4 ms·
From the article. > Subsequent first-person accounts came from Wallace’s friends... >...They also produced a fairly consistent picture of a selfish friend, a
by redtexture 4y ago
From the article.
> Subsequent first-person accounts came from Wallace’s friends...
>...They also produced a fairly consistent picture of a selfish friend, a manipulative—and likely abusive—boyfriend, and a jealous and self-mythologizing writer. Even were we to desire to do so, there is no way to read Wallace today without knowing these things about him.
> It’s worth noting, though, that for attentive readers of Wallace’s fiction, little of the news about his personal life could come as a surprise. 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. A difference between Wallace and many of his contemporaries—one that sometimes opened him to charges of hypocrisy and self-delusion, not to mention cringeworthy sentimentalism—was his commitment to doing more than merely cataloguing the traps of modern alienation. This did not mean that he claimed to have escaped those traps himself. It did mean, as reflected by his attraction to conversion narratives like Fogle’s, that he hoped he could spring his readers free.
- Arubis 4y agoThis is fair, and familiar. A common sensation over the last half-decade or so is to be shocked without being surprised. That this was a predictable facet of DFW's character doesn't make his purported actions less saddening and hurtful. It's okay--expected!--to struggle. It's common--awful, but repairable!--to hurt others in the process. The open question is whether that repair would have ever been available had he lived.
- everybodyknows 4y ago> cringeworthy sentimentalism This is new to me -- anyone have an example?