/lit/ - Literature

We're not a monolith.

>>2511444
I don't hate Infinite Jest or DFW.

I love that book.

Fucking hilarious, enlightening, sad, scary, interesting.

But hard to get into at first.

Still a work of an interesting mind.

Sure is uncracked spines in here.

Well, what the fuck? I come on here and all I hear is you guys condemning both DFW and Infinite Jest but all I hear now is you guys praising it.

/lit/ actually secretly likes the book, they just won't admit it because Harold Bloom said that DFW had "no discernible talent", and because it's becoming an "entry-level" book. /lit/izens are pretty fickle bastards.

>>2511456
>Not being extra careful to not harm your paperbacks in any way.
Sure is plebeian in here.

Diese Kunst ist schlecht / nicht vorhanden / gefällt mir nicht, usw.

my favorite book and author

I haven't read it yet so I can't say.

>>2511470

I don't even try to be careful and sometimes the spines don't crack anyway. Usually for those trade paperbacks like that Infinite Jest there, the binding is flexible enough for me to turn the pages without the spine cracking.

>>2511496
Most high quality paperbacks you get nowadays won't crack even when laid flat on a table. It looks like most of the books on that shelf would fall into this category.

I just looked up the Harold Bloom article where he says DFW has "no discernible talent." Here is the whole quote actually: “You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ [regarded by many as Wallace’s masterpiece] is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.”

He goes on to say that Stephen King is awful, but Cervantes (a really good writer) compared to DFW.

But he doesn't say why. All he says is that "we have no standards left."

I bet he could write 1,000 pages on why, and it'd be hard to condense, but I'd like to know...

>>2511466
Whatever you want us to do we do the opposite. BITCH

"Infinite Jest" is the "Ulysses" for American males aged 16-28.

For decades, pseudo-intellectual adult males have been professing "Ulysses" to be their favourite novel in an effort to cultivate a certain air of being learned, wise, and discerning.

"Ulysses" is not modern enough, and its author is too old-fashioned and unreachable for this new generation of pseudo-intellectuals, so it's only natural that a hefty, erudite tome written by a long-haired Author most people can't be bothered to care about wins the token-favourite award of these bright, young men who'd rather be thought of as discerning rather than going through the effort of actually being discerning.

>>2511511
There's a footnote in Infinite Jest that poked fun at Bloom, and Bloom probably didn't appreciate that. Plus there's the fact that a lot of Infinite Jest is overwritten and it's pretty derivative of DeLillo and Pynchon, but I mostly think Bloom just got pissed at DFW about that footnote. Calling DFW inferior to Stephen King is a pretty absurd criticism.

>>2511511
Sounds like a snobbish Yale professor got his panties in a bunch because he had to look up a word he's never seen before.

>>2511529
what's your favorite novel?

>>2511454
This.

I really liked that book. The themes are complex and I find the way characters are connected enjoyable.
I think there's a fair amount of haters who are simply jealous or aren't able to relate to any of the following: depression, drugs, alcohol, addiction to entertainment.
There are also readers who weren't interested in the mean value theorem or some deep obscure psychological references, it was a drag for them. DFW challenges the "general culture" of his readers, some people don't like it.

>>2511511

well harold bloom has no discernible neck

>>2511543
I seriously doubt Bloom gives a shit about some footnote a suicide made about him. He probably didn't even read it/know of it.

I read that Harold Bloom reads two or three books a night so he could finish that damn thing in one night while I slugged through it for a month.

>>2511569
I dunno, Bloom's been pretty spiteful towards his critics in the past.

>>2511583
DFW is hardly a critic. You're ascribing too much worth to DFW.

Whether or not you like/revere Harold Bloom, he is a respected academic bigwig who people consult the world over for insights on the likes of Shakespeare and Milton.

DFW, on the other hand, has Dave "MTV" Eggers writing his forewords, and a fanbase of teenagers.

The common critique here of Bloom's words on DFW is that they're glib and lack reasoned explanations--well, the reason is because Bloom can't be bothered to say/write more on the subject. If you put it into perspective, I think you'd see just how insignificant DFW is to Bloom, let alone a snide comment tucked away in the footnotes of a tedious book the size of a toddler.

>>2511606
>If you put it into perspective, I think you'd see just how insignificant DFW is to Bloom
If you put it into perspective, one is a world-renowned author who's written short stories and novels that have impacted the lives of millions while remarkably keeping his tone, subject, and style lacking in LCD-favoring characteristics found in most other authors who boast the same popularity. And the other is an academic barely recognized outside of his own field who's profited more from the work of his graduate students than the sweat of his own brow.

>>2511629
+1000000

I wish I had that kind of shelf-space.

>>2511606
To be fair, I don't think DFW was like "Yes, other Dave, do my bidding or I will haunt you from the grave! Little, Brown just thought he was a relatively young, hip author with whom DFW's reading base would be familiar with.

>>2511543
Does anyone remember which footnote that was?

>>2511629
You have only solidified my point.

They are from two separate worlds entirely. Do you honestly believe Bloom gives a shit about DFW, coming from the world that you describe him in?

>>2511606
Bloom, being someone who makes living off of criticizing others' works, should give more than 18 shits about someone who'll give him his next paycheck.

>>2511645
Except there's no money (nor even cred) to be had critiquing DFW, so we're back down to 0 shits given, aren't we?

>>2511637
Yes, yes I do. Bloom read for a living, and the idea that he didn't even notice what DFW had to say about him is ridiculous if he read Infinite Jest: he reads to fully understand, how would he not have understood this jibe at him?
Second, Bloom does not take criticism of his work well.
>I seriously doubt Bloom gives a shit about some footnote
Add these two factors together, and it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that what was stated here is probably not true.

>>2511652
You're assuming that Bloom even read it all the way through.

That is erroneous.

>>2511651
Except there is. DFW is undeniably one of the greatest literature authors in the past 20 years and saying that one of the biggest literary critics in the world won't make any money or garner any sort of esteem of doing a review on DFW is just absurd.

>>2511665
>DFW is undeniably one of the greatest literature authors in the past 20 years

Hahaha. No.

>>2511667
Then who is the greatest?

>>2511672
Is it a contest?

There are many great writers who've had a book out in the past 20 years, but DFW isn't one of them.

>>2511665
Nah nigga. That's Cormac.

>>2511691
>one of the greatest
Your suggestion of another one of the greatest isn't a contradiction.

>>2511694
Care to name those, please? I'm not interested in disputing your taste, I'm just curious.

>>2511705
Sure. Off the top of my head: Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, Delillo, Irvine Welsh, and Philip Roth.

>>2511694
http://listverse.com/2010/10/10/top-10-best-novels-of-the-last-20-years/
>Infinite Jest at #1
http://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/
>Infinite Jest
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985753,00.html
>Infinite Jest

He is one of the greatest writers of the last 20 years. You gosh darned silly man.

>>2511694
Why isn't he?

>>2511726
I don't see the problem with adding DFW to that list. That's a good list by the way.
Can someone who don't like DFW quote a small excerpt and explain briefly why he sucks, i never actually seen that.

>>2511745
Goethe said, in relation to art, "one sees the intention and one is put off."

I can see exactly what DFW is doing with his prose, footnotes, speeches, and interviews: he's desperately vying for clout. He wants to be taken seriously and he wants to be consulted for commentary. Well, I see all that, and I'm put off. There's nothing real or true to be said when you're writing strictly for literary clout. There is no life in those those nasty, towering sculptures he constructed from sentences. It's all show, man. For the academic community. It's a monkey's trick.

>>2511774
I feel that way about Ulysses

>>2511774
I begin to understand. I feel like we're getting somewhere.
He actually admitted in an itw that when he was in college he thought fiction was a way to "show how smart you are". He said he tried to eliminate that from his work. Of course there's still traces.

On the footnotes, I like them for they clearly indicate a little game between the reader and DFW. It's like "I know you're reading my book and hey, I acknowledge your presence reader!"
I quite like that.
I think DFW used his ability to show off to actually increase the substance of his story thus challenging the reader and, once again, that's what I like. IJ was very "meta" in this aspect. I guess it doesn't suit everyone. I feel closer to him than other authors.
That's his talent.
So.. can we agree he was a show off but used his knowledge to actually put something into his book? Not every wannabe could show off like that; he must have a minimum of talent right?

I don't hate Infinite Jest or DFW, I just hate the fags on /lit/ who worship him and the book. All you guys ever do is circle jerk over what page your currently on and then say "oh my god this book feels so good." I've never once actually seen a fan discuss the actual contents.

>>2511819
>I've never once actually seen a fan discuss the actual contents.

i've never seen anyone discuss the contents of anything here.

>>2511807
I haven't read Infinite Jest yet (it is collecting dust right next to V.) ,but I have seen a lot of his interviews and what you just posted rings true.
DFW in no way wanted to show off or be a huge monolith in literature ,but was just a shy guy that wanted to write a sad book that reflected the world we live in ,but in a exaggerated manner. The few bits of Infinite Jest I read (not much, maybe 20-30 pages) seems like his prose is not for everyone ,but in no way was he really trying to be extremely esoteric ,but he did want to be experimental ( something that he loved reading in college and missed dearly in modern literature.)
DFW is not a pretentious dick. He is just a man who loves literature dearly and wanted to contribute his voice
I cannot say the same for some his outrageous tumblr posting fans though.

>>2511819
>>2511827
I actually tried a few times, got almost shot & raped because I wasn't writing a proper "literary analysis". I just wrote random thought and wanted to analyze the plot (what happens, basic stuff really). I'm not deep enough to do that...

>>2511830
Totally agreeing I was saying he was a douche to "negociate", but when you'll read IJ, you'll see why some people think he was like that. He did an incredible good job describing this "sad story" and the sad parts weren't exaggerated at all. (Kate Gompert describing her depression: what-the-fuck-am-i-reading-this-is-so-sad-and-beautiful-emotions-are-flowing-through-my-heart)

Lit should have more actual discussions about books. To those who are English major and stuff, show us the way!

>>2511863
Some things that I think /lit/ should do:

1. If an e-book is available (or even just a PDF) of the book the thread is about, link us to it. One main reason why this board talks about the same 10 books all the time is because we all have not read the same material. Subsequent threads about the same book will have more responses, because people will have read/had easy access to the book.

2. Every emotional or rational response needs to have a specific example from said book. This need not be direct quotations or anything as involved as all that. Merely, one could say something like, "I think Meursault rejects God, because during his time in prison, he constantly laments the certainty of his death, and dwells in great length about that one chance of escaping it. Likewise, he doesn't ever give the Arab nor the Chaplain names, where he must have surely learned what they were. He has a repulsion from certainty, and wants to live life free of it, and accepting God would be accepting, to some degree, certainty..." That's off the top of my head, but anything along those lines.

3. Ignore any threads that aren't about literature. Don't respond, don't acknowledge. Just skip past them.

>>2511893
There should be an official manifesto to /lit/ to keep shit posting to a minimum.

Can someone tell me why DFW is the new ayn rand and why we don't insta-ban auto-sage DFW threads?

>>2511937
Banning a certain topic or author only compels people to post more about it. It is not a very strong deterrent. It is a lot like how a "banned book" suddenly has deep interest for those who are banned from it. It becomes taboo, rebellious, and even sexy.

>>2511944

It cut Ayn Rand threads down by 99.9%

so you're wrong.

Ban DFW shit.
DFW threads are just spam and viral marketing for his shit

>>2511937
People actually legitimately like DFW.

>>2511944
Well, we actually don't see that much Rand-trolling and when we do see it it's mostly just "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M POSTING THIS BANNED BOOK." It's a more effective deterrent than I would suspect intuitively.

Just started it yesterday, holy fuck it's awesome, but i'm a busy man and unfortunately i'm worried it's going to be too long for me to finish :/

>>2511955
>People actually legitimately like DFW.

People like Harry Potter, but not on /lit/

keep these spam threads off /lit/

sage

>>2511774

I disagree that he was writing for clout. If you could post a link to the interview that'd be great. If he ever was, in my opinion it was only one of many reasons why he wrote, and only for his first two books (not including IJ). What I assume you mean by saying that he writes for clout are the long sentences, obscure words, and maximalist style. In my opinion, from reading a lot of what he's written, and having read quite a few interviews, he thought that was a beautiful way to write. I personally think it's beautiful, and touching, and I'm maybe too influenced by ethos in what I like to read for pleasure.

Check out this article -- I really don't buy that he was in any way interested in clout by the time he wrote IJ.
http://ysinembargo.com/uebi/2010/01/an-interview-with-david-foster-wallace-larry-mccaffery/

Also, even Harold Bloom said he was "sincere" (not writing for clout). His complaint was that there are "no standards left."

Also... Intentional Fallacy much? Granted I'm not a new schooler, but I respect that as one interpretation of analyzing literature.

sage

>>2511937
>>2511954
>>2511963

You know you can hide threads, right? You don't have to look at them. People like discussing him on a literature board.

>>2511726
Pretty good list. I'm not a big fan of McCarthy, but I'd still say he belongs on there.
I don't see why adding DFW to that list would be such a big deal, either. Also Gass should at the very least get an honorable mention.

>>2511636

IJ footnote that supposedly disses Harold Bloom:

page 911 and footnote 366:
(summarized since it's too long to quote w/ context): Near the end of the novel Hal and Pemulis are watching one of the dad's films. In the film, there's an academic reading at a podium, head down, straight from notes, in a "deadening academic monotone," to a bunch of really stereotypically bored film students. However, the topic, while being delivered in very academic prose ("Thus the Flood's real consequence is revealed to be desiccation, generations of hydrophobia on a pandemic scale") seems to be really interesting (talking about reviving dead ancestors or something), and the academic delivering the speech is actually visibly moved by it ("incredible pathos") and actually softly crying.

The footnote cuts away as he mentions the incredible pathos and the students being really bored: "[the speech] sound[s] rather suspciously like Professor H. Bloom's turgid studies of artistic influenza..."

So... within this context DFW basically calls Bloom's studies turgid.

As an argument, you could possibly say that DFW meant to say that Bloom has good ideas but he just expresses them in a turgid way. Or, assuming the most spiteful, you could say that DFW plain thinks all his work is turgid.

>>2511954
Butthurt because had to search for "Coatlicue complex" on google or understood jack shit about the mean value theorem.
Banning DFW? You want a internet based version of the eschaton or what? This will go S A C P O P.

>>2512004
Thanks for the n° of the note. I had no idea the guy actually existed. It's a bit mean of FW.

>>2512051
>You want a internet based version of the eschaton or what? This will go S A C P O P.
REDCHI standing by.

>>2512004
I think referring to Bloom's artistic influence idea as "artistic influenza", he's making a statement about Bloom's ideas being turgid as well. At least, that's how I'd interpret it, if I was Harold Bloom.

No more DFW threads. He and his books are not worth it.

>>2512057

Sorry, meant to say something about that too but forgot, good call