He was a dithering coward. Take his Consider the Lobster as an example. He spends the whole essay describing how uncomfortable he feels about meat-eating because of the pain caused to the animals, and implores his readers to "consider the lobster", but refuses to actually come to a real moral stance on the issue or change his behaviour. He refuses to actually take the step of becoming a vegetarian or arguing that others should do so. In fact, he feels the need to constantly reassure the reader that he is making no moral judgement and does not hold a definite opinion on the issue. Wallace just uselessly asks us to "consider" but not to act upon our considerations; nor does he even have the balls to tell us our considerations must lead us to vegetarianism. He leaves the door open because he was a cowardly thinker.
I didn't read the essay, but it's smart to not tell the reader to become vegetarian, because he can't know if it's really a good idea. In the end our digestive system doesn't care about our morals. Just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean your body doesn't like the meat and functions better on it than on plants.
So why would he tell the world to change their diet, just because he personally has a negative feeling thinking about animals dying? Doesn't make any sense.
The worst thing about him is his milquetoast appeal to “sincerity” that is completely useless. “Be sincere again!” okay dipshit but what does that even mean? Risk expressing ourselves without irony? But any expression can be recapitulated as sincere or ironic after it is uttered. Ignoring the seeming problematic of language’s ambivalence doesn’t solve anything, it just makes on ignorant.
>the seeming problematic of languages ambivalence
What does this mean? Are you trying to refer to this time after a statement where we can sort of recast a statement as sincere or ironic?
But can you truly? Sincerity and irony are marked by intention, not language. Yes, only the sayer knows whether he was sincere in some statement, and he can go on to declare that that statement was sincere or not. But that declaration is also either sincere or ironic because the intention behind it is the matter of fact. It seems to me that you can't simply recast any ol statement as ironic or sincere because whether they are either is a matter of fact created the moment a statement is uttered.
Dfw seems to be advocating not for some mere aesthetic sincerity where we simply assign everything to certain categories or whatever. It's a personal philosophy that says living and creating through irony is corrosive to the soul, and that to be sincere about what you love and say and create makes you happier. Of course, maybe we should be cautious about the personal philosophy of a guy who killed himself because he was sad, but I don't know. It's had a big impact on my life, and I still think something is there. Something is there
The intention behind our utterances is not a matter of fact lol it’s quite literally immaterial, any talk of intention is simply assigning an interpretation to discourse before we even begin speaking. Furthermore, intentions (as they are understood in our everyday way) are either self-reported (and therefore self-interpreted) or somehow “observed”, which again involves interpretation. And there is nothing which conclusively says we have to interpret an intention as sincere or ironic. That is, we can choose to take the person’s self-report in good faith and we can choose to take the observers interpretation in good faith. But this implies that we don’t have to take it in good faith! We can disagree, and there is basically nothing that can stop us from disagreeing because “intention” can’t be empirically verified. We can always argue either way. Basically what I’m saying is language is always up for interpretation and trying to snuff out one side in favor of another is shortsighted and philosophically naïve. There is a constant interplay between sincerity and irony, and, furthermore, sincerity can only exist as a category if irony exists as a category. They necessarily play off of each other. As far as life philosophy goes, well, I don’t know, “approach the things you like sincerely” is sort of stupid because everyone already does that. Its not like Derrida (who I use as an example because irony is such an incredibly important concept in his writing) sat down and wrote Of Grammatology but somehow didn’t really “mean” it because he is interested in irony and employs it in his works. In short, I think the distinction DFW draws between sincerity and irony mischaracterizes or misunderstands language in general, and this misunderstanding is what he built his career off of.
Intention is an assignment of an interpretation to discourse before we begin speaking? Am I misunderstanding you? What kind of activity is this assigning such that I am doing it before speaking? I don’t usually say to myself, “I am going to speak from the heart now.” I simply speak from the heart. My intention is primary to any assignment or category. It’s intuitive. It might be self reported or observed, but that’s beside the point. That’s after the fact. “Matter of fact” was bad terminology, but what I mean is intuition. Desire. That thing which we can, yes, report on or observe later but nonetheless live and feel before its refinement into symbol. But obviously we do disagree here, you’re right.
And maybe I’m presenting the life philosophy thing wrong because I don’t think “approach the things you like sincerely” quite captures it. “About” feels like a bad preposition now when I look at it. Rather than try to give another explanation, I’ll give an example of what I think is an “ironic” mode of living. That is, I observe many unhappy relationships here in America (including some of my own) where couples engage in constant banter. They fill their whole lives with it, saying nothing of any meaning or substance to one another; all because they are afraid of silence. They overindulge in irony. I think that is the problem, and perhaps the problem that dfw is talking about too when he laments satires and parodies that make no room for sincerity. I think you could boil dfw’s life philosophy more down to an “everything in moderation” sort of thing with an emphasis on what he saw as modern excesses: irony, consumerism, entertainment.
I haven't read anything of his but Big Red Son, but that was both hilarious and somehow gave me better motivation to stop watching porn than years of vargposting and nofap threads could, so bandanaman's okay in my book. Still never reading Infinite Jest tho
Very based. I agree with basically everything he ever wrote. Read his essay on television and some of his short stories. He saw America for what it really is and had the courage to write about it
I don't understand why IQfy likes him so much, he's so painfully Gen X it's actually deeply fricking embarrassing to read. And he was by his own admission a nerd ass lil grammar dork. Just a total fricking gay with the lamest sensibilities, and of course he killed himself lol.
All these morons shitting on DFW... show me your 1000+ page novel that is worthy of being included in the Western Canon. Oh wait! It doesn't exist. None of you are writers, just empty critics with no credentials whatsoever. Sad.
>david foster wallace?
Who?
He was a dithering coward. Take his Consider the Lobster as an example. He spends the whole essay describing how uncomfortable he feels about meat-eating because of the pain caused to the animals, and implores his readers to "consider the lobster", but refuses to actually come to a real moral stance on the issue or change his behaviour. He refuses to actually take the step of becoming a vegetarian or arguing that others should do so. In fact, he feels the need to constantly reassure the reader that he is making no moral judgement and does not hold a definite opinion on the issue. Wallace just uselessly asks us to "consider" but not to act upon our considerations; nor does he even have the balls to tell us our considerations must lead us to vegetarianism. He leaves the door open because he was a cowardly thinker.
>consider the lobster
lmao they can't even feel pain
This is the most medieval moron mindset ever - most every modern study on this presents strong evidence that they do feel pain
It is kind of impressive how you completely missed the point of the essay. Hint, it is not about lobsters.
>ohhhhhhh, he didn't get it because he's not POST IRONIC enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Reddit
Are you trying to outstupid OP?
If you think the essay is about the lobster or is post-ironic than it is safe to assume you do not know what is pretentious.
I didn't read the essay, but it's smart to not tell the reader to become vegetarian, because he can't know if it's really a good idea. In the end our digestive system doesn't care about our morals. Just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean your body doesn't like the meat and functions better on it than on plants.
So why would he tell the world to change their diet, just because he personally has a negative feeling thinking about animals dying? Doesn't make any sense.
vegans are verily the most insufferable people in existence
Overrated, annoying, pretentious, and corny.
His prose consists of stringing long words from a thesaurus together in an effort to sound smart.
A fricking angloid!
The more I read about him, the more I find him to be a completely insufferable person. I feel the same way about countless other 90s figures
TWU
His non-IJ oeuvre is 100% kino and IJ was pretty good as well.
Maybe I'm stupid, but at least I'm not a pretentious frick
The worst thing about him is his milquetoast appeal to “sincerity” that is completely useless. “Be sincere again!” okay dipshit but what does that even mean? Risk expressing ourselves without irony? But any expression can be recapitulated as sincere or ironic after it is uttered. Ignoring the seeming problematic of language’s ambivalence doesn’t solve anything, it just makes on ignorant.
I think this makes for a good thread topic.
Oof
the only post that actually engages with the work and it goes ignored despite another anon’s best attempts. you are all pseuds.
>the seeming problematic of languages ambivalence
What does this mean? Are you trying to refer to this time after a statement where we can sort of recast a statement as sincere or ironic?
But can you truly? Sincerity and irony are marked by intention, not language. Yes, only the sayer knows whether he was sincere in some statement, and he can go on to declare that that statement was sincere or not. But that declaration is also either sincere or ironic because the intention behind it is the matter of fact. It seems to me that you can't simply recast any ol statement as ironic or sincere because whether they are either is a matter of fact created the moment a statement is uttered.
Dfw seems to be advocating not for some mere aesthetic sincerity where we simply assign everything to certain categories or whatever. It's a personal philosophy that says living and creating through irony is corrosive to the soul, and that to be sincere about what you love and say and create makes you happier. Of course, maybe we should be cautious about the personal philosophy of a guy who killed himself because he was sad, but I don't know. It's had a big impact on my life, and I still think something is there. Something is there
The intention behind our utterances is not a matter of fact lol it’s quite literally immaterial, any talk of intention is simply assigning an interpretation to discourse before we even begin speaking. Furthermore, intentions (as they are understood in our everyday way) are either self-reported (and therefore self-interpreted) or somehow “observed”, which again involves interpretation. And there is nothing which conclusively says we have to interpret an intention as sincere or ironic. That is, we can choose to take the person’s self-report in good faith and we can choose to take the observers interpretation in good faith. But this implies that we don’t have to take it in good faith! We can disagree, and there is basically nothing that can stop us from disagreeing because “intention” can’t be empirically verified. We can always argue either way. Basically what I’m saying is language is always up for interpretation and trying to snuff out one side in favor of another is shortsighted and philosophically naïve. There is a constant interplay between sincerity and irony, and, furthermore, sincerity can only exist as a category if irony exists as a category. They necessarily play off of each other. As far as life philosophy goes, well, I don’t know, “approach the things you like sincerely” is sort of stupid because everyone already does that. Its not like Derrida (who I use as an example because irony is such an incredibly important concept in his writing) sat down and wrote Of Grammatology but somehow didn’t really “mean” it because he is interested in irony and employs it in his works. In short, I think the distinction DFW draws between sincerity and irony mischaracterizes or misunderstands language in general, and this misunderstanding is what he built his career off of.
Intention is an assignment of an interpretation to discourse before we begin speaking? Am I misunderstanding you? What kind of activity is this assigning such that I am doing it before speaking? I don’t usually say to myself, “I am going to speak from the heart now.” I simply speak from the heart. My intention is primary to any assignment or category. It’s intuitive. It might be self reported or observed, but that’s beside the point. That’s after the fact. “Matter of fact” was bad terminology, but what I mean is intuition. Desire. That thing which we can, yes, report on or observe later but nonetheless live and feel before its refinement into symbol. But obviously we do disagree here, you’re right.
And maybe I’m presenting the life philosophy thing wrong because I don’t think “approach the things you like sincerely” quite captures it. “About” feels like a bad preposition now when I look at it. Rather than try to give another explanation, I’ll give an example of what I think is an “ironic” mode of living. That is, I observe many unhappy relationships here in America (including some of my own) where couples engage in constant banter. They fill their whole lives with it, saying nothing of any meaning or substance to one another; all because they are afraid of silence. They overindulge in irony. I think that is the problem, and perhaps the problem that dfw is talking about too when he laments satires and parodies that make no room for sincerity. I think you could boil dfw’s life philosophy more down to an “everything in moderation” sort of thing with an emphasis on what he saw as modern excesses: irony, consumerism, entertainment.
Does anyone have the picture of Heavy from TF2 dressed like Wallace?
He was looking like shit toward the end, just as well he 41%'ed.
Killing himself was the most sincere thing he had ever done in his life.
Never heard of him.
I haven't read anything of his but Big Red Son, but that was both hilarious and somehow gave me better motivation to stop watching porn than years of vargposting and nofap threads could, so bandanaman's okay in my book. Still never reading Infinite Jest tho
A charlatan
Very based. I agree with basically everything he ever wrote. Read his essay on television and some of his short stories. He saw America for what it really is and had the courage to write about it
I don't understand why IQfy likes him so much, he's so painfully Gen X it's actually deeply fricking embarrassing to read. And he was by his own admission a nerd ass lil grammar dork. Just a total fricking gay with the lamest sensibilities, and of course he killed himself lol.
Consider me filtered.
>he's so painfully Gen X
What exactly does that mean
Smug and detached, at least that’s what comes to mind whenever I hear “Gen X”
i like listening to him talk and his books are pretty fun to read
segal did a great job in the biopic
All these morons shitting on DFW... show me your 1000+ page novel that is worthy of being included in the Western Canon. Oh wait! It doesn't exist. None of you are writers, just empty critics with no credentials whatsoever. Sad.
I liked his essay with Max Hardcore