Reading this makes me feel quite insecure in my own comprehension of these books. I've read Pale King, Infinite Jest, Consider the Lobster, and Broom of the System. I liked them all. But I read this article and I don't really understand the majority of it, which makes me think that I also missed a lot of what I was supposed to take from the books. Genuine question, does this make sense to most readers? Do you need to be a literature major to understand this article?
David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
41–50 of 82 posts
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#42Reading this makes me feel quite insecure in my own comprehension of these books. I've read Pale King, Infinite Jest, Consider the Lobster, and Broom of the System. I liked them all. But I read this article and I don't really understand the majority of it, which makes me think that I also missed a lot of what I was supposed to take from the books. Genuine question, does this make sense to most readers? Do you need to…
Don't be. I don't think the author of this piece is saying much at all. I think they're doing a nerd thing of trying to insist that DFW had some "clear plan" that he was trying to execute. But I think what's really happening is that the author of the article wants there to be some clear plan instead of the truth that what DFW did with his amazing work defies summary in this way.
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I don't really get the take that it's inaccessible. The footnotes are sometimes annoying, but usually they're hilarious. I haven't read it in ~10 years but I think it's even more relevant, poignant, and hilarious today as it was then since we're just seeing more and more of his predictions about consumerism and self-image come to life.
I agree, quite accessible, despite its length. I personally would not recommend skipping the footnotes. Though they are a pain, they frequently add so much color and deeply-nested, parenthetical humor to the book. Occasionally you need to look up a word (which is always worth it, because he really knows how to pick the right word), occasionally you get bored in the middle of one of "those" chapters (likely an inevita…
As Dave Eggers says in his introduction to the 2006 version of the book:
> A Wallace reader gets the impression of being in a room with a very talkative and brilliant uncle or cousin who, just when he's about to push it too far, to try our patience with too much detail, has the good sense to throw in a good lowbrow joke.
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#44Though unfinished, I highly recommend the Pale King. It's not as consistently great as some of DFW's other works, but the highs are as high as anything else he wrote and IMO it's a little more accessible than Infinite Jest. (For a new reader, I would start with some of his essays, e.g. Consider the Lobster: http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf )
The first time I read Infinite Jest I was expecting something as inaccessible as Ulysses or Gravity’s Rainbow but ended up finding the book pretty readable and a total delight. And but so I would highly recommend it, just take the off-beat sci-fi setting at face value and skip the footnotes if you feel like you want to focus on the story. You can always return to those later.
Okay, I want to discuss a major thing in the book, but it's really spoilery. I don't know if hacker news has a thing for that? I'll ROT-13 it and if anyone wants to respond please do. Again, you shouldn't try to read this if you haven't read the book and dont want to be spoiled:
V'ir arire frra guvf zragvbarq naljurer -- ohg vg frrzf gb zr gung gur npghny vasvavgr wrfg va gur obbx, nxn gur ivqrb gung ulcabgvmrf rirelbar, vf rffragvnyyl whfg na nfze ivqrb naq qsj unq uvf svatre ba gur pbaprcg orsber nfze orpnzr n guvat?
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot imagine reading this book and skipping the footnotes.
I've been roughly halfway through the book for years, so take this for what it's worth, but if they were actually footnotes I might have read them. Instead they are endnotes , meaning you have to pick up a solid pound of book and flip to the end each time you encounter one. And there are many. I just found that dehumanizing. Lol
DFW said somewhere (I can't recall where) that he wanted the reader to have the physical experience of moving back and forth, and that the process of moving and flipping sort of echoed the jumping between the years of the chapters and story. Or something :)
I found it annoying initially, but after I read that (when I was maybe 1/3 through), I did come to appreciate it a bit more. Maybe I'm just impressionable.
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
A great speech but this is the first I hear it interpreted as an ode to monotony. I've always thought of it as an essay on the value of questioning our default way of thinking in the day-to-day, on the implicit biases we carry with us into the world and how they can trap us in loneliness. Not ashamed to say I've cried more than once listening to it. It's a lifesaver.
The Pale King, his last novel (unfinished at the time of his death) is a really gorgeous elaboration on the same topics as This Is Water. It is not so much about rejecting the day to day monotony of the modern world, but rejecting the default reaction to the monotony of the modern world. We have complete control over our reaction, and almost none over the reality. One line I’ll paraphrase that sticks with me still: “…
Really good point, I might have misread the original commenter. Will pick up The Pale King this summer!
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first time I read Infinite Jest I was expecting something as inaccessible as Ulysses or Gravity’s Rainbow but ended up finding the book pretty readable and a total delight. And but so I would highly recommend it, just take the off-beat sci-fi setting at face value and skip the footnotes if you feel like you want to focus on the story. You can always return to those later.
Okay, I want to discuss a major thing in the book, but it's really spoilery. I don't know if hacker news has a thing for that? I'll ROT-13 it and if anyone wants to respond please do. Again, you shouldn't try to read this if you haven't read the book and dont want to be spoiled: V'ir arire frra guvf zragvbarq naljurer -- ohg vg frrzf gb zr gung gur npghny vasvavgr wrfg va gur obbx, nxn gur ivqrb gung ulcabgvmrf rirel…
Vg'f infgyl zber cbjreshy guna gung, ng yrnfg nccneragyl, ohg bar pbhyq frr n cnenyyry. Vs V erzrzore pbeerpgyl vg qbrfa'g "jbex" ba crbcyr gung xarj Wbryyr crefbanyyl naq vg unf fbzr xvaq bs pbaarpgvba gb gur zlfgrevbhf qeht QZM, gbb.
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, quite accessible, despite its length. I personally would not recommend skipping the footnotes. Though they are a pain, they frequently add so much color and deeply-nested, parenthetical humor to the book. Occasionally you need to look up a word (which is always worth it, because he really knows how to pick the right word), occasionally you get bored in the middle of one of "those" chapters (likely an inevita…
As Dave Eggers says in his introduction to the 2006 version of the book: > A Wallace reader gets the impression of being in a room with a very talkative and brilliant uncle or cousin who, just when he's about to push it too far, to try our patience with too much detail, has the good sense to throw in a good lowbrow joke.
Gotta love the diddle checks
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#49Reading this makes me feel quite insecure in my own comprehension of these books. I've read Pale King, Infinite Jest, Consider the Lobster, and Broom of the System. I liked them all. But I read this article and I don't really understand the majority of it, which makes me think that I also missed a lot of what I was supposed to take from the books. Genuine question, does this make sense to most readers? Do you need to…
If you watch some interviews with DFW and other similar authors, you may come to the conclusion that nobody really knows what they are talking about and it's usually the ego speaking(including Wallaces).
I think that's the point of much of his works:
> Wallace’s great subject was the morass of selfishness, self-rationalization, and intellectualized narcissism into which his cohort of educated, relatively privileged Americans would sink—and were sinking—unless they could find something to love more than they loved themselves.
While the article makes sense to me, there's plenty of filler that detracts from the point. Wallace's work was writing moral fiction for a generation ahead of his time. Many of the themes in his work are more prevalent and pervasive today than they were at the time he wrote them.
Re: David Foster Wallace’s final attempt to make art moral
#50I haven't read any books by David Foster Wallace, though every time he comes up I feel obliged to share a fantastic speech of his about finding joy in the monotony of life. I heard it years ago and it's always stuck with me. Video[1], transcript[2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI [2] https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/this-is-water-by-david...
This excerpt from The Pale King is powerful and I recommend it over the "This is Water" speech, esp for software developers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXrXf-0yoQ
People laugh, and it is a bit funny, but it's also deadly serious.
True heroism receives no ovation. It's just you against the world with no one to see or cheer.