News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by throwanem on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @05:13PM (#12747716)
Existentialist prose is agonizing to read no matter the person in which it's written. It leaves me flabbergasted that anyone could possibly describe as 'tight' such stacks and piles and reams of words, whole paragraphs at a time of them without the leaven of a period and barely even a comma as a kindness to the reader, until one feels one's head is being slowly shoved through wallpaper paste - and in both cases one eventually comes to feel that to finally suffocate would be a mercy.

Having not looked closely before now into Infinite Jest, I think I better understand why it serves as such a pons asinorum for literary fiction in general. It takes a more than ordinarily diligent and accommodating person to get through it at all without her eyes glazing over, much less to come out the other end with any sense of what actually happened between front cover and back.

(Oh, also: "ghastlily"? Really? Far be it from me to speak ill of the dead, but...)

Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by SnacksOnAPlane on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @05:31PM (#12747877)
Honestly, most of Infinite Jest is not like that. It's only like that when you're "in the head" of certain characters.

But you have no idea what's going on in the book for the first 300 pages or so. It takes until around 500 pages in before you're immersed in the story, and then reading it becomes kind of an addiction. And once you're done, you feel an intense need to start it over again, knowing what you do now.

I only really got the theme of it on the second reading. I actually put it down for a few months the first time I tried to read it because I was confused. But it's worth it...oh man, is it worth it.

Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by throwanem on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @05:48PM (#12747996)
As I mentioned in a comment near this one, you're far from the first person in this thread to say so, and the frequency of such statements is starting to make me wonder if I haven't rushed to judgment. After all, the Illuminatus! trilogy could be described in much the same terms, and despite it taking many rereadings over something like five years to feel I really had a solid grasp on the book from beginning to end, in the end I'd have to say it was very much worth my while. (Don't get me wrong - well over 99.9% of Illuminatus! is unmitigated, top-tier, Grade A bullshit, good for fertilizer and not a whole lot else. It's just that the remainder is solid gold, five nines fine.)

In any case, I've just bought a copy of Infinite Jest, so pretty soon I'll be finding out whether I've treated it too harshly or not harshly enough.

Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by lisper on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @05:17PM (#12747751)
Now that was some well-written prose! I wish I could upvote you ten times.
Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by throwanem on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @05:28PM (#12747852)
Oh, thank you very kindly! One does one's humble best.

I do wish to note that, when I wrote the comment to which you reply, I hadn't yet read far enough into the thread to encounter the many people saying "Oh, you just have to power through the first {100,300,...} pages, and then it gets amazing!" Such claims for Infinite Jest are new to me, and it's an argument to which I'm not without sympathy; I'm forced to consider the possibility that I've judged the book too harshly, and that this may be a case where I'd be well served to suspend the usual criteria by which I decide that an author is wasting my time.

(And I have to say, that cruise review piece you linked is doing a good job winning me over, too. Thanks for that!)

Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by doug1001 on Thursday October 20, 2016 @01:08AM (#12749855)
i nearly posted an almost identical comment as you; then i thought, well this person is probably chair of the Contemporary Literature Dept at Amherst, etc. so one should expect insight like this
Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by throwanem on Friday October 21, 2016 @06:59AM (#12759424)
Not that I don't appreciate the thought, but given what I know of academia, I think I'm more horrified than flattered. The banal enormities one must no doubt both suffer and inflict, to achieve tenure in the humanities...no, thanks. If I'm to wind up in a hell of my own devising, I should at least like to hope I've the wit to make it a livelier one than that.
Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by mercer on Friday October 21, 2016 @11:33AM (#12761252)
You do have a very, uh, 'Literature Department' way of communicating though, surely you're aware of that? I figured you were doing it to make a point...

But so anyways, by all means write exactly as you feel like writing. I'm a huge fan of DFW, for example, precisely because he is all fancy and colloquial at the same time, which happens to tickle my fancy quite a bunch. I just wanted to point it out.

Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by throwanem on Friday October 21, 2016 @07:31PM (#12765823)
Do you mean by that to say I write like a pretentious ass? Because if so, well spotted! I'm absolutely a pretentious ass. Like any such, I thrive best well away from others of my ilk, because we can't help striking sparks off one another; based on what I've seen of Eng lit academia, I tend therefore to think it is the wrong hothouse for me.
Re:“The Depressed Person” by David Foster Wallace (1998) [pdf] by mercer on Saturday October 22, 2016 @04:27PM (#12770424)
I still don't get how being a pretentious ass and wanting to distance yourself from your ilk is best achieved by emulating their style.

Either you don't give a shit about 'them' and write as pretentiously as you desire, or, like myself, you adjust your style to distance yourself from 'them' because you dislike the association.

As it is, it's rather confusing to me because I can't tell the difference between you and the 'Eng lit academia' you seem to wish to avoid.

All that said: I don't think you write like a pretentious ass and I feel anyone should communicate however they want as long as the message comes across. And personally I like your style. So rock on, I guess :). But it's essentially what DFW is doing too, I think.