/lit/ - Literature

He's 100% correct, and this extends to all other art forms. Monetizing art and making industries around its production guarantees to attract charlatans who are only in it for the money, and ensures that artists who pursue art to express themselves will be fucked over by executives because their visions won't make them money.

>>12502394
I mean DFW’s last book is his best, so I’m not sure about that.

>>12502416
You mean the book he left unfinished because he killed himself before it was published, thus experiencing no monetary gain from the writing of it? Yeah, sounds like Schopenhauer was vindicated then.

>>12502394
It's some kind of Enlightenment elitism.
He wasn't yet aware the majority of people would stay stupid fucks forever.

>>12502394
Yeah, I think you're onto something. For DFW, writing was basically a self-centered exercise. It was all about making it look like he had poured himself out onto the page without any filter. But of course, he was trying at the same time to appear intelligent by making reference to as many specialized concepts as possible. To enjoy his works, you need to tacitly accept this facade, and go along with the idea that his mind is uniquely interesting, and that his reddit-tier musings about the world are insightful. I think the reason a lot of people hate DFW is because he tried to make himself immune from criticism by portraying himself as a great champion of "sincerity", as though he had rediscovered some long-forgotten concept. He should have just owned up to the fact that he is basically a narcissist.

HOLY. FUCKING. BASED.
>"Payment and reserved copyright are at bottom the ruin of literature. Only he who writes entirely for the sake of what he has to say writes anything worth writing. It is as if there were a curse on money: every writer writes badly as soon as he starts writing for gain." t. Schopenhauer
HE DOES IT FOR FREE

Guess Victor Hugo and Balzac were shit writers then

>When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. It is the same as the pupil, in learning to write, following with his pen the lines that have been pencilled by the teacher. Accordingly, in reading, the work of thinking is, for the greater part, done for us. This is why we are consciously relieved when we turn to reading after being occupied with our own thoughts. But, in reading, our head is, however, really only the arena of some one else’s thoughts. And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk.

>Such, however, is the case with many men of learning: they have read themselves stupid. For to read in every spare moment, and to read constantly, is more paralyzing to the mind than constant manual work, which, at any rate, allows one to follow one’s own thoughts.

lit btfo

>>12502394
I'm presuming Schopenhauer only wrote this because he was seething no one would pay attention to him over Hegel

>>12504020
They were though. Have you actually read any of their work?

>>12502394

Schopenhauer is seldom right but yes. It's part of the broader idea that your "passion" will end up consuming you, the cruelest irony of the "masculine" hero who wants to exert himself and impart himself onto the world toward Self-actualization and progressive gain only for the world to exert herself and impart herself onto him toward castration and cyclical vampirism.

>>12502510
I like that dfw in infinite jest is essentialy making the same moral statement that agustine made a thousand years ago but with a modern aesthetic

>>12504504
Shut your whore mouth, Georg.

>>12502510

Yes, but so much of DFW addresses this very issue.

Read Octect in Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Read Good Old Neon in Oblivion.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277355334_New_Sincerity_in_David_Foster_Wallace's_Octet

>David Foster Wallace's “Octet” provides a singular example of how he endeavors to negotiate with the ever-present specter of irony and interrogate the efficacy and applicability of sincerity within the millennial zeitgeist. By requiring of his readers a vast investment of time and concentration, acknowledging and working through the specter of irony while proleptically anticipating theoretical rebuttals, and resisting both a retrograde appeal for “pre-ironic” sincerity and a reductive synthesis of irony and sincerity, Wallace achieves a “new” position of sincerity that is ostensibly unchallengeable. This, however, exposes an underlying conservative individualism and suggests that the very need for a New Sincerity might be the preserve of a relatively empowered, elite section of U.S. society.

>>12502510
I'm currently reading his Lobster essay, and I see no pretension here at all. Is it only found in IJ and his other major works? So far I love his style and warmth, it feels like he's truly there speaking to me through those words, and while I'm not a fanboy or anything close, I'd love to be his friend.

>>12504616
Why do commies love DFW so much when he is such an elitist?

>>12502394
I think this is right. When I wrote just for fun on the side, not intending to show things to anybody, I wrote some pretty damn good stuff. Now, when I’m pressed by the issue of what I’m going to do to pay the bills, and consider writing short stories/poetry for money, I can’t write for shit. The easy response would be, “Why not just publish your old stuff, dumbass?” Of course, I’ve destroyed and thrown out my old writings in a destructive fit, so now I don’t even have proof that I ever wrote anything good besides my memory of it.

>>12504695
>I’ve destroyed and thrown out my old writings in a destructive fit
Yikes!

>>12504695
>Of course, I’ve destroyed and thrown out my old writings in a destructive fit, so now I don’t even have proof that I ever wrote anything good besides my memory of it.

You already embody the truth that ideas come to you unbegotten.

>>12502425
Asperger's syndrome.

>>12504504
Schopy at least knew how to write proper sentences. Hegel was barely literate.

>>12504504
>freudian-hegelianism
literally worse than satan himself

>>12505024

What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?

>>12504630
IJ isnt pretentious. Its about teenage athletes and desperate drug addicts anon.

>>12502394
>>12502412
Precisely. If we want truly good art, we must remove profit as an incentive to making art. Intellectual property is the death of culture.

>>12505417
Fuck off, no one here wants to read your insincere, bloated, time-wasting 1000+ page pseud-magnet.

What would Schops say if he were alive today

>>12505531
factually wrong. The only thing "pretentious" about IJ is most of the first 250 pages suck. But its not because its pretentious, its because they suck.

>>12502510

yes, as narcissistic as they come

>>12504778
What?

>>12502412
>artists who pursue art to express themselves will be fucked over by executives because their visions won't make them money.
Hm so what you're saying is that if artists are paid, they won't exist because they won't be paid?

>>12506230
You obviously have Asperger's syndrome judging by your response.

>>12502510
>wanting to make a long, complex novel with lots of technic knowledge and post modernist prank making are sprinkled throughout the plot in a way some random 4channer is “reddit”
>this makes him a narcissistic
wow I guess people should never be ambitious right?

>>12504616
WTF that article
He interprets that a required amount of intelligence/background for anyone to grasp the novel well leads to the fact that the writing itself AND the philosophy of DFW is narcissistic, individualistic
At the same time, Infinite Jest presents characters suppousedly from different “classes” with the same indifference/irony/sincerity
DFW’s conumdrum was writing such a thick book with a sincerity ideal, and realizing that by doing so he was contracting his ideal himself

>>12504379
I've read several novels by the latter and thousand of verses by the former in the original. You're either memeing or retarded, or you don't know French, or have no ear for poetry. Disliking them is one thing, calling them shit is just ignorance.

>>12506332
Not an argument.

>>12502394
Schopenhauer is right that he was a pretentious hack that no one wanted to pay money to read, sure.

>>12504695
SAD!

>>12502394
>every writer writes badly as soon as he starts writing for gain
*blocks your path*

>>12506230
He said you're autistic

>>12502394
Dosto wrote for momey

>>12509469
A point wasn’t made.

>>12502412
Yeah all those Medici commissions were one trash heap after another. Kys you illiterate middleschooler.

>>12509469
imagine how good he would be if he didn't have to write spooky ghost stories for a wide market

>>12502394
Most music before Beethoven was written for gain. These quotes by Schop are quite lit-tier, in the he that they're edgy garbage opinions caused by intellectual myopia.

*puts bums on seats night after night at the Globe*

>>12502394
>just write for the sake of writing bro
>who cares if you and your family are poor and suffering thats part of being a writer

>>12509595
And a lot of it was trash. It's hard to know, but it might have been a case of 'one for me one for them' that led to his masterpieces

>>12502394
Schopie was just butthurt no one wanted to pay him money.

>>12509595
Based Shakespeare. Satisfying both groundlings and elites for 400 years running.

>>12502412
Is he really having a seizure?