theres not a word in kleins review that would have required "the physical labor of turning 900 pages" or 300 or 1      the globe- democrat subscribes to ap       proof that klein stole from rogers review is rogers "distorted and twisted" "by modern science" which klein uses as "twisted and deformed by modern science"       this is a boner of rogers if it means "crippled" (see episode starting p41 in the recog- nitions)       or if rogers meant it in an extremely general sense its still a highly eccentric comment which klein could hardly have written independently       & the beginnings and ends of rogers & kleins reviews are almost identical FIRE the thief klein, then       if klein had labored to turn the 900 pages (all at once) to the back flap of the blurb he would have read, "The Recognitions is not a work of realism in the accepted sense of the term" & wouldnt have called the book "realistic"       but his plagiarisms are both from the front flap if you note the modifications klein made in rogers enthusiastic review to be more "balanced" & cautious       & that klein quite possibly modi- fied without having read any of the book except the blurb, you will know what colossal nerve is im biased for reviewers who favored the recognitions except some who write like cold oatmeal       & this weird one who couldnt possibly have read the book      stars...and embraces... THE BOOKS PILE IN and some few stand up like stars in a Spring sky. Embrace "The Recognitions" (Harcourt Brace) by William Gad- dis as a novel in a thousand. It is a big, strong, well-written American story peopled with reality and driven with a sardonic dream that keeps the reader on edge all the way. thats the whole notice       FIRE charles a wagner from his tabloid or retire him to the astronomy column       what the devil does he mean by "peopled with reality"?       and "driven with a sardonic dream"! more important than these conmen       tho advance copies were went out months before review date3 (powell)       I think less than 1/4 of the critics read the recognitions more than once      1 reading of this book is not enough       especially not a hasty careless one      from mary eugenia parke's review:   These remarks are the preamble to a cautious preliminary recon- naissance of a monstrous and fascinating novel called "The Recog- nitions" by William Gaddis, whose first published work it is. Now it is not impossible to read 956 pages intelligently in the space of a couple of weeks. A dogged attack would get you through "Sironia, Texas," for example, in that time without serious danger of laming your brain. But "The Recognitions" is no "Sironia," and a proper reading and evaluation would take several months, not weeks.   My first impression is who cares what it is!       $$$$ why not take several months?      parkes last para is remarkable, not really joking but sort of thrown out offhand & to be forgotten:   On second thought maybe I am in the class with Wyatt, Basil Valentine, Mr. Sinisterra. This review is probably a forgery too. she took a couple of weeks not the several months needed, her mediocre review is a forgery       from glendy daewdeit's review:   This painstaking organization seems, even on first reading, to be one of the novelist's most positive achievements. this & her preceding para are good      unlike most of the skimreaders who being preprogrammed have to guess that a "long novel" which is a "first novel" must by definition be "undisciplined" & "sprawling"      but the current cliches about "ambitious novels" & "erudite novels" lead her astray: one flat statement about the book can be made with confidence: Entertainment is not a primary objective. a bad guess, the recognitions being one of the most entertaining books ever written       shes bound to guess wrong more often than right since she didnt read it enough      certainly her guess that otto, in the book, may be modeled after gaddis is amateurish & ridiculous More than one reading will be required for any fair estimate of such ornate and discursive language. Tentatively, however, one must credit Gaddis with some remarkable imagery as well as some meaningless rhetoric. for "Tentatively," read "Incorrectly"       shes faking now      she plays it safe, doesnt fail to find a balanced phrase but theres no safety for the lazy & incompetent       she guessed wrong again, theres no meaning- less rhetoric in gaddis' extremely careful writing   To weigh the virtues of so massive a work with any finality would require longer acquaintance. so      by necessity       her verdict is cautious, noncommittal which means she underrates the book       what shows the rotten state of the review racket is shes not at all afraid to say openly she didnt work long enough to do her job       drs & lawyers underwork too but they wouldnt dare admit it the nation's cricket goes her one better       for the highbrow market the pseudoprofessional thing to do is fake up a theme, a structure. the theme should be as irrelevant to the book being reviewed as the critics Originality can make it       whatever nonsense is dragged into the 1st paragraph must return triumphantly in the last      john berger impudently exploits "I only read it once" as the fake theme      exposi- tion: BECAUSE I happen to be reviewing this 950-page novel I wish that I had time to read it again. But if I were reading it for my own interest I certainly would not do so. This fact demonstrates how specialized our cultural judgments have become, how far removed from our personal, comparatively spontaneous recognitions of what is good and bad. I think that Mr. Gaddis himself would agree with this. His title, "The Recognitions," is probably meant to be taken on several levels, but at least one of the themes of this book is the falseness, the obliqueness, of the type of recognition gained by artists in Western society. this lecture on the conflict between desire & work isnt to the point. the job berger took on was to read the book enough to write a com- petent review       his "dollar bill" & "ernest hemingway" boners (later) prove he didnt      thats the point      he had earned the right to say the following in print & only the following: "i didnt read the book enough to write a competent review of it—my guess is, it wouldnt be worth the trouble" how much would he have paid for that?       or he could have forgotten the paycheck & turned the job over to someone who was willing to do it       an honest man would do one of the two, but a critic—never! what berger chose was to fake up a recapitulation for the last para- graph:    This book has no vision because the writer can see no way out of the vicious environment he describes so obsessively. The facts are piled up because they may contain a clue to the way out—but he does not find it. The book lacks perspective both socially and psychologically. And in the end it is this, I think, that explains the awkwardness of the style in which much of it is written and its inordinate length. Because the writer is trapped, he barely en- visages the existence of the reader; unlike that of James Joyce his prose is unoral, heavy, silent; unlike a great but lengthy writer like Thomas Mann he has no desire to convince by accumulation; one finds oneself after nearly 1,000 pages in exactly the same place as one started. It is perhaps for that reason that I began by saying that I felt I ought to read this book again. is the last sentence-and-a-quarter left over perhaps from some old review of finnegans wake?       how crooked the last sentence is! this time its the "constructive solution" cliche      a dirty one, perfected in the days when communists dominated reviewing in the u s & england       the perfect meeting of moscow & hollywood      give me happy endings! im so miserable!      what cowardice      what if there is no "way out" except to die      for 1000s of years countless ways out have been peddled & we're no better off than before—the hydrogen bomb proves that but according to berger its easy!      any good novelist finds "the way out," right in the last chapter      the bad novelist gropes around, but somehow he cant locate it      of course berger means fake way out. he wants a writer to be a professional liar, not an artist a writer can arrange for his characters to have relatively happy mo- ments on the last page—but why should he? mcalister read the recognitions twice & it was on hayes' "night table for the past two months"      ive no proof, maybe most of the others read much & carefully       theyre too modest to say so, or write as if they did       it isnt that the review outlets cant pay overtime      they spend large sums on all those thousands of routine reviews of routine books       if they gave a good goddamn theyd spend a little extra on the real job of reviewing       to see that great books are bought now      & not, like the recognitions will be, years & years after publication      because its reviews were faked      if the typists at a publishers make a steady living, why not the great artists he publishes? so, extra pay for extra time to review the books that need it      hows that for a constructive solution       trouble is, the critics would use the time for just one purpose: to make their counterfeits harder to detect the notetaking trick       for the 4th part of a dollar i offer complete instructions how to become a bookreviewer      its easy to sell a review after just 1 careless reading of the book      a simple trick probably used by most of the recognitions reviewers      you skim along con- fused, bewildered but you keep right on taking notes on any scattered points that occur to your scattered brain      after "finishing" the book, the notes      no matter how incoherent      can always be connected up somehow      read the blurb again      refer to your numbered list of cliches & guess which ones apply       then write it up good in jargon & remember, your readers havent read the book either 1 2 pounds 7 ounces (Back) 2 in reference to all quotations from it in this and other articles in newspaper, The Recognitions is copyright, 1952, 1955, by William Gaddis. [Copyright renewed William Gaddis, 1983 -- AW] (Back) 3 anyway a competent review months after publication date is better than a review appearing efficiently on the right date in the right column of the right page in the wrong words (Back)