shat on.

could you elabroate on "the most important meaning of the term recognition" and why this led you to start to embrace faith though?

got any masterpieces to suggest?

well, recognition in terms of the return to the source of mind. there was a lack of fulfillment extant in many of the characters i felt, except for wyatt, who, raised under an extremely religious fanatic, went through a metamorphosis from this foundation.
there was a theme in the work that i picked up, wheher intentional or no, that art and expression of man is merely simulacrum of god's vision, and the mere act of creation is a 'recognition', in the simpler terms of the word as mimicry. rethought, as it were, anyhow, i went through a transformation of self in the immersion of as you say, christian aesthetic, but i realized what this implied in myself. that i was responding to, recognizing, an unkindled aspect of my mind, soul, spirit, what have you. I felt that this was something queer to the empty shadows of angling that atheistic arguments typically amount to. i went through a small crisis of morality, and the objective subjective dichotomy, but to not bore you with details, i felt and understood that religion was a missing yet integral part of my maturing as a man, and despite any end point of religious fanaticism, or a return to atheism or whatever alternatives, i knew and know that it is an essential process for my transformation.
i hope this clears that up. it's no fun typing shit out on an ipad.

...

Not sure if you're still looking at this thread, but I found GR much more difficult than The Recognitions or JR,
and I love and cherish both.

For me, the allusions/"subplots" in Gaddis are okay to miss (at least in part) during your first read through. It feels like Pynchon does not allow you to miss anything, because so many pages of GR are long detailed histories of the Occult or orginizations that play a big part in the plot of GR. Gaddis very rarely goes on a 20 page history of anything. Everything in his books feels very relevant, as the things you have to piece together are easily out in their respective places.

Another example: there's obviously a massive business "underworld" in JR, but, honestly, if you don't understand what's going on in terms of each business, you can still read and enjoy the novel and retain its message/extract its themes. Fuck, I mean, a lot of people don't read for plot on lit, but JR has a great one. Just figuring out what comes of the characters is pure joy.

I read JR first and really loved it, then I read The Recognitions. I sort of wish I did it the other way, because JR is obviously more refined, structurally speaking. TR drags towards the end. He needed a better editor. But the prose will keep you going--Gaddis's prose never falters. It's some of the best out there.

I prefer Gaddis to Pynchon by a long shot.

>judging a book by its cover

bump