Rats and Beavers

[Lawrence Bryan]

On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Keith wrote:

-> My 10th anniversary is this September.

On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Henry wrote:

-> I just realized that, on and off, I'm a ten year P-List vet.  Huh!

I'm not sure when I started but out of curiosity did a search on my  
old nom de BBS, grip at netcom.com, and found this:

******************************
waste / pynchon-l by date

previous - next - by thread - by date - by author
From: <grip@[omitted]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: that's MISTER William Gaddis to you, pal
To: Andrew Dinn <andrew@[omitted]>



On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Andrew Dinn wrote:

 > Brian Stonehill Media Studies Pomona College writes:
 >
 > > Please forgive the contumely of the subject line.
 >
 > > But when grip asks, with that certain tone,
 >
 > > >Should I bother to order Recognitions?
 >
 >
 > > one has to say Yes, yes of course you must.  That's landmark
 > > material, and if Bill's punctuation scheme looks unfamiliar to you,
 > > look back at _Ulysses_ (or _A Portrait_) for the authority of it.
 >
 > That's Yes as in YES. Stumbling over punctuation (or lack thereof) is
 > to Gaddis what tripping over plot (or lack thereof) is to Pynchon  
i.e.
 > you have to snap out of it. And just as Pynchon tells a whopper of a
 > story (history) without the safety net of a plot, so Gaddis is a
 > master of dialogue sans the normal accoutrements of quotation and
 > attribution.
 >
 > Brian is quite right to refer to Ulysses. Gaddis' only speech mark is
 > JJ's leading dash. Where Gaddis differs is that there is almost no
 > interlarded descriptive to connect the dialogue - voices just drift
 > from one scene to the next (this most extremely and brilliantly in  
JR,
 > less so in The Recognitions). The voices are realistic *and*
 > distinctive so it is not as hard work as it seems at first read (and
 > of course that implies, like JJ and TRP, that you have to reread).
 >
 > If you really want to appreciate Gaddis technique at his best then
 > read the opening section of JR (about 3-4 pages) and reread until you
 > can identify the voices, characters behind them and their family
 > history in miniature (it's all there - Gaddis, like Pynchon and
 > despite appearances to the contrary, puts all the info you need right
 > on the page). Then go back and be boggled by the skill with which so
 > little text and no overt *interference* from a narrator has rendered
 > so much understandable.

Yes, I suppose there is very skilful technique there. And I have noticed
it. I wish he had not inserted narrative passages amongst the dialogue
with no warning. That I find simply distractive. I can deal with the  
- to
indicate the start of dialogue and the lack of he-said-she-saids.

But I am reminded of many contemporary music compositions and
performers. Listen to the music of Carter. His compositons are all
chrystals of perfection. Listen to Maurice Andre. His technique is  
flawless
and marvelous to behold. But underneath it all I don't sense much that
touches my heart. With only a few exceptions, Carter's compositions are
pure quartz. I'd rather have a flawed diamond. I cannot stand to listen
to Andre play, he seems to have no aesthetic at all.

Last night I picked up GR as I am want to do periodically. I open it and
start reading. It makes no difference where. Very soon a warm glow
encompasses me and a satisfied smile creeps over my face. I want to read
him to someone. Plot? No. Poetry? YES!

It is art, not just technique.

My opinion, for what it's worth.

I haven't decided about Gaddis yet, (I just inadvertently typed  
"Gaggus"!
Are my fingers way ahead of my brain? :-)  ) so I may reach that point
after AFOHO and JR. But as of this moment, I have my doubts.

grip


************************

Alas, I must confess I never did finish the Gaddis book.

Lawrence