/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15270994]

What are the valid criticisms on this book besides
>It's long and hard to read
>DFW was a cringe autist IRL
>People who read it are pretentious hipsters
Is there something about the actual story or its themes that are inherently flawed or what?

[Anonymous No.15271018]

>>15270994
It didn't have enough pictures, so it was hard to follow.

[Anonymous No.15271019]

Most criticisms of this are on the technical aspect. just saying that "i'm doing a thing so the style justifies itself" isn't a valid argument. That said, I do enjoy the prose.

I think most people who actually engage with the content and still don't like it are those for whom the themes are juvenile. DFW writes about a particular brand of neuroticism that's accessible to younger males, his obsessions being a product of certain life experiences (if you're familiar with his biography) and particular academic background. If you don't also already care about a lot of his themes, he doesn't try very hard to convince you that they're worth caring about. His essays do a far better job at that, I think.

[Anonymous No.15271050]

>>15270994
The maximalism prose is too externalised -- the orientation and status hierarchies of characters' surroundings (and observations thereon) are like detailed set directions in a silent film -- the vocal performances however good, are rendered mute. The people don't find themselves in situations, the environment conjures them themselves as props. Fine if a deterministic take, but the inner worlds and lives of the character don't sound out the plot for lack of their own depth. Nothing that occurs was worth documenting, and the characters themselves are ciphers in a sea of humanity. The story is there is none, we are all peregrinating over the drain to the void. No wonder he offed himself. Tragifarcical.

[Anonymous No.15271059]

>>15270994
I thought the writing was fine actually, but the "ending" really bothered me.