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

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#81

Post by vo2maxer »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #73
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…

"Ulysses" is trash, sorry. The equivalent of a three-hour long Simpsons gag compilation marathon Youtube video, except for academics. "Infinite Jest" is okay, but needs an editor badly.

Other than The Simpsons allusion, can you be more specific in how James Joyce’s “Ulysses” is “trash”? Quotes from the novel with your criticism are welcomed. I’m interested in knowing how you came to this conclusion. No need to be sorry. Thank you for the observation.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#82

Post by mplanchard »

scandinavegan wrote: post #79
mplanchard wrote: post #44

Like many others in the comments, I loved Infinite Jest, for many reasons, but just to go into one in particular, I feel like David Foster Wallace’s viciously smart, sardonic, ironic, and often deeply depressing sense of humor is at its peak in IJ. There are so many things from the book that stick out to me as being memorably funny: the woman with an artificial heart who dies because a purse snatcher takes it, chasin…

Thank you for all the examples! I've read the book, but don't have all of it in active memory, so I appreciate your list as it helped me remember different parts. I have to look up the mold-eating part because I remember it as hilarious. Three other more or less absurd parts of the book that I enjoyed was the (apparently true) concept of different sized arms of tennis players, subsidized time (Year of the Whopper, Ye…

You’re absolutely right. I can’t believe I forgot to list subsidized time and The Great Concavity (or Convexity, depending on whether the speaker is American or Canadian)! Thanks for the chuckle on my bus ride to work :)

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#83

Post by ses1984 »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #72
ses1984 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I'm quite sure the idea of conflating entertainment with drug addiction precedes IJ, it can be traced back at least as far as the idea that religion is the opiate of the masses.

Here's the full quote: > Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. That is, "opium" here is references a painkiller; religion is viewed as a way to deaden pain and suffering. It's not about…

I highly doubt the idea of opium was invoked without intention to reference its addictive nature.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#84

Post by dang »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #67
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.

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.

Sure! Except there's also value in a title being what the author wrote.

I wouldn't want every, or even any other title to be as vague as "Well, Duh". But one is ok. It's generally good for HN's front page to have a couple that don't give their secrets away. We don't want to spell everything out. It's good for readers to have to work a little.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

If all information on the front page is obvious and straightforward, that's like simple carbohydrates—so quickly metabolized that they turn into sugar-rush discussion in which people react quickly out of reflexive associations. It's good to have some fiber to slow that mechanism down.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#86

Post by anthk »

vo2maxer wrote: post #77
anthk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don Quixote is damn easy. Long, but easy. Source: a Spaniard.

Claro que es muy fácil (Sure, it’s very easy). Quevedo is even damn easier ;-) “Si no os picaderes más de saber más menear las negras que llevais que la lengua –dijo el otro estudiante–, vos lleváredes el primero en licencias como llevaste cola.” Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha

De acuerdo, cambios gramaticales, pero en el instituto tuvimos que aprender eso... junto con las clases de euskara :D.

No es tan remotamente complejo como para un inglés entendiendo a Shakespeare.

"Si no te jactases de saber menear la espada que llevas más que de la lengua, serías el primero en licenciarte en vez del último". O similar.

Post reply on HN