Quote:
Originally Posted by Levin
It seems Wallace's primary failing is that he was captive to his style, and his narcissism. Which reminds me of something funny Wallace said (to bring this full circle back to Waters' linking of Updike and Wallace): "Mailer, Updike, Roth -- the Great Male Narcissists." Takes one to know one.
But if you agree with Waters, I have to disagree with you. Saying that Wallace lacked experience to have the necessary insight is not correct. Rather, he lacked the necessary insight into the experiences he had. Tolstoy lived a large life, but Tolstoy's insights are not inaccessible to authors leading different lives, such as those who raise peahens and peacocks. And not all great authors must have Tolstoy's style. Take Hemingway (Waters' crush), his style is much different (although I've heard Tolstoy in Russian is much more pointed, direct, and declarative than our English translations).
And so even if it's true that Wallace lacked insight (which I disagree with), then it wasn't because of his lack of experiences. If anything, he experienced a range of human emotion and waged more soulful battles than most. And that is more than enough to write a morally game-changing novel, which is what he wanted to do. Apparently it was his style and narcissim that held him back.
|
If he was self-absorbed, and his writing also so, there was nothing about his life's depiction that argued his actions were not also so.
You want to show an entire generation out of the wilderness? Try moving your own two GD feet first.