July 16th, 2010 / 10:51 am
Behind the Scenes
Blake Butler
Behind the Scenes
Ellis on Wallace
Everybody’s innovator-buddy Bret Easton Ellis, during a q/a in Hackney:
Question: David Foster Wallace – as an American writer, what is your opinion now that he has died?Answer: Is it too soon? It’s too soon right? Well i don’t rate him. The journalism is pedestrian, the stories scattered and full of that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality and Infinite Jest is unreadable. His life story and his battle with depression however is really quite touching…
[via The Howling Fantods]
Tags: bret easton ellis, david foster wallace
Agreed that it’s a bit too soon to be answering this as well as his thought’s on DFW’s journalism but to say Infinite Jest is unreadable is either admitting that he’s an unambitious reader, which is hard to believe coming from a fellow author, or just jealous.
Agreed that it’s a bit too soon to be answering this as well as his thought’s on DFW’s journalism but to say Infinite Jest is unreadable is either admitting that he’s an unambitious reader, which is hard to believe coming from a fellow author, or just jealous.
this thread is going to be good
this thread is going to be good
I can’t wait to read about BEE’s blunt-object murder/rape by a low-rent hustler. 2016 at the latest.
I can’t wait to read about BEE’s blunt-object murder/rape by a low-rent hustler. 2016 at the latest.
I’m not sure I’d call most of wallace’s non-fiction “journalism”
I’m not sure I’d call most of wallace’s non-fiction “journalism”
Agreed, at least not in the traditional sense.
With that said, even though I love his fiction, I find the nonfiction to be his most interesting work. To call it pedestrian seems a bit harsh.
Agreed, at least not in the traditional sense.
With that said, even though I love his fiction, I find the nonfiction to be his most interesting work. To call it pedestrian seems a bit harsh.
Ellis has some perverse desire to provoke what he considers the “literary establishment,” I think. He seems to carry bitterness about the mixed-to-negative critical reception for every book he’s ever written, and he has this impulse to shock.
Ellis has some perverse desire to provoke what he considers the “literary establishment,” I think. He seems to carry bitterness about the mixed-to-negative critical reception for every book he’s ever written, and he has this impulse to shock.
i would probably put money on option c: he’s never even tried to read it.
i would probably put money on option c: he’s never even tried to read it.
Well you know BEE and Jay McInerney are buddies, and McIerney made that huge stink about how unreadable Infinite Jest was as soon as it came out, back before it got all the acclaim it eventually got. Ellis’ style is much different, if you asked me to tell you which was better: American Psycho or Infinite Jest, I’d say they’re incomparable. Those are two books that might show up at the same bar, but they’d never sit at the table together unless they had some mutual friend. They aren’t in dialogue and they’d never want to be.
Well you know BEE and Jay McInerney are buddies, and McIerney made that huge stink about how unreadable Infinite Jest was as soon as it came out, back before it got all the acclaim it eventually got. Ellis’ style is much different, if you asked me to tell you which was better: American Psycho or Infinite Jest, I’d say they’re incomparable. Those are two books that might show up at the same bar, but they’d never sit at the table together unless they had some mutual friend. They aren’t in dialogue and they’d never want to be.
It doesn’t surprise me, considering that David Foster Wallace often criticized Brett Easton Ellis, particularly American Psycho. You can see examples in “Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself” and in this interview in the Dalkey Archives: http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/book/?fa=customcontent&GCOI=15647100621780&extrasfile=A09F8296-B0D0-B086-B6A350F4F59FD1F7.html
It doesn’t surprise me, considering that David Foster Wallace often criticized Brett Easton Ellis, particularly American Psycho. You can see examples in “Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself” and in this interview in the Dalkey Archives: http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/book/?fa=customcontent&GCOI=15647100621780&extrasfile=A09F8296-B0D0-B086-B6A350F4F59FD1F7.html
Wallace on Ellis and American Psycho:
“You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writ-
ing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others
depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporar y condition is hopelessly shitty,
insipid, mater ialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any
wr iter) can get away with slapping together stor ies with characters who are stupid, vapid,
emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no develop-
ment. With descr iptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where
stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad wr iting—
flat characters, a nar rative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also
a descr iption of today’s world, then bad wr iting becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad
world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can
wr ite a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentar y on the
badness of ever ything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark
times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how
dark and stupid ever ything is?”
Wallace on Ellis and American Psycho:
“You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writ-
ing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others
depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporar y condition is hopelessly shitty,
insipid, mater ialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any
wr iter) can get away with slapping together stor ies with characters who are stupid, vapid,
emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no develop-
ment. With descr iptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where
stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad wr iting—
flat characters, a nar rative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also
a descr iption of today’s world, then bad wr iting becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad
world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can
wr ite a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentar y on the
badness of ever ything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark
times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how
dark and stupid ever ything is?”
Or maybe he just doesn’t rate his stuff? Why does it have to be about provoking the literary establishment, or settling old scores?
Is DFW really above criticism now that he died or something?
Or maybe he just doesn’t rate his stuff? Why does it have to be about provoking the literary establishment, or settling old scores?
Is DFW really above criticism now that he died or something?
eek sorry for the icky formatting, can someone get rid of that? let’s try again:
Wallace on Ellis, American Psycho:
You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporar y condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, mater ialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any
wr iter) can get away with slapping together stor ies with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descr iptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad writing—
flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad wr iting becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentar y on the badness of ever ything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid ever ything is?
JOEL JORDON is a leading expert on DFW.
eek sorry for the icky formatting, can someone get rid of that? let’s try again:
Wallace on Ellis, American Psycho:
You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporar y condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, mater ialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any
wr iter) can get away with slapping together stor ies with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descr iptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad writing—
flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad wr iting becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentar y on the badness of ever ything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid ever ything is?
JOEL JORDON is a leading expert on DFW.
I love the way those two F’s in ‘stuff’ keep coming out.
I love the way those two F’s in ‘stuff’ keep coming out.
DFW isn’t above criticism. But calling IJ ‘unreadable’ is kinda goofy; what, was it written in code? And while I’m not as enamored by DFW’s nonfiction stuff as many are, BEE calling any other writer’s work pedestrian is maybe the height of unintentional humor.
DFW isn’t above criticism. But calling IJ ‘unreadable’ is kinda goofy; what, was it written in code? And while I’m not as enamored by DFW’s nonfiction stuff as many are, BEE calling any other writer’s work pedestrian is maybe the height of unintentional humor.
yeah, i was going to say, dfw didn’t care for bret. however, dfw criticized bret in a thoughtful way, i thought. hmm… i don’t like bret’s reasoning behind not liking dfw’s writing. i think it isn’t hard to criticize dfw’s writing (or anyone’s writing), but i don’t like his reasoning. IJ is highly readable, I think that’s pretty much a fact, to call the journalism pedestrian is silly in numerous ways (it’s not meant to be journalism in the conventional sense, the average pedestrian couldn’t write it, etc.), and the dismissive phrase “that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality” indicates he’s cynical and reductive. sounds like he’s just being bitchy and “settling scores.” probably is tired of everyone fellating the other three-name hip writer guy.
yeah, i was going to say, dfw didn’t care for bret. however, dfw criticized bret in a thoughtful way, i thought. hmm… i don’t like bret’s reasoning behind not liking dfw’s writing. i think it isn’t hard to criticize dfw’s writing (or anyone’s writing), but i don’t like his reasoning. IJ is highly readable, I think that’s pretty much a fact, to call the journalism pedestrian is silly in numerous ways (it’s not meant to be journalism in the conventional sense, the average pedestrian couldn’t write it, etc.), and the dismissive phrase “that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality” indicates he’s cynical and reductive. sounds like he’s just being bitchy and “settling scores.” probably is tired of everyone fellating the other three-name hip writer guy.
on second thought, i can imagine bret answering in that way with no agenda, or no bitterness/jealousy. seems possible.
on second thought, i can imagine bret answering in that way with no agenda, or no bitterness/jealousy. seems possible.
Pedestrian? Unreadable? These aren’t honest criticisms, they’re just empty, lazy statements. They’re not useful, illuminating, or even credible. At least DFW has a larger point he was making when he was bashing BEE…
Pedestrian? Unreadable? These aren’t honest criticisms, they’re just empty, lazy statements. They’re not useful, illuminating, or even credible. At least DFW has a larger point he was making when he was bashing BEE…
Or alternatively, he’s speaking his mind.
Or alternatively, he’s speaking his mind.
Well, I find it kinda unreadable as well not in the sense that it was written in code, just in the sense that it leaves me cold. (Although I could say the same for most of what Ellis has written post American Psycho)
While I admire the technical aspect of DFW did, its in the same way that I can admire the technical / musical prowess behind a 10 minute Yes guitar solo…. it just doesnt mean that I’d want to listen to it for pleasure.
Well, I find it kinda unreadable as well not in the sense that it was written in code, just in the sense that it leaves me cold. (Although I could say the same for most of what Ellis has written post American Psycho)
While I admire the technical aspect of DFW did, its in the same way that I can admire the technical / musical prowess behind a 10 minute Yes guitar solo…. it just doesnt mean that I’d want to listen to it for pleasure.
For me, the first reaction that surfaced was ‘oh, BEE’s got some jealousy issues,’ but Tony’s right, maybe he just plain ol’ doesn’t like his stuff? I’d like to see detailed criticisms, I’m curious to what he finds ‘pedestrian.’
“Unreadable” is pretty silly though, not a label I would quickly slap onto a book I first read when I was 20 and high out of my mind (a state which I think BEE could easily relate to), a time at which I found many, many things unreadable.
For me, the first reaction that surfaced was ‘oh, BEE’s got some jealousy issues,’ but Tony’s right, maybe he just plain ol’ doesn’t like his stuff? I’d like to see detailed criticisms, I’m curious to what he finds ‘pedestrian.’
“Unreadable” is pretty silly though, not a label I would quickly slap onto a book I first read when I was 20 and high out of my mind (a state which I think BEE could easily relate to), a time at which I found many, many things unreadable.
Not that I don’t think DFW’s “Great White Narcissist” attack on Updike’s “Toward the End of Time” wasn’t just as wrong-headed (though in much greater detail). Upshot: writers, like everyone else, can be bitches.
Not that I don’t think DFW’s “Great White Narcissist” attack on Updike’s “Toward the End of Time” wasn’t just as wrong-headed (though in much greater detail). Upshot: writers, like everyone else, can be bitches.
GUBBINAL
That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.
The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.
That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.
That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.
The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.
-Wallace Stevens
GUBBINAL
That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.
The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.
That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.
That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.
The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.
-Wallace Stevens
good analogy
good analogy
Why is it to soon to answer this question?
Is Ellis supposed to pretend that he liked Wallace’s works for a few years just because the guy killed himself?
What if the day before Wallace killed himself Ellis had said, “I don’t like Wallace’s writing,” would he then, just two days later, have to augment his previously held stance for the sake of–respect for the dead?
He’s not talking shit about Wallace the person. He’s just saying he doesn’t like his writing. Big deal. Who give a shit what Ellis thinks anyhow?
Why is it to soon to answer this question?
Is Ellis supposed to pretend that he liked Wallace’s works for a few years just because the guy killed himself?
What if the day before Wallace killed himself Ellis had said, “I don’t like Wallace’s writing,” would he then, just two days later, have to augment his previously held stance for the sake of–respect for the dead?
He’s not talking shit about Wallace the person. He’s just saying he doesn’t like his writing. Big deal. Who give a shit what Ellis thinks anyhow?
Ouch. Wallace absolutely bitch-slapped Ellis, rhetorically. No wonder Ellis doesn’t like Wallace. I wouldn’t like him either if he dissected me with such ease and eloquence. Everything Wallace said about Ellis is true, and I happen to enjoy reading Ellis. But Wallace was playing on a different field with different equipment. Anyone who says IJ is impossible to read hasn’t even cracked open the book. Yes, it’s huge and erudite, but there’s nothing, on a sentence by sentence level, that anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension couldn’t understand. Ellis is bringing a knife to gun fight. If he wasn’t such a brat he would know that he can’t win this battle, and he would dismiss the question with a polite banality.
Ouch. Wallace absolutely bitch-slapped Ellis, rhetorically. No wonder Ellis doesn’t like Wallace. I wouldn’t like him either if he dissected me with such ease and eloquence. Everything Wallace said about Ellis is true, and I happen to enjoy reading Ellis. But Wallace was playing on a different field with different equipment. Anyone who says IJ is impossible to read hasn’t even cracked open the book. Yes, it’s huge and erudite, but there’s nothing, on a sentence by sentence level, that anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension couldn’t understand. Ellis is bringing a knife to gun fight. If he wasn’t such a brat he would know that he can’t win this battle, and he would dismiss the question with a polite banality.
2nd. That was nicely put.
2nd. That was nicely put.
It seems that DFW passage posted by Igor goes on for a few more sentences.
[Source: http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/news/general-updates/bret-easton-ellis-on-dfw.html%5D
Did DFW “defeat” BEE with this paragraph? Does BEE dislike DFW because DFW successfully argued that BEE is a “bad writer”? [Note that DFW is a person who unsarcastically calls himself a “good writer” in interviews.] Does BEE think DFW is a “bad writer”? Are the things that DFW and BEE are saying here “even” “true”? Let’s think about these things.
BEE says “[t]he journalism is pedestrian.” I guess “pedestrian” means “ordinary.” This seems like an unverifiable statement. BEE says “the stories scattered and full of that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality.” I remember DFW talking about seeing this “Mid-Western faux-sentimentality” in his own non-fiction pieces. I guess this is whatever. BEE says “Infinite Jest is unreadable.” I guess “unreadable” means “hard to read.” Infinite Jest does seem harder to read than “most” books. I guess this is whatever, though, too.
In the DFW thing, I guess the “you’re” is addressing the interviewer. The passage posted by Igor is in response to the interviewer saying “But at least in the case of ‘American Psycho’ I felt there was something more than just this desire to inflict pain—or that Ellis was being cruel the way you said serious artists need to be willing to be.” I’m sort of intrigued by DFW mentioning readers being “manipulated by bad writing,” like they are being “tricked” somehow. I guess DFW is saying that BEE et al need people to think that the “world is bad, dull, and stupid,” so they can write “bad books” employing “bad writing” with “dull characters doing/saying stupid things” and have it perceived as being “genius satire” or something. And I guess that writing these “bad books” is “too easy.” I guess DFW thinks that BEE is too “nihilistic” and that “nihilistic art” can’t be “great art” because it doesn’t “illuminate” or provide new “possibilities of living” or whatever.
I guess this all whatever. I don’t know.
It seems that DFW passage posted by Igor goes on for a few more sentences.
[Source: http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/news/general-updates/bret-easton-ellis-on-dfw.html%5D
Did DFW “defeat” BEE with this paragraph? Does BEE dislike DFW because DFW successfully argued that BEE is a “bad writer”? [Note that DFW is a person who unsarcastically calls himself a “good writer” in interviews.] Does BEE think DFW is a “bad writer”? Are the things that DFW and BEE are saying here “even” “true”? Let’s think about these things.
BEE says “[t]he journalism is pedestrian.” I guess “pedestrian” means “ordinary.” This seems like an unverifiable statement. BEE says “the stories scattered and full of that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality.” I remember DFW talking about seeing this “Mid-Western faux-sentimentality” in his own non-fiction pieces. I guess this is whatever. BEE says “Infinite Jest is unreadable.” I guess “unreadable” means “hard to read.” Infinite Jest does seem harder to read than “most” books. I guess this is whatever, though, too.
In the DFW thing, I guess the “you’re” is addressing the interviewer. The passage posted by Igor is in response to the interviewer saying “But at least in the case of ‘American Psycho’ I felt there was something more than just this desire to inflict pain—or that Ellis was being cruel the way you said serious artists need to be willing to be.” I’m sort of intrigued by DFW mentioning readers being “manipulated by bad writing,” like they are being “tricked” somehow. I guess DFW is saying that BEE et al need people to think that the “world is bad, dull, and stupid,” so they can write “bad books” employing “bad writing” with “dull characters doing/saying stupid things” and have it perceived as being “genius satire” or something. And I guess that writing these “bad books” is “too easy.” I guess DFW thinks that BEE is too “nihilistic” and that “nihilistic art” can’t be “great art” because it doesn’t “illuminate” or provide new “possibilities of living” or whatever.
I guess this all whatever. I don’t know.
Misplaced a “]” in there.
DFW has also said that he liked Ellis’ first novel.
Misplaced a “]” in there.
DFW has also said that he liked Ellis’ first novel.
Agreed that it’s a bit too soon to be answering this as well as his thought’s on DFW’s journalism but to say Infinite Jest is unreadable is either admitting that he’s an unambitious reader, which is hard to believe coming from a fellow author, or just jealous.
When did DFW call himself a good writer?
When did DFW call himself a good writer?
this thread is going to be good
I can’t wait to read about BEE’s blunt-object murder/rape by a low-rent hustler. 2016 at the latest.
I agree. I mean, if he genuinely feels this way about Wallace’s work, he could have provided a more genuine answer. The only type of person who asks, “Is it too soon?” is the type of person who likes to be a jerk.
Most people I know who like Wallace don’t love everything he’s written, but I never found that his death kept anyone from discussing his work in a spirited manner. Ellis is such a little douche, and I hope that Karma beats the shit out of him. I am not very familiar with his work, but I have neither respect for him nor any desire to read his books.
I agree. I mean, if he genuinely feels this way about Wallace’s work, he could have provided a more genuine answer. The only type of person who asks, “Is it too soon?” is the type of person who likes to be a jerk.
Most people I know who like Wallace don’t love everything he’s written, but I never found that his death kept anyone from discussing his work in a spirited manner. Ellis is such a little douche, and I hope that Karma beats the shit out of him. I am not very familiar with his work, but I have neither respect for him nor any desire to read his books.
I’m not sure I’d call most of wallace’s non-fiction “journalism”
Agreed, at least not in the traditional sense.
With that said, even though I love his fiction, I find the nonfiction to be his most interesting work. To call it pedestrian seems a bit harsh.
Ellis has some perverse desire to provoke what he considers the “literary establishment,” I think. He seems to carry bitterness about the mixed-to-negative critical reception for every book he’s ever written, and he has this impulse to shock.
i would probably put money on option c: he’s never even tried to read it.
Well you know BEE and Jay McInerney are buddies, and McIerney made that huge stink about how unreadable Infinite Jest was as soon as it came out, back before it got all the acclaim it eventually got. Ellis’ style is much different, if you asked me to tell you which was better: American Psycho or Infinite Jest, I’d say they’re incomparable. Those are two books that might show up at the same bar, but they’d never sit at the table together unless they had some mutual friend. They aren’t in dialogue and they’d never want to be.
It doesn’t surprise me, considering that David Foster Wallace often criticized Brett Easton Ellis, particularly American Psycho. You can see examples in “Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself” and in this interview in the Dalkey Archives: http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/book/?fa=customcontent&GCOI=15647100621780&extrasfile=A09F8296-B0D0-B086-B6A350F4F59FD1F7.html
Wallace on Ellis and American Psycho:
“You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writ-
ing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others
depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporar y condition is hopelessly shitty,
insipid, mater ialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any
wr iter) can get away with slapping together stor ies with characters who are stupid, vapid,
emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no develop-
ment. With descr iptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where
stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad wr iting—
flat characters, a nar rative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also
a descr iption of today’s world, then bad wr iting becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad
world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can
wr ite a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentar y on the
badness of ever ything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark
times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how
dark and stupid ever ything is?”
Or maybe he just doesn’t rate his stuff? Why does it have to be about provoking the literary establishment, or settling old scores?
Is DFW really above criticism now that he died or something?
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw970515david_foster_wallace
At 6:23 in DFW’s Bookworm interview from 1997, he says:
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw970515david_foster_wallace
At 6:23 in DFW’s Bookworm interview from 1997, he says:
eek sorry for the icky formatting, can someone get rid of that? let’s try again:
Wallace on Ellis, American Psycho:
You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporar y condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, mater ialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any
wr iter) can get away with slapping together stor ies with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descr iptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad writing—
flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad wr iting becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentar y on the badness of ever ything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid ever ything is?
JOEL JORDON is a leading expert on DFW.
There’s a “double a” in there. That’s a typo. It’s weird transcribing people talking, though. It’s hard to tell where one sentence ends and another begins.
There’s a “double a” in there. That’s a typo. It’s weird transcribing people talking, though. It’s hard to tell where one sentence ends and another begins.
I love the way those two F’s in ‘stuff’ keep coming out.
DFW isn’t above criticism. But calling IJ ‘unreadable’ is kinda goofy; what, was it written in code? And while I’m not as enamored by DFW’s nonfiction stuff as many are, BEE calling any other writer’s work pedestrian is maybe the height of unintentional humor.
yeah, i was going to say, dfw didn’t care for bret. however, dfw criticized bret in a thoughtful way, i thought. hmm… i don’t like bret’s reasoning behind not liking dfw’s writing. i think it isn’t hard to criticize dfw’s writing (or anyone’s writing), but i don’t like his reasoning. IJ is highly readable, I think that’s pretty much a fact, to call the journalism pedestrian is silly in numerous ways (it’s not meant to be journalism in the conventional sense, the average pedestrian couldn’t write it, etc.), and the dismissive phrase “that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality” indicates he’s cynical and reductive. sounds like he’s just being bitchy and “settling scores.” probably is tired of everyone fellating the other three-name hip writer guy.
on second thought, i can imagine bret answering in that way with no agenda, or no bitterness/jealousy. seems possible.
Pedestrian? Unreadable? These aren’t honest criticisms, they’re just empty, lazy statements. They’re not useful, illuminating, or even credible. At least DFW has a larger point he was making when he was bashing BEE…
Or alternatively, he’s speaking his mind.
Well, I find it kinda unreadable as well not in the sense that it was written in code, just in the sense that it leaves me cold. (Although I could say the same for most of what Ellis has written post American Psycho)
While I admire the technical aspect of DFW did, its in the same way that I can admire the technical / musical prowess behind a 10 minute Yes guitar solo…. it just doesnt mean that I’d want to listen to it for pleasure.
For me, the first reaction that surfaced was ‘oh, BEE’s got some jealousy issues,’ but Tony’s right, maybe he just plain ol’ doesn’t like his stuff? I’d like to see detailed criticisms, I’m curious to what he finds ‘pedestrian.’
“Unreadable” is pretty silly though, not a label I would quickly slap onto a book I first read when I was 20 and high out of my mind (a state which I think BEE could easily relate to), a time at which I found many, many things unreadable.
Not that I don’t think DFW’s “Great White Narcissist” attack on Updike’s “Toward the End of Time” wasn’t just as wrong-headed (though in much greater detail). Upshot: writers, like everyone else, can be bitches.
GUBBINAL
That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.
The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.
That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.
That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.
The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.
-Wallace Stevens
good analogy
Why is it to soon to answer this question?
Is Ellis supposed to pretend that he liked Wallace’s works for a few years just because the guy killed himself?
What if the day before Wallace killed himself Ellis had said, “I don’t like Wallace’s writing,” would he then, just two days later, have to augment his previously held stance for the sake of–respect for the dead?
He’s not talking shit about Wallace the person. He’s just saying he doesn’t like his writing. Big deal. Who give a shit what Ellis thinks anyhow?
[…] HTMLGIANT, via The Howling Fantods. The discussion at HTMLGIANT’s comment section is pretty great right […]
Ouch. Wallace absolutely bitch-slapped Ellis, rhetorically. No wonder Ellis doesn’t like Wallace. I wouldn’t like him either if he dissected me with such ease and eloquence. Everything Wallace said about Ellis is true, and I happen to enjoy reading Ellis. But Wallace was playing on a different field with different equipment. Anyone who says IJ is impossible to read hasn’t even cracked open the book. Yes, it’s huge and erudite, but there’s nothing, on a sentence by sentence level, that anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension couldn’t understand. Ellis is bringing a knife to gun fight. If he wasn’t such a brat he would know that he can’t win this battle, and he would dismiss the question with a polite banality.
I just bought plane-ticket-priced tickets (not rly, but expensiveish) to see Bret Easton Ellis in Melbourne. I feel sick, but I might not in the morning. “HERE’S HOPING!”
I just bought plane-ticket-priced tickets (not rly, but expensiveish) to see Bret Easton Ellis in Melbourne. I feel sick, but I might not in the morning. “HERE’S HOPING!”
I like both Bret Easton Ellis and David Foster Wallace and I hope to keep learning from both of them. The ways that they ‘take each other on’ is reminiscent of the ways Foucault and Derrida used ‘to pick on each other.’ Their styles are different. I like that.
I like both Bret Easton Ellis and David Foster Wallace and I hope to keep learning from both of them. The ways that they ‘take each other on’ is reminiscent of the ways Foucault and Derrida used ‘to pick on each other.’ Their styles are different. I like that.
2nd. That was nicely put.
It seems that DFW passage posted by Igor goes on for a few more sentences.
[Source: http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/news/general-updates/bret-easton-ellis-on-dfw.html%5D
Did DFW “defeat” BEE with this paragraph? Does BEE dislike DFW because DFW successfully argued that BEE is a “bad writer”? [Note that DFW is a person who unsarcastically calls himself a “good writer” in interviews.] Does BEE think DFW is a “bad writer”? Are the things that DFW and BEE are saying here “even” “true”? Let’s think about these things.
BEE says “[t]he journalism is pedestrian.” I guess “pedestrian” means “ordinary.” This seems like an unverifiable statement. BEE says “the stories scattered and full of that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality.” I remember DFW talking about seeing this “Mid-Western faux-sentimentality” in his own non-fiction pieces. I guess this is whatever. BEE says “Infinite Jest is unreadable.” I guess “unreadable” means “hard to read.” Infinite Jest does seem harder to read than “most” books. I guess this is whatever, though, too.
In the DFW thing, I guess the “you’re” is addressing the interviewer. The passage posted by Igor is in response to the interviewer saying “But at least in the case of ‘American Psycho’ I felt there was something more than just this desire to inflict pain—or that Ellis was being cruel the way you said serious artists need to be willing to be.” I’m sort of intrigued by DFW mentioning readers being “manipulated by bad writing,” like they are being “tricked” somehow. I guess DFW is saying that BEE et al need people to think that the “world is bad, dull, and stupid,” so they can write “bad books” employing “bad writing” with “dull characters doing/saying stupid things” and have it perceived as being “genius satire” or something. And I guess that writing these “bad books” is “too easy.” I guess DFW thinks that BEE is too “nihilistic” and that “nihilistic art” can’t be “great art” because it doesn’t “illuminate” or provide new “possibilities of living” or whatever.
I guess this all whatever. I don’t know.
Misplaced a “]” in there.
DFW has also said that he liked Ellis’ first novel.
When did DFW call himself a good writer?
I agree. I mean, if he genuinely feels this way about Wallace’s work, he could have provided a more genuine answer. The only type of person who asks, “Is it too soon?” is the type of person who likes to be a jerk.
Most people I know who like Wallace don’t love everything he’s written, but I never found that his death kept anyone from discussing his work in a spirited manner. Ellis is such a little douche, and I hope that Karma beats the shit out of him. I am not very familiar with his work, but I have neither respect for him nor any desire to read his books.
Easton Ellis likes to talk crazy shit to get a rise out of people, which is unfortunate. He applauds Salinger’s death. Says women can’t make movies because they can’t think visually. Claims Infinite Jest is unreadable. And on and on. He’s fast becoming the Howard Stern of literature. This is exactly why I have no opinion on the man either way. If you like him or hate him he wins. I remain neutral.
Easton Ellis likes to talk crazy shit to get a rise out of people, which is unfortunate. He applauds Salinger’s death. Says women can’t make movies because they can’t think visually. Claims Infinite Jest is unreadable. And on and on. He’s fast becoming the Howard Stern of literature. This is exactly why I have no opinion on the man either way. If you like him or hate him he wins. I remain neutral.
His work is so David Foster Wallace-lite I have a hard time imaging he doesn’t really like him except out of jealousy.
“that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality”
Nope, BEE, your work certainly doesn’t possess any faux-NYC hipster sentimentality. None at all.
His work is so David Foster Wallace-lite I have a hard time imaging he doesn’t really like him except out of jealousy.
“that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality”
Nope, BEE, your work certainly doesn’t possess any faux-NYC hipster sentimentality. None at all.
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw970515david_foster_wallace
At 6:23 in DFW’s Bookworm interview from 1997, he says:
There’s a “double a” in there. That’s a typo. It’s weird transcribing people talking, though. It’s hard to tell where one sentence ends and another begins.
The guitar solo analogy is perfect. Thanks, Tony. Wallace has always felt a bit cold to me, too.
The guitar solo analogy is perfect. Thanks, Tony. Wallace has always felt a bit cold to me, too.
if someone took a big eloquent dump on my life’s work i wouldn’t be able to read his book either
if someone took a big eloquent dump on my life’s work i wouldn’t be able to read his book either
I just bought plane-ticket-priced tickets (not rly, but expensiveish) to see Bret Easton Ellis in Melbourne. I feel sick, but I might not in the morning. “HERE’S HOPING!”
I like both Bret Easton Ellis and David Foster Wallace and I hope to keep learning from both of them. The ways that they ‘take each other on’ is reminiscent of the ways Foucault and Derrida used ‘to pick on each other.’ Their styles are different. I like that.
“Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid everything is?”
um… isn’t this Infinite Jest’s entire conceit?
the added element in IJ is bros bro down at the Alkies Anonymous and realize they r “human after all,” and if they “just” “take life one day at a time,” it will be OK, maybe
the added element in IJ is bros bro down at the Alkies Anonymous and realize they r “human after all,” and if they “just” “take life one day at a time,” it will be OK, maybe
i think the central question of IJ is ‘r we human or r we dancer’
i think the central question of IJ is ‘r we human or r we dancer’
i mean ‘central conceit’ maybe
i mean ‘central conceit’ maybe
@did u read it
so people realize they’re human after all, and can just take life one day at a time… which enables them to overcome ‘how dark and stupid everything is’?
@marshall
‘dancer’?
Easton Ellis likes to talk crazy shit to get a rise out of people, which is unfortunate. He applauds Salinger’s death. Says women can’t make movies because they can’t think visually. Claims Infinite Jest is unreadable. And on and on. He’s fast becoming the Howard Stern of literature. This is exactly why I have no opinion on the man either way. If you like him or hate him he wins. I remain neutral.
His work is so David Foster Wallace-lite I have a hard time imaging he doesn’t really like him except out of jealousy.
“that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality”
Nope, BEE, your work certainly doesn’t possess any faux-NYC hipster sentimentality. None at all.
http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/01/i-wish-i-had-a-heart-yall.html
http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/01/i-wish-i-had-a-heart-yall.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y
I’m baffled by the use of “pedestrian” to describe DFW’s “journalism” (I echo the above complaints that DFW didn’t mean most of his nonfiction pieces to be journalistic by the standard definition). I can see not liking it, or thinking it’s rambly or imprecise or self-involved – but even if you hate it, it is difficult to deny its uniqueness, technical complexity, and non-standardness (even in the weirder-than-journalism world of creative nonfiction).
And of course it’s absurd to call Infinite Jest “unreadable” unless your only context is the page count. I’m 18 years old and it’s dense, but it isn’t difficult.
I’m baffled by the use of “pedestrian” to describe DFW’s “journalism” (I echo the above complaints that DFW didn’t mean most of his nonfiction pieces to be journalistic by the standard definition). I can see not liking it, or thinking it’s rambly or imprecise or self-involved – but even if you hate it, it is difficult to deny its uniqueness, technical complexity, and non-standardness (even in the weirder-than-journalism world of creative nonfiction).
And of course it’s absurd to call Infinite Jest “unreadable” unless your only context is the page count. I’m 18 years old and it’s dense, but it isn’t difficult.
The guitar solo analogy is perfect. Thanks, Tony. Wallace has always felt a bit cold to me, too.
if someone took a big eloquent dump on my life’s work i wouldn’t be able to read his book either
the added element in IJ is bros bro down at the Alkies Anonymous and realize they r “human after all,” and if they “just” “take life one day at a time,” it will be OK, maybe
i think the central question of IJ is ‘r we human or r we dancer’
i mean ‘central conceit’ maybe
http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/01/i-wish-i-had-a-heart-yall.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y
I’m baffled by the use of “pedestrian” to describe DFW’s “journalism” (I echo the above complaints that DFW didn’t mean most of his nonfiction pieces to be journalistic by the standard definition). I can see not liking it, or thinking it’s rambly or imprecise or self-involved – but even if you hate it, it is difficult to deny its uniqueness, technical complexity, and non-standardness (even in the weirder-than-journalism world of creative nonfiction).
And of course it’s absurd to call Infinite Jest “unreadable” unless your only context is the page count. I’m 18 years old and it’s dense, but it isn’t difficult.
my friend was at this q and a so i asked him about it. He says the above transcription of BEE’s comments isn’t accurate, that Bret Easton Ellis said that he personally hadn’t been able to finish infinite jest. My friend also said that, from his perspective, Bret Easton Ellis wasn’t dissing DFW as much as saying that it just wasn’t the kind of work he was interested in.
I think DFW’s reading of American Psycho is ham-strung by his own obsessive idea of what literature is and can be…it’s a reading tied very much to a doctrine. I love DFW discovering his work has blown my mind these last two years but i think he’s wrong about BEE’s writing.
my friend was at this q and a so i asked him about it. He says the above transcription of BEE’s comments isn’t accurate, that Bret Easton Ellis said that he personally hadn’t been able to finish infinite jest. My friend also said that, from his perspective, Bret Easton Ellis wasn’t dissing DFW as much as saying that it just wasn’t the kind of work he was interested in.
I think DFW’s reading of American Psycho is ham-strung by his own obsessive idea of what literature is and can be…it’s a reading tied very much to a doctrine. I love DFW discovering his work has blown my mind these last two years but i think he’s wrong about BEE’s writing.
DFW is great, but point me to a character he’s “developed”. Just sour grapes all around.
DFW is great, but point me to a character he’s “developed”. Just sour grapes all around.
character development.
you might want to steer towards TV more often than books
character development.
you might want to steer towards TV more often than books
my friend was at this q and a so i asked him about it. He says the above transcription of BEE’s comments isn’t accurate, that Bret Easton Ellis said that he personally hadn’t been able to finish infinite jest. My friend also said that, from his perspective, Bret Easton Ellis wasn’t dissing DFW as much as saying that it just wasn’t the kind of work he was interested in.
I think DFW’s reading of American Psycho is ham-strung by his own obsessive idea of what literature is and can be…it’s a reading tied very much to a doctrine. I love DFW discovering his work has blown my mind these last two years but i think he’s wrong about BEE’s writing.
I will miss DFW as an American thinker. It’s as if he had all of America inside his head and one day it just exploded.
I will miss DFW as an American thinker. It’s as if he had all of America inside his head and one day it just exploded.
DFW is great, but point me to a character he’s “developed”. Just sour grapes all around.
Ha. Did I just get insulted by Blake Butler? Blake, I dig your work, I do, I do, but these kind of comments just make you sound adolescent. Plus, if you’ve been reading, lack of character development (or the way ‘cynical’ fiction prevents it) was DFW’s big reason for hating Ellis. Hence, my comment.
If you think that means books aren’t for me, I suggest you peel off that Xtra small emo tee — it’s depriving your brain of valuable oxygen.
Ha. Did I just get insulted by Blake Butler? Blake, I dig your work, I do, I do, but these kind of comments just make you sound adolescent. Plus, if you’ve been reading, lack of character development (or the way ‘cynical’ fiction prevents it) was DFW’s big reason for hating Ellis. Hence, my comment.
If you think that means books aren’t for me, I suggest you peel off that Xtra small emo tee — it’s depriving your brain of valuable oxygen.
you’re right actually. i was going to delete my comment immediately after but then got distracted. i haven’t been sleeping very well. my apology for real. i understand yr angle.
you’re right actually. i was going to delete my comment immediately after but then got distracted. i haven’t been sleeping very well. my apology for real. i understand yr angle.
Thanks for this! Seems to make sense.
Thanks for this! Seems to make sense.
I don’t know about “developed,” but I think DFW wrote his fair share of fully realized characters. Don G. and Madame P. come to mind, right now. I haven’t read his short stuff in a while.
I don’t know about “developed,” but I think DFW wrote his fair share of fully realized characters. Don G. and Madame P. come to mind, right now. I haven’t read his short stuff in a while.
character development.
you might want to steer towards TV more often than books
a recurring theme i am noticing is your problem with t-shirts. i am curious about the upper-body garment you favor. something that does not constrict… do you prefer open vests. perhaps some sort of cloak or robe.
a recurring theme i am noticing is your problem with t-shirts. i am curious about the upper-body garment you favor. something that does not constrict… do you prefer open vests. perhaps some sort of cloak or robe.
Thanks, Blake.
Kristin: yes, it’s my lazy shorthand for the kind of short-term narrow-mindedness that afflicts us from time to time; I guess you could love one type of art, one mode of writing so much, the natural inclinination might be to draw a circle around and proclaim all else total bullshit. Which I think is nuts. And which I think ties into what DFW was saying about Ellis. They approach things differently, but I wouldn’t give up either one.
(I prefer button-downs. Roomy T-shirts, never cloaks).
Thanks, Blake.
Kristin: yes, it’s my lazy shorthand for the kind of short-term narrow-mindedness that afflicts us from time to time; I guess you could love one type of art, one mode of writing so much, the natural inclinination might be to draw a circle around and proclaim all else total bullshit. Which I think is nuts. And which I think ties into what DFW was saying about Ellis. They approach things differently, but I wouldn’t give up either one.
(I prefer button-downs. Roomy T-shirts, never cloaks).
I will miss DFW as an American thinker. It’s as if he had all of America inside his head and one day it just exploded.
“t-shirts” is a red-herring. “Emo” is the actual trigger.
“t-shirts” is a red-herring. “Emo” is the actual trigger.
Ha. Did I just get insulted by Blake Butler? Blake, I dig your work, I do, I do, but these kind of comments just make you sound adolescent. Plus, if you’ve been reading, lack of character development (or the way ‘cynical’ fiction prevents it) was DFW’s big reason for hating Ellis. Hence, my comment.
If you think that means books aren’t for me, I suggest you peel off that Xtra small emo tee — it’s depriving your brain of valuable oxygen.
you’re right actually. i was going to delete my comment immediately after but then got distracted. i haven’t been sleeping very well. my apology for real. i understand yr angle.
Thanks for this! Seems to make sense.
I don’t know about “developed,” but I think DFW wrote his fair share of fully realized characters. Don G. and Madame P. come to mind, right now. I haven’t read his short stuff in a while.
a recurring theme i am noticing is your problem with t-shirts. i am curious about the upper-body garment you favor. something that does not constrict… do you prefer open vests. perhaps some sort of cloak or robe.
Like for months in the spring semester of Y.D.P.A.H she (Madame Psychosis) referred to her own program as ‘Madam Downer-Lit Hour’ and read depressing book after depressing book– Good Morning, Midnight and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets and Giovanni’s Room and Under the Volcano, plus a truly ghastly Bret Ellis period during Lent– in a monotone, really slowly, night after night.
— Infinite Jest
Like for months in the spring semester of Y.D.P.A.H she (Madame Psychosis) referred to her own program as ‘Madam Downer-Lit Hour’ and read depressing book after depressing book– Good Morning, Midnight and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets and Giovanni’s Room and Under the Volcano, plus a truly ghastly Bret Ellis period during Lent– in a monotone, really slowly, night after night.
— Infinite Jest
Thanks, Blake.
Kristin: yes, it’s my lazy shorthand for the kind of short-term narrow-mindedness that afflicts us from time to time; I guess you could love one type of art, one mode of writing so much, the natural inclinination might be to draw a circle around and proclaim all else total bullshit. Which I think is nuts. And which I think ties into what DFW was saying about Ellis. They approach things differently, but I wouldn’t give up either one.
(I prefer button-downs. Roomy T-shirts, never cloaks).
“t-shirts” is a red-herring. “Emo” is the actual trigger.
@marsh
i posted a reply but the spam filter ate it. blegh.
Damn. Human after yall.
Damn. Human after yall.
These colors don’t run.
These colors don’t run.
Like for months in the spring semester of Y.D.P.A.H she (Madame Psychosis) referred to her own program as ‘Madam Downer-Lit Hour’ and read depressing book after depressing book– Good Morning, Midnight and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets and Giovanni’s Room and Under the Volcano, plus a truly ghastly Bret Ellis period during Lent– in a monotone, really slowly, night after night.
— Infinite Jest
ykinda. i can’t remember my exact phrasing, but i alluded to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29#Sartre.27s_examples, nestled with the hyperlink text “ah.” … and then i think i wrote something like: “all i tinmancan say is: if ur reading this, ur human(e).”
maybe. who knows? does it matter? does it know who matters? maybe.
damn you spam filter. damn you!
10 minute Pink Floyd guitar solo-reads are where it’s really at.
you just wrote an ad for Tide.
Damn. Human after yall.
These colors don’t run.
BEE was a lot more considered when giving his opinion than the transcription makes out. (I’ve actually recorded it) He emphasises DFW’s story over the terms ‘pedestrian’ ‘unreadable’ and (faux) ‘midwestern-earnestness’ (not ‘sentimentality?’ But other than that the transcript is pretty true to form.
I addition to this, i’d say that his answers concerning his particular brand of misogyny are far more worthy of discussion than a few (hardly original) criticisms of DFW.
BEE was a lot more considered when giving his opinion than the transcription makes out. (I’ve actually recorded it) He emphasises DFW’s story over the terms ‘pedestrian’ ‘unreadable’ and (faux) ‘midwestern-earnestness’ (not ‘sentimentality?’ But other than that the transcript is pretty true to form.
I addition to this, i’d say that his answers concerning his particular brand of misogyny are far more worthy of discussion than a few (hardly original) criticisms of DFW.
BEE was a lot more considered when giving his opinion than the transcription makes out. (I’ve actually recorded it) He emphasises DFW’s story over the terms ‘pedestrian’ ‘unreadable’ and (faux) ‘midwestern-earnestness’ (not ‘sentimentality?’ But other than that the transcript is pretty true to form.
I addition to this, i’d say that his answers concerning his particular brand of misogyny are far more worthy of discussion than a few (hardly original) criticisms of DFW.
To this point, I have not read any of David Foster Wallace’s fiction, which is why, yesterday, when “Infinite Jest” came in the mail, I opened it to a random page and saw his usage of the word “like” and thought, like, that’s pretty crazy.
To this point, I have not read any of David Foster Wallace’s fiction, which is why, yesterday, when “Infinite Jest” came in the mail, I opened it to a random page and saw his usage of the word “like” and thought, like, that’s pretty crazy.
To this point, I have not read any of David Foster Wallace’s fiction, which is why, yesterday, when “Infinite Jest” came in the mail, I opened it to a random page and saw his usage of the word “like” and thought, like, that’s pretty crazy.
Yeah. Spam filter is wack.
I just wrote an ad for America.
Yeah. Spam filter is wack.
I just wrote an ad for America.
Yeah. Spam filter is wack.
I just wrote an ad for America.
Bwah hah hah, this quote is full of awesome and win.
Bwah hah hah, this quote is full of awesome and win.
Bwah hah hah, this quote is full of awesome and win.
I enjoyed reading Less than Zero and The Informers. I even enjoyed Lunar Park, which I can assure you has been described as “unreadable” its fair share. So I am not an Ellis hater by any stretch…but I don’t like his comments on DFW’s writings.
To say that Infinite Jest is unreadable makes me think Ellis isn’t much of a reader. Maybe that’s not so groundbreaking a thought when talking about a pop culture novelist whose masterwork is 208 pages with copious margins. I wonder if Ellis got far enough along into Infinite Jest to the point where DFW slams him, bc its in there. Maybe that’s what made Infinite Jest unreadable for Ellis: knowing that his name would be read in a work not his own for such duration that the readers of the future wouldn’t even understand the reference.
I found Wallace’s words to be vapid and superficial. I doubt he has read American Psycho or has never tried to get below the surface of the character. The novel was directly the opposite of what Wallace was saying. The depersonalization and superficial attributes of the character Patrick Bateman are a satire on the times, sure that’s fairly true but sentences like “We buy balloons. We let them go.” shows a whimsy and to me shows that Ellis has hope for the future and isn’t just feeding into the depressed, crazy, sadomasochists in society. I enjoy both authors but that answer disappointed me, It wasn’t well thought out or researched. It was childish and i had expected better than that from him.