Hahaha: so but anyway I do feel like the thought process is very, very human—even more human than the artifice of clean simple prose. I mean, it admits to the problem of humans speaking, which is that as soon as you open your mouth to make an argument, you’re secretly bringing to bear everything you’ve ever learned about life—and if you really want to support what you’re saying, you could trace infinitely back in every direction through howevermany examples and related points and contextual notes. (You an say “I like the Rolling Stones” but I don’t fully know what that means until you’ve told me how you feel about blues and the Beatles and where you grew up and what music you don’t like and what you do for a living and on and on recursively.) It seems human to me that Wallace pushes back the border a little to include more of that recursive thought; if there’s anything android-like it’s the idea that someone can actually whittle a complex thought down to a clean, well-organized essay!
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 21:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― W i l l (common_person), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 21:48 (nineteen years ago) link
i'm talking more about the fiction, which seems (and again my exp is extremely limited here) wholly without poetry, lacking pynchon's intensity or delillo's understated grace or proust's opiate rhythms or nabokov's playfulness or joyce circa dubliner's detatched humanist portraits. instead it just comes across as detatchment cold & clinical. i guess that isn't automatically a bad thing, but for me it's difficult to stomach here.
ok, i'll shut up until i actually finish one of his stories. maybe (seems logical) these are problems that are most visible in the exposition and dissolve as the text progresses, or maybe i've just badlucked across them. but really, i think there's just something about his goddamn writing i can't stand.
― j t, Tuesday, 22 March 2005 22:05 (nineteen years ago) link
Two of my favorite bits of writing in fiction are: in Beckett's Molloy, where he goes for a page or two describing his system of moving 12 rocks from one pocket to his mouth to the other pocket; and Raymond Federman's Double or Nothing, where he describes going through a modestly complex arithmetic problem in his head:
five and four is nine and five is fourteen and nine is twenty-three and five is twenty-eight and nine is thirty-seven and four is forty-one carry over four four and eight is twelve and eight is twenty and four is twenty-four and five is twenty-nine and two makes thirty-one and eight is thirty-nine carry over three three and six is nine and five is fourteen and seven makes twenty-one and three is twenty-four and five is twenty-nine and one is thirty and four is thirty-four carry over three three and one is four and two is six and one is seven four and one is five for a grand total of: 574.91
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 22:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 22:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 00:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― W i l l (common_person), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 01:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― jurgens cashley, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 14:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Mad Puffin (The Mad Puffin), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 15:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:11 (nineteen years ago) link
An interesting guy, basically. Smart as hell.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 26 March 2005 09:24 (nineteen years ago) link
The more I think about DFW, the less I like him. It seems to me that most of his appeal is superficial, and has maybe too much to do with his audience. i do love his linguistic energy, inventiveness, but the thing that does bug me a lot is his post-grad-MTV-Keanu Reeves(sp?) put on where he interjects a lot of pat, blank, empty teen talk and I can't help but think that he's one of those very irritating post adolescent male cunts who, still in their 30s, seem to be coming to terms with the idea that they were, in their early teens, thought highly precocious, and that, their being aware of this label became for them a kind of badge, which they always draw attention to, ie., cling to, by trying to sound extremely brainy one moment and then offering some kind of anaesthetised teen response which is a kind of ingratiating "apology", for being so smart.
So, in conclusion, false modesty does pretty much qualify you for a cunt. But then again, Martin Amis seems like the biggest cunt around, as far as authors go, and no-one could accuse him of false modesty.
― David Joyner (David Joyner), Saturday, 2 April 2005 01:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 2 April 2005 02:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Saturday, 2 April 2005 02:44 (nineteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 2 April 2005 05:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― dylan (dylan), Friday, 8 April 2005 02:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Sunday, 8 May 2005 06:12 (eighteen years ago) link
As you might be able to guess I like the guy's work. If only because one of my friends, after borrowing IJ from me, said it read like it was written by an idealised version of me.
― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Thursday, 12 May 2005 15:02 (eighteen years ago) link
New collection of essays coming out sometime relatively soon, too.
Oh, and not a cunt.
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Tuesday, 21 June 2005 20:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom cleveland (tom cleveland), Monday, 27 June 2005 02:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Monday, 27 June 2005 04:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 27 June 2005 05:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 27 June 2005 07:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― W i l l (common_person), Monday, 27 June 2005 12:56 (eighteen years ago) link
There are a couple fan-friendly pictures - the beefy pic with the short hair, where he kind of looks like he's lost (from Broom or Girl, I think) and the one w/ the dogs.
I'm actually kind of interested in the contractual ins/outs of cover art and the dust-jacket photos. Anyone here published and have to go through w/ all of this?
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Monday, 27 June 2005 22:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 01:44 (eighteen years ago) link
there's a fiction anthology edited by zadie smith a couple years ago ('the burned children of america') (oyy) which has an introduction all about finding some manic-with-their-foster-wallace-fannishness-foster-wallace-fans in spain or something and one of them produces something from a pocket and OMG ITS THE BANDANNA
― tom west (thomp), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 07:57 (eighteen years ago) link
in my case cover was designed in house by the publisher w/ my input and approval and owned by them. author photos were provided (and paid for) by me. this is fairly typical in the US. at the urging of my agent, I was pretty demanding about the cover: rejecting two versions, settling on a third, then getting a fourth that was absolutely perfect. much to my chagrin, six months after publication I was informed the two biggest bookstore chains had basically passed on the book because they didn't like the cover! so I ceded control on the paperback cover and ended up liking that one too.
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 09:46 (eighteen years ago) link
Like this ...
http://www.ncf.ca/~ek867/david_foster_wallace.jpg
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 00:10 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.twbookmark.com/images/46/25786.jpg
"I am a part-time yoga instructor, but I'm going to massage school."
― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 01:52 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/Pictures/coleman_profile.jpg
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 11:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 17:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― jeffrey coleman (jdahlem), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 23:51 (eighteen years ago) link
I read broom of the system for the first time last week and loved it. I have no idea why I wrote this.
― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Friday, 3 February 2006 14:38 (eighteen years ago) link
Please let me know when they make a miniature version I can keep on my dresser.
― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― W i l l (common_person), Friday, 3 February 2006 18:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2006 19:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 3 February 2006 19:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 3 February 2006 19:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jeff LeVine (Jeff LeVine), Friday, 3 February 2006 19:27 (eighteen years ago) link
All of this, when I saw him like 7 years ago, seemed really contrived, an image he was marketing, and something that would help him land the ladies.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 3 February 2006 23:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― W i l l (common_person), Saturday, 4 February 2006 02:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― East from the city and down to the cave (noodle vague), Saturday, 4 February 2006 03:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― W i l l (common_person), Saturday, 4 February 2006 03:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 4 February 2006 03:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Laurel, Sunday, 5 February 2006 22:27 (eighteen years ago) link
Ѿ
― bunniculingus (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 14 January 2009 03:31 (fifteen years ago) link
.. what?
― thomp, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 18:01 (fifteen years ago) link
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/affective-exchange-amy-hungerfords-making-literature-now
Hungerford, however, does not see the gain of “love” in the work of another contemporarily canonical icon, David Foster Wallace — she sees the cost of hatred. On the basis of preliminary evidence of Wallace’s “misogyny” found in selections of his short stories and in D. T. Max’s biography of Wallace (Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story, 2012), Hungerford declares that she will “not read any further in Wallace’s work” and proposes: “If there was something rotten in Wallace’s relationships with women [ … ] might there be something rotten in the writer-reader relationship, too?” She suggests that if Foer’s writer-reader ethos is “lovemaking,” then Wallace’s is “fucking.” Thus she posits — as “heretical” as it may seem — that every act of reading can be an “act of choosing.” In the case of herself and Wallace, she “refuse[ s ]” her consent.In September 2016, Hungerford published a version of her Wallace chapter as an article, “On Refusing to Read,” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which sparked competing cries of support and dissent. As Tom LeClair notes in his Full Stop review of her book, Hungerford’s Chronicle article has a different argumentative thrust: she refuses Wallace in order to resist the “market imperatives” which led his publishers to “dare” reviewers to read the tome-like Infinite Jest and then led those reviewers to assign it critical value as recompense for their cognitive and temporal losses. While this argument is also in Making Literature Now, it takes a backseat to Hungerford’s misogyny claim which, in turn, is absent from the article. LeClair reads this omission as a ploy on Hungerford’s part, a “defanged” teaser to her book’s melodramatic “two takedowns” of Foer and Wallace. I have to wonder instead whether the misogyny argument is absent because Hungerford had trouble placing an article about misogyny. In Making Literature Now, she notes that upon pitching an article about not reading Wallace on the grounds of misogyny, she was met with the advice to read more Wallace to find more misogyny. Hungerford sees this as an assumption “that Wallace’s work ‘about’ misogyny must somehow be revealing or smart about that subject.” This is the assumption that she wishes to interrogate.
In September 2016, Hungerford published a version of her Wallace chapter as an article, “On Refusing to Read,” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which sparked competing cries of support and dissent. As Tom LeClair notes in his Full Stop review of her book, Hungerford’s Chronicle article has a different argumentative thrust: she refuses Wallace in order to resist the “market imperatives” which led his publishers to “dare” reviewers to read the tome-like Infinite Jest and then led those reviewers to assign it critical value as recompense for their cognitive and temporal losses. While this argument is also in Making Literature Now, it takes a backseat to Hungerford’s misogyny claim which, in turn, is absent from the article. LeClair reads this omission as a ploy on Hungerford’s part, a “defanged” teaser to her book’s melodramatic “two takedowns” of Foer and Wallace. I have to wonder instead whether the misogyny argument is absent because Hungerford had trouble placing an article about misogyny. In Making Literature Now, she notes that upon pitching an article about not reading Wallace on the grounds of misogyny, she was met with the advice to read more Wallace to find more misogyny. Hungerford sees this as an assumption “that Wallace’s work ‘about’ misogyny must somehow be revealing or smart about that subject.” This is the assumption that she wishes to interrogate.
― j., Sunday, 18 December 2016 01:11 (seven years ago) link
I think he was more of a misanthrope than people generally realize and I stopped reading "Oblivion" because I found it kind of unpleasant. But the rape/consent metaphor this writer uses for refusing to read an allegedly misogynistic author is too loaded. And claiming the authority to mount a comprehensive takedown of an author without undertaking the labor of reading them is dumb.
― Treeship, Sunday, 18 December 2016 02:13 (seven years ago) link
I don’t think Hungerford is suggesting, here, that literature courses should never confront misogyny — or other iterations of hatred — but that seeing as teachers hold the readerly consent of their students in hand, they should choose their texts and authors carefully. To me, Hungerford’s affective-interpretive “worth” system reads as fair: if a reader must pay the cost of imbibing hatred, the author must offer the payback of equivalently potent critical “insight.” Any less is hatred for hatred’s sake. And hatred is worthless
This is such a transactional take on reader response theory. I don't think much good can come from analyzing literary texts as a balance sheet with "value" in one ledger and "cost" in the other. Isn't art supposed to be a repository for kinds of knowledge -- emotional, experiential -- that can't easily be translated into concepts (much less quantified)?
― Treeship, Sunday, 18 December 2016 02:25 (seven years ago) link
What do u think of that article j.?
― Treeship, Sunday, 18 December 2016 02:26 (seven years ago) link
making literature now...with McSweeney’s and Everything Is Illuminated and DFW? yuck. thanks, trump!
― scott seward, Sunday, 18 December 2016 03:35 (seven years ago) link
she must have been sitting on that book for a good ten years waiting for the right time to strike.
― scott seward, Sunday, 18 December 2016 03:36 (seven years ago) link
i re-read his tracy austin piece -- i think hes otm abt her just lacking introspection/depth; ive come to really like her as a commentator, shes astute but every bit of analysis is p surface level idk not knocking her
― johnny crunch, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 23:59 (seven years ago) link
j. never explained what he thought about the tendentious la review of books piece he linked to.
― Treeship, Thursday, 6 April 2017 01:51 (seven years ago) link
Recently read Adrienne Miller's In the Land of Men and I am voting cunt
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Friday, 29 October 2021 19:23 (two years ago) link
You push a woman out of a moving car, you’re an undeniable cunt
― Tsar Bombadil (James Morrison), Monday, 1 November 2021 10:21 (two years ago) link
was she wheel shaped though?
― Chappies banging dustbin lids together (President Keyes), Monday, 1 November 2021 14:04 (two years ago) link