/lit/ - Literature

He's a terrible writer.

DFW posited that DeLillo wrote 'the greatest dialogue out of any living writer.'

wol! wosting ina wunwawk wead! warkive wick!

What the hell Hawkwind? Delillo is like the most normal postmodern writer.

>>3676704
"DFW posited..."
How can someone has such a cack-handed way with the English language have the gall to namefag on a literature board?

lol! toasting in another epic sunhock bread! archive quick!

>>3676774
>How can someone has such a cack-handed way with the English language
>How can someone has such a cack-handed way with the English language
>How can someone has such a cack-handed way with the English language
>How can someone has such a cack-handed way with the English language

>>3676805
I think there is actually an essential qualitative distinction to be drawn between someone inadvertently omitting a relative pronoun and someone using the unwieldy, seminar-room term "posited" in a phrase where the simple everyday terms 'thought" or "said" would have done just as well.

The former faux pas might only indicate that the hour is late and the poster is suffering from a head-cold.

The latter certainly indicates that the poster is a vapid pretentious show-off who lacks even the most rudimentary sensibility and tact in matters of language and the art of language.

>>3676833
>feels threatened when people use big words

>>3676411
Have you ever listened to people talk? His dialogue is the most accurate and timely out there.

Granted, it's jarring to see someone write the way people actually speak, but that's the point.

http://www.e-reading-lib.org/bookreader.php/88316/DeLillo_-_Americana.html

An otherwise forgettable book, but the opening section is brilliant.

>>3676836
I'm sure that a lot of people who use this board will sympathize when I say that it's morons like you who make life difficult for the rest of us by giving "big words" a bad name.

I used several "big words" in my post of a few minutes ago ' - "inadvertent", "unwieldy", "vapid" etc - but I used them because no other words would have done to express exactly what I wanted to express. When they happen to be exactly the words I need, I have no objection to using even "bigger" ones, like "banausic" and "deontological".

Believe me, I have to put up with enough mockery and abuse from uneducated people because I do so.

But I'm pretty certain that it would be possible to win at least a large proportion of those people over and to bring them at least to consider the possibility that drawing on a wider spectrum of the English language"s resources can sometimes serve a useful function...

...if only idiots like you didn't keep muddying the waters by going into your local dry cleaners and saying something like

"I have conveyed myself to this locality impelled by the conation to initiate inquisitorial discourse relative to the issue of whether the disponibility of the attire that is destined to clad my nether regions is an ontic datum already emerged into actuality or whether it languishes still neath the umbrous foliage of futurity"

when all you really mean is

"Are my pants ready to be picked up yet?"

are sunhawks incessant mumblings about delillo some sort of homage to butterflys old flower threads?

>>3676877
Is that quote from the IJ footnotes?

>>3676881
I don"t know who any of these namefags are, but they and DeLillo certainly deserve each other. Of all the recent unreadable writers of "literary priose" he is probably the most absolutely unreadable.