David Foster Wallace - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 03-04-2009, 02:43 AM

Nobody praises me for anything, dipshit.

You earn your right to comment in class when you have done the homework. Don't be the ass who butts in without knowing what the conversation is about.

Archaea · 03-04-2009, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levin

No; didn't have to. The silliness of your argument -- that DFW didn't have enough "real life" to have any insight into anything, or be the novelist he wanted to be -- is ignorant stuff and speaks (sadly) for itself.

Your MO doesn't work anymore, Mikey. You have no basis to support your statement, and so you get cute with your gun talk. Point the gun at my forehead -- all you've got are blanks (which may explain your crazy dependency on guns).

By the way, if you want to leave the funny gun talk and engage in the issue, what "real life" experiences are you talking about that are required to have any real insight into anything? TIA for the oncoming babble.

Literature is as much about the life of the mind and heart as it is about taking Boy Scouts on camping trips and thereby gaining the necessary insight into life. That's why a cultivator of peahens could write "A Good Man is Hard to Find," and a reclusive New England poet could write all that she did.

How can you respond intelligently to the arguments which are subtle and only referred to quietly by Mike, without reading the source material? You miss the mark by having not read the article.

Levin · 03-04-2009, 03:23 AM

I read the article, and Mike's argument is still ignorant. But like the baby he is, he takes his toys and goes to play with the posse who can stand to listen to his "subtle" and "quiet" playing.

What life experience did DFW not have that was required? Is there some essential life experience novelists must have to write the redemptive novel? What is it?

I would argue that there's no required "life experience" -- living is experience enough -- and all that's required is honesty, sensitivity, and self-reflection. And, of course, the writer's gift. And DFW had them all. But he just didn't have it in him to write the novel he wanted. Not all good writers do. But at least he tried before he gave up. Better than not trying at all so there's nothing to give up.

MikeWaters · 03-04-2009, 04:10 AM

From what I can tell re: how other people talk about Wallace's writing, his main gift was his voice. A virtuoso voice that could go up and down the scales, play the arpeggios, and even throw in a few Satriani solos.

What happens when an author doesn't like his voice, or tires of it? What happens when an author wants to do something that he feels is more meaningful, but can't? What happens when you reach into your pockets for your golden coins, only to find that they are empty, and the coins were nothing more than something you could imagine, but not conjure?

To have the gift is one thing. To not have the gift and never know it is another. But to not have the gift, and knows of its absence acutely, is a special curse

Levin · 03-04-2009, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

From what I can tell re: how other people talk about Wallace's writing, his main gift was his voice. A virtuoso voice that could go up and down the scales, play the arpeggios, and even throw in a few Satriani solos.

What happens when an author doesn't like his voice, or tires of it? What happens when an author wants to do something that he feels is more meaningful, but can't? What happens when you reach into your pockets for your golden coins, only to find that they are empty, and the coins were nothing more than something you could imagine, but not conjure?

To have the gift is one thing. To not have the gift and never know it is another. But to not have the gift, and knows of its absence acutely, is a special curse

Agreed. Thanks for engaging.

MikeWaters · 03-04-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levin

Agreed. Thanks for engaging.

You are a pedantic dumbshit.

MikeWaters · 03-04-2009, 04:46 PM

I tried to read the excerpt from The Pale King. It's about boredom. And he was successful. He bored me to the extent that I could only get halfway through the first (web)page. That is if his goal was to bore me to the extent that I no longer wished to read.

I'm honestly not one of those people who is willing to work extremely hard to follow an author through his own personal jangle. Portrait of a Young Artist...I tried very hard to like this. And yes, there were a couple of flashes of insight that I could appreciate, but in the end I was left thinking, this is pretentious, confusing, boring, and awful.

The hardest I am willing to work with is probably Doestoevsky and Tolstoy. Who the hell can keep track of the confusing Russian names and characters? That, I have done. But that's about it for me.

What every happened to the vernacular that is actually to the point, clear, and precise? Is it such a shame to like Steinway and Hemingway?

I'm trying to imagine Hemingway including 100 pages of footnote asides and explanations in a novel of his. It makes me chuckle. Wallace's demons were certainly not the same as Hemingway's. Did Wallace at some point tire of his own precocious wit? Did the cute puppy realize he was more ugly-dog now?

I read some reviews of Infinite Jest, and it seems to be the exact kind of novel that I would not be able to read. But by Jove, not all tastes are the same as mine, and thank goodness, so we can have a wide array of work to be appreciated.

The life of the cubby-holed academic writer seems like such a bore. You go to your small liberal arts college for undergrad, or maybe an IVY, then you get an MFA, then you go to the Iowa Writer's Workshop, then you become an instructor or assistant professor somewhere, and then you make a few writing friends, and you dither about your work and others, etc. What does it mean to be a man of letters (or woman) in 2009? We are surrounded by thousands of post-modern ironic slacker bores, who are witty and empty, and among those are the unfortunate few, who appreciate that they are soulless.

MikeWaters · 03-04-2009, 05:10 PM

A look at the mental illness issues brought up in the New Yorker article:

1. Wallace had long-standing mental illness, first apparent during college. It was severe enough to cause him to drop out of school.
2. Wallace was treated with a somewhat rarely used side-effect prone drug for many years. It may seem obvious that they should have left well-enough alone, but it's not hard to see why the doctor and the patient embarked on the course to try something different.
3. That Wallace had at least two series of ECT treatments is an indication of how severe his depression was. This is usually a last-line treatment.
4. Per the article Wallace's wife was worried that he would commit suicide right before he did. This goes to the debate of how far society goes to protect people from themselves. Should he be allowed to commit suicide? Should he be treated against his will? Should he be held against his will? To what degree do we tolerate autonomity?
5. What are the limits, if any, of the chemical nation? What does it mean to have a mind that is substance-dependent? And how do we know if it is? It might be argued that Wallace's writing was a gift that medication delivered, i.e. he would have been dead and not able to write. His family has indirectly made that argument.
6. If Wallace's electrons in the atoms of his body, revolved around dark nuclei, he had the choice to intently examine these dark centers, orbiting ever closer, or fleeing as far as possible to lightness. Certainly the danger and apprehension of self-examination in darkness, in someone with desires to end his life, is something that many of us cannot understand. Or criticize. Dark gravity. What happens when we burst through the event horizon of a black hole? Perhaps Wallace can tell us. At some point.

Levin · 03-04-2009, 06:31 PM

Do you still think Wallace didn't have any insight into anything? And I think it would be interesting to hear what you think are the essential experiences that qualify a person to have insight.

I still think there are no required experiences -- living is enough and provides all that's required. The source material is a right of birth. Just very few know how to turn it into art.

And maybe what DFW wanted to create really was art, but not art worth remembering for long. I can appreciate some of what Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons do as art; but I don't want to remember it for long. But I don't ever want to forget some of my favorite Carravaggio's. Maybe that's it: DFW tried to do something unique, and perhaps even accomplished it to some degree: but it's just not worth remembering. And he knew that. Which is why perhaps he gave up. He came and accomplished something virtuosic -- an act of great energy and creation -- but it won't linger in our collective moral conscience like the Russians or the American Modernists.

MikeWaters · 03-04-2009, 11:35 PM

STFU, Donnie.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101434881

03-04-2009, 03:23 AM	#23
Levin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,484	I read the article, and Mike's argument is still ignorant. But like the baby he is, he takes his toys and goes to play with the posse who can stand to listen to his "subtle" and "quiet" playing. What life experience did DFW not have that was required? Is there some essential life experience novelists must have to write the redemptive novel? What is it? I would argue that there's no required "life experience" -- living is experience enough -- and all that's required is honesty, sensitivity, and self-reflection. And, of course, the writer's gift. And DFW had them all. But he just didn't have it in him to write the novel he wanted. Not all good writers do. But at least he tried before he gave up. Better than not trying at all so there's nothing to give up. __________________ "Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 Last edited by Levin; 03-04-2009 at 03:29 AM.

03-04-2009, 06:31 PM	#29
Levin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,484	Do you still think Wallace didn't have any insight into anything? And I think it would be interesting to hear what you think are the essential experiences that qualify a person to have insight. I still think there are no required experiences -- living is enough and provides all that's required. The source material is a right of birth. Just very few know how to turn it into art. And maybe what DFW wanted to create really was art, but not art worth remembering for long. I can appreciate some of what Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons do as art; but I don't want to remember it for long. But I don't ever want to forget some of my favorite Carravaggio's. Maybe that's it: DFW tried to do something unique, and perhaps even accomplished it to some degree: but it's just not worth remembering. And he knew that. Which is why perhaps he gave up. He came and accomplished something virtuosic -- an act of great energy and creation -- but it won't linger in our collective moral conscience like the Russians or the American Modernists. __________________ "Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 Last edited by Levin; 03-04-2009 at 06:38 PM.

03-04-2009, 02:43 AM	#21
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Nobody praises me for anything, dipshit. You earn your right to comment in class when you have done the homework. Don't be the ass who butts in without knowing what the conversation is about.

03-04-2009, 04:10 AM	#24
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	From what I can tell re: how other people talk about Wallace's writing, his main gift was his voice. A virtuoso voice that could go up and down the scales, play the arpeggios, and even throw in a few Satriani solos. What happens when an author doesn't like his voice, or tires of it? What happens when an author wants to do something that he feels is more meaningful, but can't? What happens when you reach into your pockets for your golden coins, only to find that they are empty, and the coins were nothing more than something you could imagine, but not conjure? To have the gift is one thing. To not have the gift and never know it is another. But to not have the gift, and knows of its absence acutely, is a special curse

03-04-2009, 04:46 PM	#27
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I tried to read the excerpt from The Pale King. It's about boredom. And he was successful. He bored me to the extent that I could only get halfway through the first (web)page. That is if his goal was to bore me to the extent that I no longer wished to read. I'm honestly not one of those people who is willing to work extremely hard to follow an author through his own personal jangle. Portrait of a Young Artist...I tried very hard to like this. And yes, there were a couple of flashes of insight that I could appreciate, but in the end I was left thinking, this is pretentious, confusing, boring, and awful. The hardest I am willing to work with is probably Doestoevsky and Tolstoy. Who the hell can keep track of the confusing Russian names and characters? That, I have done. But that's about it for me. What every happened to the vernacular that is actually to the point, clear, and precise? Is it such a shame to like Steinway and Hemingway? I'm trying to imagine Hemingway including 100 pages of footnote asides and explanations in a novel of his. It makes me chuckle. Wallace's demons were certainly not the same as Hemingway's. Did Wallace at some point tire of his own precocious wit? Did the cute puppy realize he was more ugly-dog now? I read some reviews of Infinite Jest, and it seems to be the exact kind of novel that I would not be able to read. But by Jove, not all tastes are the same as mine, and thank goodness, so we can have a wide array of work to be appreciated. The life of the cubby-holed academic writer seems like such a bore. You go to your small liberal arts college for undergrad, or maybe an IVY, then you get an MFA, then you go to the Iowa Writer's Workshop, then you become an instructor or assistant professor somewhere, and then you make a few writing friends, and you dither about your work and others, etc. What does it mean to be a man of letters (or woman) in 2009? We are surrounded by thousands of post-modern ironic slacker bores, who are witty and empty, and among those are the unfortunate few, who appreciate that they are soulless.

03-04-2009, 05:10 PM	#28
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	A look at the mental illness issues brought up in the New Yorker article: 1. Wallace had long-standing mental illness, first apparent during college. It was severe enough to cause him to drop out of school. 2. Wallace was treated with a somewhat rarely used side-effect prone drug for many years. It may seem obvious that they should have left well-enough alone, but it's not hard to see why the doctor and the patient embarked on the course to try something different. 3. That Wallace had at least two series of ECT treatments is an indication of how severe his depression was. This is usually a last-line treatment. 4. Per the article Wallace's wife was worried that he would commit suicide right before he did. This goes to the debate of how far society goes to protect people from themselves. Should he be allowed to commit suicide? Should he be treated against his will? Should he be held against his will? To what degree do we tolerate autonomity? 5. What are the limits, if any, of the chemical nation? What does it mean to have a mind that is substance-dependent? And how do we know if it is? It might be argued that Wallace's writing was a gift that medication delivered, i.e. he would have been dead and not able to write. His family has indirectly made that argument. 6. If Wallace's electrons in the atoms of his body, revolved around dark nuclei, he had the choice to intently examine these dark centers, orbiting ever closer, or fleeing as far as possible to lightness. Certainly the danger and apprehension of self-examination in darkness, in someone with desires to end his life, is something that many of us cannot understand. Or criticize. Dark gravity. What happens when we burst through the event horizon of a black hole? Perhaps Wallace can tell us. At some point.

03-04-2009, 11:35 PM	#30
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	STFU, Donnie. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101434881