3 ms·
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 Sys
by CTmystery 4y ago
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?
- jrm4 4y agoDon'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.
- thenerdhead 4y agoIf 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]