Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Well, duh (1996)

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#61

Post by tptacek »

dang wrote: post #60
tptacek wrote: post #56

The title of this piece is "Well, duh". The sentence from which this submission's title is taken is If nothing else, the success of Infinite Jest is proof that the Great American Hype Machine can still work wonders, in terms of sales. ; the submission's title doesn't get the full intent of that sentence. Use the story title! It's in the guidelines! Articles like this, it seems to turn out, are part of Dale Peck's sch…

OK, we've changed it above. The submitted title was "Infinite Jest is proof the Great American Hype Machine can work wonders (1996)". Since the submitter was attempting to use representative language from the article, I figure they thought the original title was baity and were trying to follow the guidelines by changing it.

You're right. I dialed back my comment a bit. Thanks! And thanks to the submitter for finding this.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#62

Post by barryhoodlum »

throwlaplace wrote: post #46
scubbo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I shudder to imagine the experience of reading Infinite Jest in physical form. Having an ereader that could jump back-and-forth between the main text and the endnotes was invaluable.

One thing about long books on e-readers is you don't have the psychological satisfaction of feeling like you're making it through the book (which you can feel by the number of pages that change hands with the paper book)

There's one footnote that ends up being a punchline, about five words long. The few seconds spent flipping from the page to the footnote lent it a certain comedic timing that would usually be impossible to portray in a book. That really stood out in my mind and I don't think it'd be quite the same by clicking a hyperlink.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#63

Post by vo2maxer »

adventskalender wrote: post #54
vo2maxer wrote: post #50

It’s worthwhile comparing the criticism to other works such as James Joyce’s Ulyssess. Take this quote from a review in the NYT: Few intuitive, sensitive visionaries may understand and comprehend "Ulysses," James Joyce's new and mammoth volume, without going through a course of training or instruction, but the average intelligent reader will glean little or nothing from it- even from careful perusal, one might proper…

Such books may exist mainly for signalling status, signalling "I can afford to spend time on useless endeavors". Like a whole university degree in literature, only more condensed. Presumably it works well because it really is extremely time consuming to read those books. The only question is how hard it is to fake having read them (how many details do you have to remember, how many details do other readers remember s…

I’m not sure I understand what you mean: Works written by James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Javier Marías, Dante, Chaucer, Tolstoy, Cervantes, Montaigne, Kafka, Roberto Bolaño, Julio Cortázar, and even Shakespeare are read just for pomposity? Their content is not worth the effort in understanding them? It’s all just for putting on airs which anyone can easily do by reading a summary?

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#64

Post by wmhorne »

tptacek wrote: post #56

The title of this piece is "Well, duh". The sentence from which this submission's title is taken is If nothing else, the success of Infinite Jest is proof that the Great American Hype Machine can still work wonders, in terms of sales. ; the submission's title doesn't get the full intent of that sentence. Use the story title! It's in the guidelines! Articles like this, it seems to turn out, are part of Dale Peck's sch…

> The bit in Infinite Jest written in (attempted) African American vernacular is truly awful, though. Peck is clearly right about that.

On this topic I certainly agreed with him. I found that section horribly out of tune and out of touch. Also---though maybe I'm forgetting something---I recall it played almost no role in the story or plot. It stuck out as easily the hardest part to get through during my second read.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#65

Post by vo2maxer »

dang wrote: post #60
tptacek wrote: post #56

The title of this piece is "Well, duh". The sentence from which this submission's title is taken is If nothing else, the success of Infinite Jest is proof that the Great American Hype Machine can still work wonders, in terms of sales. ; the submission's title doesn't get the full intent of that sentence. Use the story title! It's in the guidelines! Articles like this, it seems to turn out, are part of Dale Peck's sch…

OK, we've changed it above. The submitted title was "Infinite Jest is proof the Great American Hype Machine can work wonders (1996)". Since the submitter was attempting to use representative language from the article, I figure they thought the original title was baity and were trying to follow the guidelines by changing it.

Indeed, I thought the original title was baity. Thank you.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#66

Post by vo2maxer »

tptacek wrote: post #61
dang wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, we've changed it above. The submitted title was "Infinite Jest is proof the Great American Hype Machine can work wonders (1996)". Since the submitter was attempting to use representative language from the article, I figure they thought the original title was baity and were trying to follow the guidelines by changing it.

You're right. I dialed back my comment a bit. Thanks! And thanks to the submitter for finding this.

You’re welcome and thank you for the comment.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#67

Post by throwaway2048 »

dang wrote: post #60
tptacek wrote: post #56

The title of this piece is "Well, duh". The sentence from which this submission's title is taken is If nothing else, the success of Infinite Jest is proof that the Great American Hype Machine can still work wonders, in terms of sales. ; the submission's title doesn't get the full intent of that sentence. Use the story title! It's in the guidelines! Articles like this, it seems to turn out, are part of Dale Peck's sch…

OK, we've changed it above. The submitted title was "Infinite Jest is proof the Great American Hype Machine can work wonders (1996)". Since the submitter was attempting to use representative language from the article, I figure they thought the original title was baity and were trying to follow the guidelines by changing it.

This title is absolutely useless, it says nothing about _anything whatsoever_, its insane you think its a better title.

You could literally change the title to "An article about something" and it would be an equally "good" title.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#69

Post by laxatives »

Its weird because the only people who are going to respond to this type of criticism are people who were so invested in Infinite Jest that they will read this lengthy critique. So its going always going to be extremely biased and poorly received by the biased audience, especially 20+ years later. So its basically just a conversation starter for all the snobs who inhaled this book and maybe a tiny minority who didn't enjoy it but are still motivated enough to discuss it.

The criqitue is mostly well-written and there's some issues I agree with, but they get pretty smarmy and smug by the end.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#70

Post by AlecSchueler »

laxatives wrote: post #69

Its weird because the only people who are going to respond to this type of criticism are people who were so invested in Infinite Jest that they will read this lengthy critique. So its going always going to be extremely biased and poorly received by the biased audience, especially 20+ years later. So its basically just a conversation starter for all the snobs who inhaled this book and maybe a tiny minority who didn't…

A Very astute observation, chum!
Post reply on HN