11–20 of 37 posts
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
[edited in response to the valid criticism I received]
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
A lot of people who consider others as "thinking to be smarter than they are" are simply anti-intellectual in general, and tend to see any effort towards the arts, reading, philosophy, etc that's not marketable or job-related as pretension. There is some judgement inherent in this observation.
There is significant judgement inherent in this observation.
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
A lot of people who consider others as "thinking to be smarter than they are" are simply anti-intellectual in general, and tend to see any effort towards the arts, reading, philosophy, etc that's not marketable or job-related as pretension. There is some judgement inherent in this observation.
Pretension can be the first step towards not needing to pretend.
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
I like DFW. I just think he's a witty entertaining writer. I'm far from what I'd consider an intellectual. Love pop culture, video games and other "dumb" stuff. Thanks for the generalized insult though.
Your comment would be fine without the last sentence.
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
Conversely, when people criticize groups that focus on a shared intellectual pleasure, that criticism too is often just more signalling, especially if there is something to be gained by undercutting the value of the intellectual pursuit in question.
Some people are prolific readers and they read things like Infinite Jest and get pleasure from discussing its obscurities.
Then some other people don’t want intellectual merit to be associated with the workload of reading a heavy book they may not particularly like, so they invent some story about how Infinite Jest readers are arrogant.
You could say the same thing about so many things: prolific open source software contribution, prolific consumption of obscure music or music that was lost to history, prolific love of a cult TV show, prolific focus on niche cooking techniques or recipes.
I think any comments that try to apply the negative stereotype to the whole group are just unproductive.
But it will always be this signalling arms race between showing value through obscure intellectual pursuit vs. undercutting that so as to avoid needing to expend the effort while still getting credit for being intellectual.
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
Except you judged both their intelligence and their own perception of their intelligence in the previous sentence. [edited in response to the valid criticism I received]
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
DFW strikes me as someone who either (a) is very intelligent and creative and always spinning off new connections and ideas; he's too excited to spend the time to make the ideas clear and simple, or (b) is trying very, very hard to look like (a). (Jonathan Franzen, mentioned in the article, strikes me as trying far too hard.) Good will makes me want to believe (a), while stories like those mentioned in the article lead me to (b). Also, I'll note that the very intelligent and creative people I know tend to spend a lot of time trying to get things clear and simple.
This article, however, is simply blog-spam. Nothing to do with being a bad friend and everything to do dropping factoids about Wallace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people who consider others as "thinking to be smarter than they are" are simply anti-intellectual in general, and tend to see any effort towards the arts, reading, philosophy, etc that's not marketable or job-related as pretension. There is some judgement inherent in this observation.
I approve of people thinking they're smarter than they are, because that's a worthy aspiration. Compared to, say, people who think they're hipper or more attractive than they are. If it makes people read literature that stretches their mind, that's great. Pretension can be the first step towards not needing to pretend.
The people I know to whom DFW appeals tend to be those who think they’re smarter than they are. There is no judgement inherent in this observation.
One of my favorite DFW observations was about how on his press tour following the release of Infinite Jest, he was doing readings two or so weeks after it had released. People were coming up to him and praising him, wanting a piece of him. He commented to.... Maybe David Lipsky I think? that it would have been nearly impossible for these fans to have read the book in its entirety, and that it made him super self-cons…
Hemingway's strengths are high rhetoric, and European politics of the 30's. Wallace: deep journalism in essay form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my favorite DFW observations was about how on his press tour following the release of Infinite Jest, he was doing readings two or so weeks after it had released. People were coming up to him and praising him, wanting a piece of him. He commented to.... Maybe David Lipsky I think? that it would have been nearly impossible for these fans to have read the book in its entirety, and that it made him super self-cons…
Not abashed myself to admit giving up on Jest around the 1/3 point, and Eden at 1/4. Hemingway's strengths are high rhetoric, and European politics of the 30's. Wallace: deep journalism in essay form.