What do I think? That we shouldn’t take anything he Tweets seriously; he’s a troll. Nothing he says is genuinely provocative (unlike Giraldi’s recent review). He’s incredibly immature, insecure, juvenile, and has nothing to say, because his Tweets are never part of larger conversations he’s having elsewhere–they’re just random pot shots.
Thanks for posting that Salon piece, I hadn’t seen that. Must have been cool to have edited both DFW and BEE. That story “Girl With Curious Hair” is my favorite thing DFW wrote (especially that long sentence with more and more parenthetical asides that ends like “?!?!?!?!?!)))))).”, that cracked me up) and I never realized it might have been a parody of BEE.
I like both those writers. Or more accurately: I like their work. Hemingway was a dick, but I still like his work.
No doubt, BEE is an attention-seeking jerk. But he’s also a provocateur. If he wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
It seems like Ellis is expressing some jealousy over Saint Wallace’s literary legacy. Ellis has received both film adaptions and death threats for his work, and that kind of response doesn’t come easily. But DFW’s work is revered as literature, whereas BEE’s work is confined to the pulpy splatterpunk genre ghetto.
The fact that BEE attacks not just DFW but his fans as well is kind of a genius move. “Anyone who finds David Foster Wallace a literary genius has got to be included in the Literary Doucebag-Fools Pantheon…” It’s like saying “Anyone who feels differently than me is an idiot.”
I’m probably a doucebag idiot for still liking Ellis despite the fact that he’s a jerk.
The idea that BEE is jealous is bullshit. And as regards to DFW, I find it quite disturbing to learn such unflattering personal details about an artist, even though I know we’re supposed to be able to separate and artist from his or her work.
Not sure I agree with your assessment that “BEE’s work is confined to the pulpy splatterpunk genre ghetto.” American Psycho is highly regarded in some literary circles (Larry McCaffery included it in his “20th Century’s Greatest Hits,” for example), not just among gorehounds.
“We learn about DFW’s womanizing, about his book-tour fondness for “audience pussy,” and that he once wondered aloud to Franzen about whether his only purpose in life was “to put my penis in as many vaginas as possible.””
Oh it’s even worse than that. I just finished reading the biography- he bought a filed off gun from an excon so he could murder this woman’s husband he was crazy infatuated with (he later changed his mind and didn’t shoot him) & he would also go into violent fits of rage and break shit and throw things. It was always women he would go into these rages around.
Nobody seems to mention these things in the reviews I’ve read. So I plan on mentioning them in a review of the book I’m doing for Zouch Magazine. I’m not focusing on these negatives, but it seems odd that people would just gloss over a lot of them…
I’m thinking of calling the review “Sex & Guns & Semiotics”
lol I was like about to write an unnecessarily hostile comment about how of course those facts haven’t come up in reviews because they have nothing to do with DFW’s writing, and then I realized you meant *reviews of the biography*
I think it’s important to point out these moments of not flying off the handle in a comment, these moments of personal growth
He screams out for attention on twitter all the time. I don’t think he’s jealous—I’m sure he genuinely dislikes DFW’s writing—but more than anything I think he wants more popularity, which is why he’s so indiscreet.
Poor guy, he wanted to write the screenplay for 50 Shades soo bad and didn’t get it. I actually felt sorry for him.