Justice? --You get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law.One of the greatest opening lines in the history of the novel. Why does Gaddis choose such an easy target for his wit and satire, the law and its attendant system of legalism and legalese? To save the language. The language of the law is opaque to most of us not versed in it. But as with any technical and conventional language it is precise, addresses directly and clearly the phenomena, difficulties, concepts, REALITY which we encounter in our murky worlds and relations as human beings. And the language of law attends to itself as a language, how it expresses itself, covers itself and its reality. Gaddis found himself fascinated with legal language to the same high degree that readers of Proust are fascinated with Proust’s prose and Heidegger with the sayings of the pre-socratics, recovering what was covered over by an obscuring Latin; all three seeking to recover something which is passed over in our everyday bungling of our inept relationship with what we say and how we say it. But what about the novel which Gaddis did not write, and the novel which perhaps only Gaddis could write, the kind of novel which will not be written in an age following the decline of the systems novel, the novel of industry; and if not the systems novel of our Gaddises and Pynchons, how about a revivification of that old-timey social realist novel ::Health care? --You get health care in the next world, in this world you have health insurance.I mean to say that beyond the congressional=military=industrial complex, what threatens internal USAian politics, society, economy, well=fare and well=being, is the obscene state of our heath care industry. There is a novel to be written here.A patient in a hospital room with Television playing, nurse enters; nurse performs task; returns to nurses station, chats with coworker about weekend plans, answers phone; family enters to visit patient with flowers and kids in tow; there’s a doctor doing rounds with perhaps a few medical students, it’s a teaching hospital; a janitor mops the floor, another has his head in the ceiling; the patient perhaps has insurance, doesn’t have insurance; was injured, has a life-threatening disease or not; doctors have a morning conclave with cellophane-wrapped croissant ham sandwiches; an administrator makes rounds; some tech sysadmin person still trying to get the paperless transition papered over; nurses bitch about the scheduling; they wonder whether it’d be better to have union representation, or maybe they do and there’s a new contract to negotiate, possible picketing; meanwhile our administrator returns to her office to count more beans; it’s a for=profit hospital and there are a lot beans to count; or it’s a not-for-profit hospital and grants need writing but the pool of grant money is drying up for some reason or there’s a large donor who’s nervous about the recent Joint Commission report; or maybe it’s a religious institution and some recent laws passed about birth control have a few dogmatists nervous about funding; and then someone threatened the staff in the ER last night with what we thought was a gun, the police are still milling around collecting information and conducting five=minute interviews; which is all complicated enough but then there are a dozen or so insurance companies who have actuaries predicting the future of the population and its health and then some politicians who’d like to just get rid of the entire insurance scam and simply provide single-payer health care for all citizens and even some non-, with the backing of like 60% of the population in a democracy but this would shut down the insurance industry so we’ve got to save them too and the money they spend getting our people elected into various houses and offices; and there’s a farm bill which is making people sicker by selling them things made out of inedible No 2 field corn in the form of big macs but that’s a pretty lucrative sector of the economy so we can’t shut them down just spend more money on sick people is good for the economy; and as long as people are buying things poison doesn’t matter; but this isn’t what we see when we see the interior of a hospital on the television screen in the various hospital rooms which have the television on for the patient who is unfortunate enough to have to spend even a single hour in this dungeon...... It’s not like you can actually get any serious reading done or reviews written under these working conditions.I don’t know. But it’s a novel that won’t get written because I’ve heard that Hystierical Realism is out and something called The New Sincerity (is that a threat?) is in; and what we want to read about is honesty and integrity and a good person and authentic experience and consciousness and first-personness ;; and but we lose when our writers of big square books are not bothering to pay attention and think through what are in fact incredibly large sectors of our lives. And instead of a Gaddis addressing the crisis of health care in the USofA we have little more than a Michael Moore with his Sicko!, and so I’m wondering why we don’t have our greatest fictional minds thinking about these things;
Towards the end of the novel, Christina (one of the clearest ripostes to the contention that Gaddis’ oeuvre lacks strong, admirable female characters), states in one short line a summation of the core of every one of Gaddis' books. They are: “about failing at something worth doing because there was nothing worse for a man than failing at something that wasn’t worth doing in the first place simply because that’s where the money was, it was always the money…” Wyatt in The Recognitions, Edward Bast and Jack Gibbs in JR, Mr. McCandless in the Gothic, and Oscar (and perhaps, even sadder, Harry) in the Frolic. The great conflict inherent in the Capitalist system between Art and Money. It is the great theme of the modern age, and Gaddis is its greatest dissector.His works are vital, both in the sense of being full of life, and being essential for any literate, concerned, modern Human Being. And now, in homage, and in support, and in response to Mr Franzen who said of this wonderful book that it is "repetitive, incoherent, and insanely boring" (to which I say - pot - kettle - black): ___________________________________________ W GaddisDefendant05 October 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF FICTION GOODREADS DIVISIONB E T W E E N : -JONATHAN FRANZEN ClaimantAnd WILLIAM GADDIS (ex-corpus and ex-vivo) Defendant WITNESS STATEMENT OF JONATHAN MORTON I Jonathan William Morton of this here corner of Goodreads say as follows: -1.tI make this witness statement in support of the Defendant's application for summary judgment against the Claimant on the issues of liability in respect of alleged breaches of contract and for an order for directions for damages to be assessed against him. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2.tI am a reader of the Defendant's Novels and have read the entirety of his fictional output as published during his lifetime (the "Works"). I have read, and subsequently been informed in detail about, the Claimants claims against the Defendant in respect of the Works. In particular I note that the Claimant claims the following: 2.1.tthat there exists at all times a binding contractual relationship between the creator of the Works (the "Author") and its readers (the "Reader"); 2.2.tthat such a contractual relationship places certain obligations on the Author, most importantly an obligation to ensure that a certain level of enjoyment is experienced by the Reader during its consumption of the Works, and, furthermore, the Works do, at all material times, remain clear and readily comprehensible to the Reader; and 2.3.tthe Works repeatedly breach the obligations outlined in paragraph 2.2 above and that, accordingly, the Author should be held fully accountable and liable for such breaches. 3.tI deny the truth, validity and applicability of the Claimant's claims, as detailed in Clause 2 above. The reasons for such a submission are as follows: 3.1.tIn respect of the Claim made in Clause 2.1 above, it is denied that there exists, or has ever existed, any such contractual relationship between the Author and the Reader. The Author has illimitable freedom to create as he or she feels fit, and to structure the Works in whatever manner best serves his purpose. The Reader is similarly free to read in whatever manner he or she feels appropriate; 3.2.tIn respect of the Claim made in Clause 2.2 above, it is denied that any obligations are placed on the Author at any time in respect of the Reader's response to, or experience of, the Works. Accordingly, the Author does not have any responsibility should the Reader fail to gain pleasure from the Works; 3.3.tNotwithstanding the above, and despite the fact that the Defendant refutes the Claimant's allegations in their entirety, as a Reader of the Works, I am well placed to respond to the Claim made in Clause 2.3 above. At no material time did I ever cease to receive enjoyment from the Works. Furthermore, at no material time did I find the Works impenetrable, confusing or otherwise deficient in the essentials of a great novel. I do not claim the Works are easily consumed, nor do I claim they are without complexity. However, it is clear that such alleged "difficulty" is, in fact, one of the main sources of enjoyment to be found in the Works, and indicative of the superiority and sophistication of the Works.4.tI believe that there is no real prospect of the Claimant proving that the Defendant has either responsibility or liability for its claim. There is also no other reason for the case to be disposed of at trial. Accordingly the Defendant respectfully asks for an order giving him judgment against the Claimant with damages to be assessed. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed J Morton Dated 05 October 2013
What do You think about A Frolic Of His Own (1995)?
Outstanding, hilarious, and almost overwhelming at times. A Frolic of His Own trains William Gaddis' satirical eye on America's litigious culture. It presents a world in which everyone is suing someone for some perceived wrong and demands of justice are really just weakly disguised grabs for cash. The legal system is supposed to offer order and reliability to this chaotic existence, but the disarray in which all these characters live makes clear the chasm between the theory and the practice. Trapped in a world of words, even everyday communication is a haphazard and anxious affair. Meanings and misunderstandings carom around as the plot takes humorous dips and dives through the characters' disintegrating lives.Though often hilarious, this book is also extremely heavy. It has the humor of tragedy. Gaddis has a cynical outlook that some readers might not be extremely comfortable with, but it's not wholly nihilistic, and there might be salvation hiding between the lines if you look hard enough. In all, it is a major book by one of my very favorite authors, and one of the most perceptive accounts of American existence written in the last fifty years.
—Alex
I have no idea how to rate this novel, which flummoxes more than it charms. I appreciated Gaddis' maneuvers and techniques but did not feel moved by them, sort of like when eating a meal prepared with great artistry that doesn't actually taste good. Some highlights: the novel opens with several pages of streaming dialogue in which no character is introduced or explained, so all must be deduced from context. This is followed by a lengthy court ruling, which in turn is followed by a play. Gaddis is a genius at creating a rich textual world that keeps the reader on her toes, and the plot lines are hilarious and damning. Oscar Crease is run over by his own car while attempting to hot wire it, so he is both owner of the car and victim--a conundrum for his insurance company, as Oscar convalesces in the hospital with relatively minor injuries, and a litigious puzzle. Lawsuits--both potential and in progress--abound in this novel. Some are sources of obsession, like Oscar's conviction that his unpublished play has been plagiarized, while others are noted in passing, like his girlfriend's messy divorce from her ex-husband. Gaddis' dark sense of wit finds fertile ground in the legal system, and he is able to satirize contemporary America in a way that is rich, provocative, sad, and surely worth the (considerable) efforts involved in reading this.Still. I wish Gaddis had taken himself to task and exercised some restraint. Do we really need fifty pages of legal brief? Wouldn't shorter passages from the play have sufficed? Does the dialogue really, truly need to be unpunctuated? Gaddis defended his signature style by saying that it created a sense of "authorial absence." I would argue just the opposite. I felt very *aware* of Gaddis' choices (lack of punctuation, refusal to edit), and was deeply frustrated by how much more dazzling this novel could have been.
—Maya Lang
Oh my God this book is hard to read. Gaddis not only knows a lot of words, he's happy to leave out the quotation marks to indicate someone is speaking. (Incidentally, every book I've ever read that left out quotation marks was brilliant. They have to be, because they're practically unreadable.) Anyhow, it's brilliant. There's a legal opinion that is dry, dry, dry and hilarious, and there's deep sadness and crushing emotion, and it made me read (eventually) every other book Gaddis wrote.PS They're all good, and they're all too hard for you to read. You probably shouldn't try.
—Jeremy Hornik
