indifference
theres so much of this i hardly know where to begin. take 1 subject, comparison of gaddis with other writers shouldnt the critics know something about gaddis' work before they start play- ing the comparison game? but they cant wait, heres some quotes shading down from anger to indifference: He rambles on and on, needlessly and even disgustingly, strivingthe last few quotes are mostly "balanced" reader: answer yes or no. bloom: yes or no his lush synthetic prose is a fine example of "criticstyle" at its worst price's prediction was wrong: this is a tale that will be widely read, and one that will engender½ the recognitions reviewers dont totally conceal their hate most of the text of these, & all the text of most of the rest, play it safe their indifference & torpor conceal a great distaste not now for the best books only critics are bored by their fakework, dont like any books. good books are a little more demanding, more fatiguing, thats all
couple of generations ago underpaid hack reviewers took it out in
but dead reviews are more dangerous to a great novel than vicious long stretches of "Ulysses," even in a first puzzled reading, werebut often you cant tell at all, because the critic has read so carelessly that he doesnt know even unconsciously what kind of book it is. soon reviews will be no help at all
& wordofmouth, that depends on whose mouth
its not only the
the recognitions had less to gain from a major new york publisher in
ulysses was banned as obscene in the u s & england for over a
i suspect part of it comes from bringing democratic ideals into judg-
i say to the avantgarde, dont abdicate! part of our work has always
FIRE granville hicks
his new york times review tried to destroy a
i learned what bastards like hicks are in ayn rand's the fountainhead. WHAT we have here is certainly a puzzle and perhaps a challenge.the "balanced" statement again! book review digest fell for hicks tricks, rated his review noncommittal its not noncommittal to say a books certainly something bad & perhaps something that looks good but will turn out to be only "ambitious" William Gaddis (among other things, to be sure) is playing a gamein 1955 hicks could affect how many readers gaddis would "be fortu- nate enough to have" but his times running out except for demand- ing 10% of the gross for a plus review, hicks & the other recognitions reviewer-hacks did a great job of making its satires prophecies in the recognitions crémer, an artcritic refused a bribe by wyatt, reviews him down (p74): Archaïque, dur comme la pierre, dérivé, sans cur, sans sympa-("Archaic, hard as rock, derivative, without heart, without sympathy, without life, in a word, a spirit of death without the hope of Resurrec- tion") many years later crémers comment on valentine's forgery of a forgery is (p665): Un sacrilège, ce visage-là, archaïque, dur comme la pierre,("A sacrilege, that face, archaic, hard as rock, you see, without warmth, without heart, without sympathy, without life...in a word, death, you know, without hope of Resurrection") it seems he always uses the same blast (or the favorable gem on p663) monsieur hicks fulfills the word of the prophet:
|
hicks reviewing gaddis |
hicks reviewing paul goodman (4 yrs later) |
playing a game with such readers as he may be fortunate enough to have, a game for which he has devised the rules. |
the book is difficult in an arbitrary fashion, full of games of which Goodman has invented the rules, full of recondite allusions and private jokes, full of self-conscious sophistication. |
(italics added) his gaddis review continues: It is part of his game to conceal the identity of his characters inwhat "well-known persons?" its bergers "ernest hemingway" boner again or is it some other character or beast in the recognitions the ex-army pilot named charles dickens, the faggot writer named buster brown? basil valentine, the reverend gilbert sullivan, albert & victoria hall, hadrian, heracles, popeye, doctor fell? roman à clef! as hicks says in the living novel (1957 p222): What are we to make of a reviewer (in Partisan Review) who...at-now, the innuendo that gaddis "game" is "to overwhelm the reader with his knowledge" its the erudition cliche hicks pretends hes forgotten the artistic relation of 20thcentury techniques to the novels theyre in he judges the techniques in isolation as something pasted on & unnecessary but eg the question&answer chapter in ulysses has an artistic purpose, to show dedalus & bloom from another angle, in another light that cant be supplied by conventional dialog & descrip- tion a novel is not a work of nonfiction if joyce introduces the subject of parallax the purpose isnt to show off joyces knowledge of astronomy
gaddis doesnt use techniques for their own sake either
wyatt &
likewise "early church history" isnt in the recognitions for its own sake hicks continues: Clearly there is more here than one reading will reveal,did he or didnt he? and the question is whether the more is worth the effort.the "difficult" cliche writing above kindergarten level strews ma- licious landmines in your path, you thread thru with great "effort" & no reward poetry should be translated to ny timesstyle so you get the literal meaning without difficulty critics prefer the same old unchal- lenging mush they get no pleasure from reading so they prefer anesthesia to the choice between pleasure & pain The reader thinks, as Mr. Gaddis obviously thought, of Joyce'sguess againgaddis read 40p of ulysses in college, period!1 honest critic might say influence from ulysses possiblejoyce & gaddis in some ways have similar attitudes, as a result some of their technical resources resemble but the innuendo of plagiarism in "as Mr. Gaddis obviously thought" is dishonest the same kind of projection as "ostentatiously" in hicks last para When that book was read soon after publication, before a body ofbut joyce beat the rap! hicks loves projectionanything in a novel that looks different could be error & error could be "deliberate" malice. since every good novel contains something unusual every good writer can be personally attacked & thats just what hicks wants
"smoothed away the difficulties" is a revolting phrase
joyce cant be But what one remembers is that long stretches of "Ulysses," evendid he or didnt he? who cares what "one" remembers from a 1st puzzled reading! as hicks the idealist wrote in the living novel: spokesmen for the people who want to eat their cake and have it(2-18) & as hicks the idealist wrote in a 1956 new leader review: When a literary journalist comes upon a good novel, his first obliga-(quoted in living novel 177-8) heres hicks idealism in practice: But what one remembers is that long stretches of "Ulysses," evenwhat a hypocrite! only "very talented"what condescension! for centuries the great work of one generations used to beat the next with, how can this still fool anyone?
hicks malice with "balancing" again
the pluses shrink to insignifi- The novel is full of episodes that, in a less ambitious work, onehow evil can you get? he admits the recognitions is "very talented" but his whole review from the 1st key word "puzzle" to the last "dis- satisfied" is meant to discourage readers from buying it yes, hes always ready to welcome a 1st novel that promising, unless the promise is fulfilled talent not yet fulfilled can be helped as an equal, doesnt threaten him but he stomps on fulfilled talent that needs his help only as his superior hicks the idealist has this dirty side too (the living novel viii) hes refuting critics who confuse the ravages of their own middle age with "the death of the novel": there have never been so many serious novelists at work in Americaeveryone has enough "talent" the problem is the work produced. talent is only what gives a critic or publisher a cheap thrill when he takes you to lunch the 1st time each literary parasite once hoped to be a real writer, was determined to master his craft & ambitious to do good work then he failed & became a critic or editor the writers he loves havent yet got further than he did, but might but if they already have he hates them the whole publishing racket shares hicks fatal flaw prizes are for promise that may never be fulfilled, not for the impoverished one whose 6th books very good but no better than his 5th
equally important, the recognitions is a masterpiece
writing a snotty
hicks, who i must admit never misses a chance to expose himself as a there is something a little phony about this attack on phoniness. Ithats not what he said 4 yrs earlier! a man whos "so ostentatiously aimed at writing a masterpiece" & failed makes a dishonorable failure not an honorable one give hicks another 4 yrs & he'll twist it around again to be favorable enough to go in his collected critical works with- out disgracing him maybe he should try "dishonorable success" 1st just in case
the ny times has shown
with a really comparable book that it is
the forgers a novel about young ny painters, one of them forges a Now, in "The Forger," he has written his best novel so far, a novelprescotts whole review of an ordinary novel encourages the potential reader as hicks discouraged him from reading a great one thats the ny times for you, past present & future
back to hicks review the editors of the worst bookreview section in Mr. Hicks is the author of "There Was a Man in Our Town" and"one" has unearthed a review of this very novel! 4 reviewer's putting questions with ending questionmarks instead of indirectly & his failure to use enough passive verbforms stamp him as an amateur who has failed to master criticstyle, but here it is anyway: Granville Hicks' There Was a Man in Our Town (New York: VikingFIRE maxwell geismar for his stupid saturday review review built on the "strawman" trick like fremantle's & livingston's its procrustean. he starts with a corny reprise of "it cant be that good": IN SOME quarters of the literary scene today William Gaddis'sme! geismars review is creative he doesnt understand the recognitions at all, so he invents another recognitions all his own: A New England minister has buried his wife in Spain, and he slowlyim voting for "pleasure and biological functioning" too this year, but its not a theme of the recognitions what, say, pagan religion & alchemy had over modern religiosity & chemistry is given as substance, signif- icance, emotional passion the book is not especially sensuous & its attitude toward pleasure as such is indifferent, skeptical, mocking. & by the by, why would a christian minister be expected to be con- verted to "the Christian mode of salvation"
my guess is, geismar already had that graves para in mind & stuck it "The Recognitions" never achieves any kind of contact, not merelywhich it does not stress john w aldridge writing in 1956 that "The Recognitions received indifferent to stupid notice in the leading New York literary supplements" suggested the reason might be "most of the reviewers have never grown beyond the view which was fashionable in the 1920s" which makes a neat contrast to geismars absurd idea that the recognitions itself "is really a typical art novel of the 1920s" And the fatal flaw of this genre is simply that the central figures, asdoes geismar really believe that failures by characters in a novel are failures of a novel? who never really engage our sympathy or interest; who never repre-sure they doa generation later! "engage our sympathy" is the compassion cliche, the rotting ulcer of american criticism today "or interest"!when the recognitions is an accepted masterpiece, if any- one tries to claim geismar was a competent critic those 2 words will disprove it The outside world of modern American life, which is surely a legiti-thats deep thinking, geismar! is described so imperfectly, and so superficially as to make us feel"quite possible"of course he isnt! if geismar doesnt get the book why doesnt he look it up in the blurb? ("The Recognitions is not a work of realism in the accepted sense of the term") with masterly con- fusion geismar takes the criticisms a fool might make of novels not totally realistic & implies the faults peculiar to the recognitions since the plot is complete fantasy 7, somewhat reminiscent of Rexthe plot doesnt resemble the wild goose chase in the least! is there no limit to what these hacks will drag in to fill space? But if people as people no longer concern this new school ofwas kafka unconcerned with "people as people"? is it only realism that presents reality? which can be an indictment either of modern life or of themthenthe "vision" cliche! an artists weltanschauung has no artistic mean- ing in itself but has to be transcended if not redeemed by "the craft of the artist" like beethoven redeeming schillers inane doggerel in the 9th symphony, or bach redeeming christ but to the hack critic artists beliefs are more important than their work& a lot easier to write about! "he says man is essentially good, so his work must be essentially good" its like the ny posts ½assed sportscolumnists: hitting a lot of homeruns is small pickings compared to The Question: when the fans throw sodabottles at the star does he show "maturity" & "humility"? Rx for critics: the vision cliche with equal parts of moralistic cant, sniping at their superiors & not having to work hard
geismars review could have been written without reading the book, to Whatever is of genuine merit in the novel is drained off into a 1"Perhaps without 'Ulysses' Gaddis' novel could not have been written" (parke) (Back) 2in a 1st puzzled reading? (Back) 3not as rare as youd like! (Back) 4not from the ny times or saturday review, which were plus (Back)
5or as plagiarized by o'hearn
a week later: "The thesis seems to be that belief 6o'hearn: "This book makes no pretense to realism" (Back)
7its not
the fantasys imposed on a realistic groundthe opposite of what |