/lit/ - Literature

A thread died for this.

>>21014433
This sun-soured anal scabie turned quasi-human died far too old. Good riddance. I shit on your grave, David.

>>21014457
Did you laugh when you typed that?

>>21014465
t.insincere

>>21014473
That is sincere. I truly hate this man.

>>21014487
how could anyone hate Wallace

his works BREATHE sincerity and are stuffed with hyphen heavy run-on-sentences

explain yourself

>>21014523
His prose is unreadable because it's trapped in a grey zone between forced sincerity and forced literariness. His "insights" into life are fortune cookie platitudes.

Anyone have a like to the interview where he says (thinking he's off the record) that he is a platonist? I can't find it and it's driving me mad.

>>21014545
>forced
yeah ok everything is forced and put-on and pseudo intellectual and grasping. your writing must be god awful if you're thinking so much about how a thing looks or sounds and regarding perception.

>>21014433
I listened to 6/8 (simplify it urself bitch) of his book on youtube during the pandemic. That shit spoke to me like nothing else for some reason. I hate reading too, I really enjoyed the writing style and how intimately he describes the day to day lives of the characters. Reminds me of Charlie Kaufmans movies as well.

>>21014577
>IJ audiobook

>>21014577
>listened

>>21014577
>audio book
Ignoring that, DFW is a genius this is a fact, the Kaufman of the literary world but just like Kaufman only for a very selective audience. Not many people like IJ or broom or Brief interviews because of their complexity and DFW makes sure to kick out those people who read his things but he does a great job at roping those who enjoy the level of prose to which he brings. He's a fucking genius and I enjoy his works and try to take much of my own style from his own but not to the ultimate level because his philosophy is very....loose. It's not definable, he argues much for the way of not being interested in existentialism but he is in fact an existentialist. And not only that, fell down the rabbit hole of nihilism and thus ended his life. I think he allowed his mental state to permeate his writing and cloud his characters too much but that doesn't DOES NOT mean he is not a genius.

>>21015382
Do you know in which YT interview he says that he is a platonist? I can't find it

>>21014545
>he doesn't know the real wisdom behind platitudes

>>21015382
Andy kaufman was a breakout star on network tv, given his own show, had many specials, sold out carnegie hall, etc. No idea why people still insist he was an indie unknown contemporaneously when he was a beloved celebrity during his lifetime

I just like Dfw because he did want to and tried to be a good person. Which I think is commendable. He followed the categorical imperative better than many id argue (Ya know besides the suicide thing lol)

>>21017711
I meant to say it SEEMS like he wanted to be those things. Obviously I don’t fuckin know what the guy actually thinks

>>21014577
>Can't divide by 2.

Do you have to remember to breathe anon?

>>21014433
>It's like there's some rule that real stuff can only get mentioned if everybody rolls their eyes or laughs in a way that isn't happy.
I do remember this happening on Friends all the time but I don't recall this from real life or even literature.
Are all his observations based on 90s sitcoms?

>>21017686
I'm talking about Charlie Kaufman my man, the screen writer

Here's a nice Kaufman video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H0Y4O8gc7Y

>>21017796
What do you mean? He's right. That's the only way you can talk about the Great Replacement, Black crime statistics, Islamic extremism, etc. Try just mentioning something like this -- immediate eye rolls, awkward laughs, exchanged glances. Everyone's knee-jerk reaction is to put up a shield.

>>21017878
Are actually pretending that's what St. Dave was talking about?

>>21017878
When you mention those things around the wrong people it triggers associations. You get categorized as "one of those". It's possible to bring the subjects up but only by approaching them differently than they're used to and not using any language tropes that will trigger a conditioned response.

>>21017796
It's extremely prevalent in modern cinema. It's how big blockbusters like Marvel movies and Star Wars work. There's no sincerity, everything is done through a sheen of irony with the movie constantly winking at the audience to remind them about how silly everything is, we're in on the joke so you're not actually watching something dumb, you're smart and a big boy and appreciating it in a campy way, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
This has only gotten worse over the years.

>>21017857
Thank you for this

>>21017985
You're welcome! It's a good video. The whole lecture his speech is from is pretty good too.

>>21017671
yikes. I bet you're a fan of "clean room, clean dick" man too

>>21014523
>hyphen heavy run-on-sentences
I assume you mean hyphen-heavy run-on sentences.

>>21017671
serious.

anyone who has actually read the IJ character's critique of AA's banal cliche/platitudes would understand this

>>21018210
kek

>>21017796
>>21017916
Tgere was some pic on /lit/ of all the Marvel character’s deaths and they all had some joke at the end. It was followed by some quote from the director, Joss Whedon, saying something like, “for God’s sake, make them laugh!”
>>21014577
He’s incredible. Don’tvlisten to the other anons about audiobooks, either. They’re decent.

>>21014433
Meme trilogy is dead.
DFW posting is dead.
Sincerity is dead.
Irony-poisoning one.
No one here can articulate why they like anything beyond two or three adjectives "great", "amazing", "excellent". No one dares because they will be immediately shit on by people who have read 30 books in their entire lives.
The board is dead and it has been for a long time.

>>21018298
posting about anything other than niggers/trannies/jews is lying by omission

>>21018298
>No one here can articulate why they like anything beyond two or three adjectives "great", "amazing", "excellent".
I've noticed this too. People either "love" something or they "hate" it. It's all so hyperbolic. Vocabularies have shrunk and with them people's way of thinking has become poorer as well.
We think using words, so the poverty of language leads to a poverty of thought.

>>21018350
>he's a subvocalizer

>>21018362
Don't pretend you think only in abstract images you shcleimel

>>21018381
>shcleimel

>>21018395
>post a picture of Thomas Pynchon
>gets upset when anon uses a word commonly used by Pynchon to describe the protagonist of his first novel
You don't read, do you?

>>21018403
>doesn't recognize the face and realize what it signifies
>doesn't proofread his own posts
heh... you're not there yet kid

>>21018416
I don't need to proofread, that's what editors are for.

>>21018433
I accept your concession