david foster wallace: classic or dud

I read Infinite Jest a few years ago, aware of DFW’s rep and place as an unfortunate and un-asked-for figurehead of a kind of Lit Bro mentality but... still found it pretty fucking good. Couldn’t put it down. Still think about it a lot.

I don’t really know how to talk about him now.

Or even then.

oh, are we doing cadaver synods now?

i don't know how to talk about him either. if there are still intellectual white dudes out there still saying "dude you should read DFW he's the BEST WRITER EVER" yeah i'll be glad to laugh in their faces. i read his book, like, twenty years or so ago, i liked it a lot. it influenced me. that's not something i can undo. i used to like bill hicks, too. they're dead now, and the work they did when they were alive is very much of a time and a place. we can point out that they were monsters, or we can talk about how they were "problematic", or we can let time render them irrelevant, which it's doing a very good job of.

ive just reread most of the tennis essays, first time in years & i appreciate them much more now, so great

the old "write about what you know" adage proves out once more

infinite jest is great, annoying lit bro debris & saint/martyr status aside.

It's half great

Actually no, the tennis/alcoholism stuff is largely fantastic. But good God is the sci-fi framework awful.

I wouldn’t say it’s awful but def the weakest element of the book.

The drug/alcohol and tennis school stuff (lol at having these things together) is just so well drawn though. Anything outside of it is bound to look weak in comparison. The avant-grade film stuff and filmography is very clever too though.

I didn't find the near dystopian future setting half baked or that imposing, almost all of it is on the periphery of the main action in the book at the school and the halfway house. all the stuff about addiction and AA is the core, the heart music of infinite jest

the Quebecois separatists were pretty dreadful

yeah they are the most boring part of the book by far imo

...all the stuff about addiction and AA is the core, the heart music of infinite jest

one cool & interesting bit of trivia from the D.T. Max bio: the only music DFW listened to while writing Infinite Jest was Nirvana and Enya.

jeez, he never shopped for groceries?

New Pynchons are a bit like New Dylans. Here are some I have known and loved:
1) Don DeLillo (back in the day I heard rumours that he WAS Pynchon, similar to ye olde Salinger rumour)

2) Steve Erickson (underappreciated fantasist - see ILM thread on his top 100 LA songs)

3) George Saunders (maybe more of a Barthelmian miniaturist, but TRP wrote blurbs for CivilWarLand in Bad Decline and Pastoralia)

Those I have loathed: DFW, William T. Vollmann, many more...

― Edna Welthorpe, Mrs, Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:00 PM (sixteen years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the Quebecois separatists were pretty dreadful

― A is for (Aimless), Saturday, May 5, 2018 11:10 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah they are the most boring part of the book by far imo

― flappy bird, Saturday, May 5, 2018 11:15 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There was a big block of this in the book, it was the one point where I said "god, fuck this" and skipped/skimmed a few pages.

Not the desert-on-a-rise stuff, mind - which I liked. I feel like it was something in a Canadian downtown? It's been a while since I read it.

hah, just went for a run and saw a tall dude with long dark hair and a white bandana playing tennis.

Shoulda said hi

Hi dave hows the writing coming along

this is a good read

https://theoutline.com/post/5543/david-foster-wallace-conference-profile?zd=1&zi=xgemvmqv

indeed, thx

The space in which it matters that DFW was an abuser of women is the space of ordinary reality, which we all occupy. This makes it a serious charge, that must be dealt with by real people doing whatever is possible to mitigate the harm done through his abuse. One mitigation is to identify him as an abuser and publically decry that fact and condemn his actions.

As for his books, the thing about writing in general is that no matter how 'realistic' it aspires to be, it occupies its own unreal space that only exists in the mind of the audience as the it plays out. Within that mental space, the author and audience cannot either create or repair real life abuses and it is hopeless to try to do so through direct action against his books, such as denouncing them as the work of a real life abuser. You can only deal with them effectively by thinking about them as clearly as possible.

part of argument in the outline article is that this distinction is particularly difficult to make in DFW's case, though

The question is thornier with Wallace than it would be for most of his contemporaries. Plenty of people love the novels of Jeffrey Eugenides — but how many of them love Jeffrey Eugenides? Wallace’s work overflows with complex and vibrant characters, but of these the most enduring — the only one to transcend his writing, a la Holden Caufield or Jay Gatsby, to become a pop culture figure in their own right — is Wallace himself, the “Wallace” of his first-person essays and reviews.

This Wallace was self-aware, morally engaged, alert to hypocrisy (especially his own), and deliriously funny. You felt like you knew him, even if you knew, and knew he knew, that it was all on some level a ruse, that the ‘I’ on the page was always an invention. There are other reasons for his fandom’s intensity — Infinite Jest’s sprawl has made it the rare literary novel able to generate and sustain genre-style online communities — but it’s the voice that brings his fans two hours south of Chicago to the town of Normal, Illinois, from multiple continents and both U.S. coasts, paying anywhere from $40 (for students/part-time workers) to $150 (for teachers/full-time workers) to get in.

Authors understand very well that the "I" in any well-constructed book is as much of a construction as any other part of their writing.

It's the audience that gets confused about what that "I" is.

you are, unfortunately, a deceased fiction writer

but how many of them love Jeffrey Eugenides

tough of ol jeff

on*

whoever is updating Jeffrey Eugenides' wiki page apparently does not love Jeffrey Eugenides

Jeffrey Kent Eugenides (born March 8, 1960) is an American novelist, nonce and short story writer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Eugenides

I feel like it says something about our era vs his that he once ironically titled a book of thinky essays “Consider the Lobster” whereas today we have a dude whose schtick is unironically to consider the lobster.

"Consider the Lobster" is an unironic consideration of lobsters tho

Very good long essay by Patricia Lockwood: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n14/patricia-lockwood/where-be-your-jibes-now