[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 320 KB, 1725x1725, DavidFosterWallace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20679100 No.20679100 [Reply] [Original]

Why did he champion post modernism, yet argue for sincerity so much? Isn't post modernism what caused this ironic era in the first place?

>> No.20679105

pseud: the question

>> No.20679127

>>20679100
He didn’t

>> No.20679144

>>20679100
Why did this faggot wear a durag?

>> No.20679152

>>20679144
He was balding.

>> No.20679304

>>20679100
>Why did he champion post modernism
Where did you get that idea ?

>> No.20679697

>>20679304
There were elements of post modern lit. He wanted to transcend, but he's considered one of the best post modern authors.

>> No.20680018

You obviously haven't read infinite jest

>> No.20680034

>>20679144
He was a sweaty man. He wore a bandana to soak up his forehead's constant profusion of moisture.
Contemplate the aroma of such rag, after a full day's worth of incessant perspiration.

>> No.20680048

Son, you got a panty on your head.

>> No.20680375

>>20679100
he used postmodern literary techniques to critique postmodernism. his works are just postmodernism committing suicide.
the point is that everybody worships, but you have to be very aware of what you worship and why you worship it over other things/ideologies. following this line of thought, an ideology which tries to trick a person into thinking that they don’t worship or that worshipping/ideology is fundamentally bad must be a lie, and can be harmful since it prevents a person from actually being aware of what they worship (since, whether they’re aware of it or not, DFW would maintain that everybody basically worships something, and it’s better to worship something that won’t be extremely damaging to your life).
where I think DFW drops off is in the fact that he doesn’t seem to have a consistent position on what constitutes good and bad. there are times when he seems to be a hedonistic utilitarian, and other times where he recognizes that happiness can be harmful (though he sometimes tries to excuse this by saying that these harmful instances of happiness aren’t “true happiness”), and still others where he says that it’s all about having justified desires/targets of worship (i.e. alcohol, drugs and sex are not depicted as justified things to worship, but things like Jesus, Allah, Buddha and the Wiccan Mother Goddess are seen as justified things to worship. I don’t think he’s entirely clear on what quantifies good and why these things won’t “eat you alive”, as he put it in his 2005 Kenyon College commencement speech)

>> No.20680407

>>20679144
is was hot boi hipster shit in the 90s

>> No.20682207

>>20679100
He was mentally ill

>> No.20682579

>>20680375
That level of using postmodernism to turn on postmodernism is postmodernist. Regardless, he was full of shit and he even admitted as much when he didn't know what he was doing in college -- he was just trying to sound smarter than his professors. If you interviewed Hemingway or Fitzgerald, they could articulate exactly what they were doing. He could never explain himself, he just bullshat. Like so many contemporary authors. It's embarrassing for the genre.

>> No.20682608

>>20682579
>He could never explain himself, he just bullshat
I struggle to think of a post-modernist author who COULD explain what they were doing. Do you think Joyce could explain Ulysses? Pynchon and GR? What's your point?

>> No.20682784

>>20679100
>>20680375
>he used postmodern literary techniques to critique postmodernism. his works are just postmodernism committing suicide
Yes. He wasn't championing it, he was accelerating it, drilling down to what remains afterward.

>> No.20682802

>>20682608
>Do you think Joyce could explain Ulysses? Pynchon and GR? What's your point?
That's why these works are retarded

>> No.20683316

>>20682608
That he's an idiot and you're an idiot for being a fan of him.

>> No.20683433

>>20680375
>he used postmodern literary techniques to critique postmodernism

disingenous shit, like that garbage show the boys. this is how contemporary "writers" hide behind their own talentless

>> No.20683678

>>20682802
unironically this

>> No.20683687

>>20679144
It's a diaper. His brain produces so much shit that it's either that or writing novels all the time. He took a whiff of IJ once and killed himself.

>> No.20684366 [DELETED] 

>>20680375
>>20682608
I heard an interview with Zadie Smith in which she actually says that --- that interviewers ask you these stupid questions and many authors just make things up in their responses --- they feel that they have to have some sort of response to the stupid question. In other words, they are all going along with the pseudo-intellectual veneer that the "literature" industry is painting over its product. Post-modernism is replete with this BS --- I find most of the authors to have far less insight into culture and life than I do, yet I'm supposed to pretend that their half-baked utterances about human emotion and the human condition are some product of deep philosophical grounding and reflection. It's a joke. They aren't fooling me, at least.

Then you have unwitting audiences, like the ones in this comments section, who have even less insight than the authors, who think these people are geniuses. Wallace talks about the banality of TV culture. Wow, my 4th-grade teacher told me about that, and then I built on that insight in high school. From what I've heard Foster say about it, I could teach him a thing or two on the subject.

Film grapples with all the same issues as literature, it just mirrors the stories back to us using a different medium. You don't hear the writers, directors, and actors posturing in this way. Listen to an interview with Sydney Pollack, or Scorsese, or Hitchcock, or John Schlesinger, or any other great director. There's no BS or pseduo-intellectualizing. Is there deep analysis? Yes. They understand the human condition as much as anyone else, as much as these so-called literary authors, but they are masters of the craft of FILMMAKING, and they talk about FILMMAKING with an expertise we don't have. And we learn from their interviews about that art. They aren't didactically trying to instruct us with some half-baked sophomoric insight they have, not realizing that we might have a much deeper grasp of the problem than they do.

With these literary people, they are supposed to be experts on STORYTELLING. And when you read a post-modern novel, it's abundantly clear that so many of them are not masters of their craft. They aren't masters of the human condition, nor are they masters of the writing craft, which is why so much post-modernism is CRAP.

>> No.20684401

>>20679144
he claimed his brain would spill out otherwise

>> No.20684426

>>20680375 #
>>20682608 #
I heard an interview with Zadie Smith in which she actually says that --- that interviewers ask you these stupid questions and many authors just make things up in their responses --- they feel that they have to have some sort of response to the stupid question. In other words, they are all going along with the pseudo-intellectual veneer that the "literature" industry is painting over its product. Post-modernism is replete with this BS --- I find most of the authors to have far less insight into culture and life than I do, yet I'm supposed to pretend that their half-baked utterances about human emotion and the human condition are some product of deep philosophical grounding and reflection. It's a joke. They aren't fooling me, at least.

Then you have unwitting audiences, like the ones on this board, who have even less insight than the authors, who think these people are geniuses. Wallace talks about the banality of TV culture. Wow, my 4th-grade teacher told me about that, and then I built on that insight in high school. From what I've heard Foster say about it, I could teach him a thing or two on the subject.

Film grapples with all the same issues as literature, it just mirrors the stories back to us using a different medium. You don't hear the writers, directors, and actors posturing in this way. Listen to an interview with Sydney Pollack, or Scorsese, or Hitchcock, or John Schlesinger, or any other great director. There's no BS or pseduo-intellectualizing. Is there deep analysis? Yes. They understand the human condition as much as anyone else, as much as these so-called literary authors, but they are masters of the craft of FILMMAKING, and they talk about FILMMAKING with an expertise we don't have. And we learn from their interviews about that art. They aren't didactically trying to instruct us with some half-baked sophomoric insight they have, not realizing that we might have a much deeper grasp of the problem than they do.

With these literary people, they are supposed to be experts on STORYTELLING. And when you read a post-modern novel, it's abundantly clear that so many of them are not masters of their craft. They aren't masters of the human condition, nor are they masters of the writing craft, which is why so much post-modernism is CRAP.

>> No.20684851

>>20684426
>not realizing that we might have a much deeper grasp of the problem than they do.

Very good post

>> No.20684954

>>20680375
>has only listened to This Is Water speech

>> No.20684970

>>20679100
Looks like a schizo retard, hope he khs

>> No.20686049

>>20679105
Fpbp