/lit/ - Literature

A gay furry whose only achievment is making music so tame its only role is making low-class malls seem more welcoming?


Nope, DFW was, and still is, far better than that.

>>10981734
DELET THIS

>>10981518
Mozart wishes he could be bandanaman

>>10981734
Mozart wasn't a furry. He was a scat fetishist and probably had autism behavioral problems though.

>>10981751
So he was German basically

>>10981518
Nabokov is the Mozart of literature

Nabokov was the Mozart of literature

>>10981763
nice

>>10981795
>>10981806
state the reason why Mozart is to be considered as the Mozart of music,
(why Mozart, and not Bach)

and state the reason why Nabokov is to be considered as the Mozart of literature.

>>10981986
mozart will never be the beehtoven of music
/spoiler or the mangum /spoiler

>>10981986
honestly it should be bach

>>10982028
Of course a very wordy person would prefer Bach

>>10981986
refined yet restrained, eccentric yet valuing the etiquette, accurate yet imaginative

>>10981763
>Le Germans laig le scad XDDD
Actually Anglos are the biggest audience for scat porn

>>10982107
t. German on damage control

>>10981986
bachfags are the bronies of music

>>10981986
wait, are you saying that Bach is the Mozart of literature? What are you saying riggen?

>>10981751
>He was a scat fetishist.
Is this s Germanic thing?

>>10981986
this. mozart is like a kiss cover band.

>>10981986
>why Nabokov is to be considered as the Mozart of literature.
because he writes cute little diddies that taste like candy

>>10982401

>Bach is the Mozart of literature?

Made me lol.

Hot take: DFW is extremely overrated. Infinite Jest is what happens when you fail to reconcile yourself with the legacy of Joyce/Proust and try to rewrite Ulysses 70 years too late.

Also: Mozart is, first and foremost, an operatic composer. HIs best works are operas. He writes his piano sonatas as if they were operas. This is kind of cool in and of itself, but obviously because of this tendency he fails to revolutionize piano music like Beethoven did.

>>10982488
Not a hot take on /lit/, just a very unoriginal and stupid one

>>10982505
Thanks for the constructive reply! I'll definitely think twice before speaking ill of daddy David next time.

I read this mans essays and I just want to fucking quit writing forever. dude is a fully expressed 170 IQ on the page. This is because he's also a mathematical genius and applies complex mathematics to literary structure, while the rest of us are like 'whoa that cliche seems good I'll put it down' we're banging sticks together.

>>10982703
I like how you describe people by their iq numbers. I recently saw an insightful post delimiting the self-congratulatory behavior of the "115"--are you that poster? If so, I applaud you.

>>10982488
>he fails to revolutionize piano music like Beethoven did

what are the piano concertos?

>>10982703

I think you're overestimating Wallace's genius. He was clearly very intelligent, but his it's the very clarity we perceive his intelligence with that's a flaw in his writing. His intelligence actually actively damages his genius because it is over-cultivated. He creates tons of over-complicated structures just so he can be seen by the reader to be navigating them. He magnifies every point so he can analyze every detail.

He's like an experienced sailor choosing to take his ship through a choppy and rocky river rather than circumnavigating it just so he can prove he can do it, despite the fact that it saves no time.

If you look at the old masters, they know both when to magnify and to minimize with a perfect generalization. Shakespeare doesn't spend two pages talking about the shoes of his protagonists just to prove he knows a ton about leather working, the socioeconomics of styles, etc. There is a grotesqueness to his work that you come to see the longer you read.

Wallace is clearly a contender for the canon, but we only have sophomore work because he killed himself before he could exceed the limitations of his early style and write something indisputable. If you want to read writers who worked on a similar scale and to a similar purpose but achieved some degree of balance, try Tolstoy, foremost, but also lesser writers like Bellow and Carson McCullers.

You don't have to be a super-intelligence to writer a great novel. Most great painters only think in terms of color, value, perspective, etc, and analogs are what make up a lot of the writer's ability as well as a high purpose that has been well thought through.

>>10982732
True, that's a good point. I forgot about those.
Most of the pianists I've talked to regard Beethoven as pretty much THE figure in pushing the boundaries of piano music, so I was parroting back that opinion (at the expense of Mozart) without really thinking. I stand by the opera thing, though.

>>10982737
>>10982703


Btw the analog in music would be those guitar technicians who can do amazing solos with extremely complicated and fast fingerwork but ultimately never 'catch on' except among people who are super impressed by technique. 'Flight of the bumblebee" isn't the end-all of music.

I think Wallace's essays are pretty good though, and are probably the best medium for his style because the essay is supposed to be exploratory, explicatory, rather than compressed, comprehensive and unified like a great poem or novel.

>>10982737
This is a wonderful comment, and I agree 100%. I would add that Wallace often seems overwhelmed by his own authorial anxieties and ends up writing about how hard he's trying to write well. These passages are sometimes heartfelt, but more often than not they come across as turgid whinging. Then he'll launch into a whole spiel about how he KNOWS he's starting to sound whiny, and the whole ordeal devolves from there.

I read a few pages of his when I was 17 and instantly put him down as a pseud. My opinion has never changed. The best I can say about DFW is that he came the closest to inspiring me to become a writer myself out of sheer resentment and certainty that I could write better.

>>10982737
>If you look at the old masters, they know both when to magnify and to minimize with a perfect generalization. Shakespeare doesn't spend two pages talking about the shoes of his protagonists just to prove he knows a ton about leather working, the socioeconomics of styles, etc. There is a grotesqueness to his work that you come to see the longer you read.
Yea but that is a component of American fiction. See Melvilles whaling chapters for an old example. Anerican neuroticism.

>>10982924

I think Moby Dick's design justifies its means much more than Wallace's work does. Melville, in Moby Dick, was contending with things that can easily exhaust the full use of the human faculties as applied to all of their subjects - god as seen through his creation, the quest for meaning, and blah blah blah. Melville shows himself admirably capable of restraint in his short stories. There's no page on actuarial data in Bartleby, or something like that. Melville's neuroticism is actually him being the mad Shakespearean fool, trying to get sense out of nonsense because sense in the matter is so slippery.

A lot of the time Wallace's style attaches itself to subjects that are endarkened by the maziness of his writing rather than made clear. The manners of the writing itself itself is also personal rather than encyclopedic. >>10982806 makes a good point too, where some of it is actually him whinging about writing itself, which should have been cut out.

I think American postmodernism is something entirely different from neuroticism, just something with a very narrow appeal or a kind of baroque delight that is justified by not being what Wallace was trying to be, which was somebody like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, coming to terms with the human condition, rather than aspects of intellection or aspects of narrative and how they relate to the world.

>>10982813
Lol

>>10981518
quick rundown on this dude?

>>10981763
He was Austrian tho

>>10983041
He bowed to the Quantum Tennis CIA Backup Handlers In Training, Group C, with a little love on the side.

>>10983041
He was depressed for no fucking reason and killed himself. He had decent looks and wrote for a living. Makes no fucking sense.

>>10981734
>and still is

>>10983294
>tfw to smart too life

>>10983294
your fundamental understanding of mental illness is very bad

>>10984473
Explain it to me then. I always thought depression by itself is a fucking meme. You have your health. Go and do something you'll enjoy. You have the freedom to do anything. Why the fuck be sad? Of course, if you have a medical condition that changes everything. As an example, I've lost my hearing after years of loud noise exposure and now I'm also dealing with tinnitus screaming in my ears. Shit is so bad I can barely read or sleep now. Watch that shit because it creeps up on you slowly. This is a real reason for depression.Not because you feel fucking lonely or some other stupid shit.

>>10985692
I know this is bait but depression is literally hell. Literally.

>>10985692
No not really. Before my health issues, I had plenty of reasons to be depressed about. Social life was piss poor. Job was unfulfilling. But I still never had issues as long as I had some balance in my life doing things I loved.

Sorry.
>>10985713 was meant for >>10985696

>>10985692
>>10985713
I don't think you understand. Depression is more of a medical condition than a mindset. It usually has little to no connection with your material quality of life; in fact, if there's a good reason for you to be depressed, it's less likely that you have actual clinical depression. Telling a genuinely clinically depressed person to just stop thinking like that and try to be more positive is like telling a schizophrenic to just stop hallucinating. Depression is a complicated thing and you shouldn't deride the notion without doing some research. Even if there is some way for a depressed person to cognitively work themselves out of that state, it sure as hell isn't as easy as you make it sound.

>>10981518
No one in literature has approached Mozart's raw talent. The man could literally compose entire full length songs in his head and visualize every single note without writing it down. He was one of the most prolific artists of his time and the only person to BTFO him was Bethoven and it took him fucking forever to write just one song. DFW can't compare to Mozart.

>>10982800
>flight of the bumbl b

>complicated

>>10985742
i dunno i thought of mozart with his article about tornados and tennis, it had a playfulness that was virtuoso, creative, mozart esque just endless complexity and play

>>10981518
>Is DFW the closest /lit/ has ever come to a Mozart?
Yes, if by 'Mozart' you mean 'Beethoven', and by 'Beethoven' you mean the lovable imaginary dog.

>>10981795
>>10981806
kill yourselves

>>10986256
sounds more like Bach
Mozz was neither endless nor too complex

>>10986386
Bach is a musician who sounds better in writing than on instruments
I despise him and his tasteless autismo lackeys

>>10986582
this vid has over a million views on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7RYSQvrUrc

it appeals to the proles clearly

>>10986291
2contrived4fun