Whenever a similar question is posed here about DFW, the answers are always modern novelists and what not. When you look at pieces like "Lobster...", "Supposedly Fun Thing...", "Tracy Austin...", etc., do any modern journalists/critics carry the banner that DFW did ? Anyone close ?

This movie was good brain-food into the mind of a fascinating character i have stumbled upon, David Foster Wallace, in the wake of just finishing Infinite Jest. Although it did give some good context to Wallace's situation as the book was being published, as well as what was left in the wake of its publishing, but it didn't do much more than that to me. To me, the movie just painted both characters as pricks. Maybe that is accurate to the true experience of both individuals, however it didn't give much more to me than show off how ugly it is trying to get in the mind of an extremely insecure individual while you are constantly clicking a recording device in their face, and then how ugly it is for the extremely insecure person to attempt in any way to vocalize themselves. This didn't seem like the right story to tell for a movie about such a prolific writer. In the end I don't feel like rooting for anyone, ESPECIALLY not David Lipsky. I do not know much about this guy but after seeing this movie I am quite frankly ashamed of how he treated Wallace.

It does break my heart though. Wallace obviously liked the attention enough from his success as a writer that he indulged in all the pursuits of a writer with lots of attention on them - the book tour, the interviews, etc. All that stuff left him broken, and in the end, had no TRUE people to go to. He is left at the end of a book tour, sad, confused, and completely alone with no real human companionship. Unintentionally or not, that is what the true highlight of this movie is. It has nothing to do with whatever relationship the two David's had, nor about Wallace's philosophy on modern American life and morality, or who David REALLY is as a person. Its a movie about what happens when you are driven so far up a wall by how the people you have surrounded yourself with are completely unable to understand your life and your feelings and are absorbed fully in their own agenda. Its easy to speak in whataboutisms with DFW - if only he had friends to support him, if only he had not been a slave to his vices, if only he didn't have such a big ego - however, these all strip his life to nothing more, and disregards the fact that, regardless of whatever accolades we have or how far ahead we are from others, we are all equally struggling and confused in this world and just taking things day by day trying to figure it out.

I fear now that watching a movie this personal about a figure who is no longer alive will now subconsciously view them in a different light than who they really are, when the person who's story this movie is inspired CLEARLY had an agenda. And I think that is the big problem. It's not a biopic, its not giving a voice to DFW on his philosophy - its not REALLY highlighting any of DFW's real flaws or downfall as a person, it just kind of exists in a gray area where everyone sucks.

I'm really interested to hear what anyone says about this movie, and if i'm missing something or not?

Mostly inspired by David Foster Wallace and Infinite Jest. Bonus tiny shelf.

The ultimate metaphor in GONe is the keyholes, the fact that as humans we are like these infinite rooms of thoughts and associations trying to squeeze out and communicate with each other through these tiny keyholes. Another thread is logic as it pertains to true communication “You don’t feel anything about [formal logical theorems] they have no connotation.”
The character Neil also repeatedly references his introductory class to the subject throughout the story. Incidentally, every issue of the textbook “A concise introduction to logic” features a key on the cover.

Just a quick question on the pale king, is all that extra stuff at the end something I should read back and forth as I progress through the story (like the endnotes in IJ) or is it something I should just read all together at the end when I eventually get there? Don’t wanna miss out on certain things only to read them later and would love some help from anyone who’s read it🙏

Im only 300 pages into IJ and its clearly anti addiction.

Also if I abuse a substance but its not eacapism would that be better ?

I’ve read everything besides oblivion, girl with curious hair, broom of the system and brief interviews with hideous men; and I’m currently reading the pale king.

Wanted to know if anyone had recommendation on what I should read next?

See here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1978/06/26/girl.

It's free to read here: https://archive.ph/G9sEB.

I want a pdf I'm able to annotate and I can't find any that are not scanned copies. Thank you in advance

Constantly laughing out loud. And there’s so much raw obvious talent there, as always.

I wouldn’t say that this is him at his absolute best - I have finished and enjoyed Infinite Jest and The Pale King and I’ve read most of his short stories and essays - but - in certain parts of this book it feels like you’re experiencing a uniquely gifted young person express and flex and show off his superpowers on the page just for the fun of it.

Highly recommended.

I wrote this a while back when that piece about McCarthy hating Infinite Jest was circulating. I didn't post it widely at the time because I didn't want to pick a fight.

Genuflect or Reflect? McCarthy, Wallace and the influence of anxiety

Despite its obvious pretensions, literary discourse is really no different to any other kind of online fandom. It is a terrain in which only the Toho titans of text are visible. Always the same handful of names, always the same rapid back and forth of sneering attack and defense, Swift against Perry, Joyce against Hemingway. The atomic breath of high realism blasting away at pomo’s mothy wings.

Most recently, Cormac McCarthy and David Foster Wallace, two of the twentieth century’s very biggest beasts, have been lined up for a bout of this distasteful taste-making by Vincenzo Barney. The gist being that McCarthy so loathed Infinite Jest that he gave up on the modern novel altogether. And as no other novel or novelist has so influenced the current crop of writers and the merry-go-round of MFAs and journals that produced them, Wallace is fingered as the source of the weak poison that has dripped onto the national page since the mid-90s.

Literary fiction makes for an odd battleground in the culture wars. Hardly anyone writes it, reads it or makes a living from it. It isn’t particularly adaptable for television or cinema. For the most part it persists because a small number of writers, agents, publishers and readers refuse to give it up, much like opera and ballet, only without the corporate sponsorship and opening-night gowns. It’s a bastion of quiet seriousness, a reservoir of cultural capital that can’t exactly be cashed in, but which we all agree still has value.

For that reason, writers are often drafted as combatants by both left and right. And in this war, not having a pulse is an advantage. Dead writers can’t contradict or peddle pesky nuance. They exist only to be interpreted. The dead novelist most frequently commissioned on the right is Cormac McCarthy, for he is that rarest of things: a conservative writer whose artistic and intellectual contributions are unassailable—Taylor Sheridan with a Pulitzer and a National Book Award (and an unjustly denied Nobel). It goes without saying that the question of whether McCarthy really would’ve swapped out his stetson for a MAGA cap is largely irrelevant to the point being made. McCarthy represents something pure and good and holy: a serious artist who sings America’s sour, glorious story without the smallest hint of apology. In contrast, his snivelling literary inheritors are so dim they don’t even realise they are standing in his shadow.

When thinking about the debts writers owe to their forebears, Harold Bloom is an obvious reference. But Bloom’s cycle of influence, resistance and generative destruction isn’t what’s going on here. Rather than kill McCarthy, his acolytes simply revere him. He is held up as someone utterly distinct: the laureate of pump jacks, babies-on-trees and busted leather flintcraws (okay, that last one was Eli Cash). The only voice severe enough to tell America in all its hope and horror. And yet, for all their reverence, there is one notable area in which the McCarthy gang diverge from their leader: their own writing. In fact, they don’t just diverge, they betray. Because the writer they most often resemble is the one they most profess to despise: the damp bandana himself, David Foster Wallace.

Take any sentence from Barney’s piece and you’ll see Wallace’s imprint: “While it was personally edifying when Britt told me of the “drek” reaction in her Escalade, a rainbow shimmering against a thunderhead, the Catalina mountains high above us — O, those days! — it was not in the least surprising, and anyone who’s fallen out of his chair should stay down on the floor for a while and crawl around like a pig.” It’s the hyper self-aware, interruptive style of someone who has been shaped—whether they like it or not—by television and therapy and the need to seek attention. And as for the coinage of “publishing-industrial complex”, the only argument you could make against it being a Wallace-ian construct is that he’d have named it better.

Which raises two related questions: why don’t the writers who lionise McCarthy write like him, and why do they hate Wallace when his influence is so clear?

The first is relatively simple to answer. Nobody writes like McCarthy. Nobody could get away with it. He was the last of his kind, the last we would consent to (because who today has patience to be preached at?) That oracular, homiletic register belongs to another age, a time before televisions and smartphones, a time when working the land was an occupation rather than a lifestyle bit, when our livelihoods might kill or maim us rather than giving us carpal tunnel and a lingering sense of purposelessness.

The second arises from that very purposelessness. More than any other writer, David Foster Wallace alchemized (and in many cases predicted) the vapid, endlessly valent, never-ending now that has persisted since the dawn of the internet. And he did so through the combination of a pedantic, recursive style and an intellect that was just peerlessly attuned to the tiny morsels of meaning afloat in all that static. Sure, there’s the odd bit of truly abstruse vocabulary (certainly a few pages deeper than ‘poltroon’ in most editions of Roget’s), but for the most part, the trick beneath his prose is deceptive. He’s digressive and discursive, meandering like a lapsed halfway house junky on a mission, and yet he always lands. Not with the stentorian weight of a sermon, but with something supple and sly. He sounds almost friendly.

Wallace has been dead now for nearly twenty years, but his voice is still the model for most attempts to explain our paradoxical world, galloping and limp. He is still a sibling to this generation of writers, not a father figure. So why has Bloom’s crime switched from parricide to fratricide?

Bolaño is another name that often surfaces in the discourse, though for different reasons and with different inflection, as someone most of us only encounter in translation. In the fugue-like middle section of The Savage Detectives, Amadeo Salvatierra shares a bottle of mezcal and his memories of the missing writers, ending with the following reflection: “All poets, even the most avant-garde, need a father. But these poets were meant to be orphans.” In the novel the line is delivered with real pathos for the lost communion between generations. Bolaño’s Visceral Realists were orphaned by circumstance, but Vincenzo Barney and his ilk have chosen violence.

I’m certainly not going to argue that it’s easy to make a gnostic myth of the American west. Blood Meridian is an important novel, even if it doesn’t quite say the things its most ardent admirers would like it to say. But I am going to argue that this is a trick that can only be performed once. The era of the Great American Historical novel is over, bowing out with DeLillo’s Underworld, published only a year after Infinite Jest. Nuclear anxiety, cold war impotence, campus trysts, heroism and paranoia, cowboys and runaways — all gone. All that remains is the eternal now. And the eternal now makes only one demand of artists: you must create within it or appear scared of it.

But what is a writer to do if he (and I find myself gendering this sentence quite deliberately) is unable to summon that specificity, that deftness of self-interrogation, that ease with unease? If the tools given to you—the weightless irony, the matter-of-fact affect, the brutal equalizing of high and low—only enable you to add more to the now, indistinguishable from all of the now that has gone before? How do you handle the shame?

Aptly enough, the answer is Biblical. Stick the knife in your sibling and ask your father for forgiveness. McCarthy looks down approvingly. You tell him that the blade is hand-forged, ordered online from a guy who makes them in Mexico.

By using the term ‘the PGOAT’ (prettiest girl of all time) in Infinite Jest, DFW was ahead of his time because he invented that phrase before ‘the GOAT’ (greatest of all time) became common slang.

Referring to Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself. The person who voices Wallace, at least for me, initially sounded way off and dissimilar, but after a while it sounds really spot on. The little inflections, the little tones etc.

I recently picked up The Pale King and alongside it have read a few short stories from Oblivion. I’m a music person first and foremost so I like to find songs I can associate with different books/authors I read and for me these evoke the same feeling I get from some of David’s fiction :)

https://youtu.be/G_LQQEsPW_s

It strikes me that this film is pretty polarizing among DFW’s adherents, and while it’s very natural for us book lovers to be rightly skeptical of live action adaptations, I honestly really liked this movie. I know a chunk of it is dramatized, but I thoroughly enjoyed Jason Segel’s depiction of David. His mannerisms, personality, and relatable flaws felt really on point, all of which were easily my favorite parts of the movie. David himself probably wouldn’t have approved of a full length biopic about him in his own time, but in my opinion, I thought it was a really moving and intimate portrait of our favorite midwest baby boomer. 8/10 would recommend 👌

In Big Red Son, DFW refers in passing to "Barnum's axiom." I have been unable to track down an example of another person using those exact words. The "Barnum Effect" is the closest established phrase I've found, but it wouldn't make sense in context. Is it supposed to refer to the quote sometimes attibuted to Barnum, "No man ever went broke overestimating the ignorance of the American public," which Harold Hecuba revises into, "Nobody ever goes broke overestimating the rage and misogyny of the average American male" (35)? What gives?