>David Foster Wallace: Puffed up, ephemeral. Dislike him immensely.

>>8726550
Anon, what sort of cancer is this?

>>8726550
Ryu or Haruki?

>>8726558
Haruki

>>8726550
Who are you and what have you done with the Nabokov critique guy with excellent taste?

>>8726550
>Thomas Pynchon: Second-rate. Certainly not a genius. To consider Gravity's Rainbow a m

Anon you can't even copypasta the hell?

Roth is the sort of writer Nabokov would have really liked actually

>>8726550
>Wallace
>Dislike him immensely
>On board whom enjoys Wallace
>edgy b8 m8

>>8726550
>Gerke: Is that the case with David Foster Wallace too?

>Gass: He had great abilities. And I think he needed to tame them. I think he was so good that he should’ve wanted to be better. And he wrote some things that are going to stay around. And I wish he had stayed around and done that. He had lots of smarts too. He was unlike a lot of writers who are sort of dumb, theoretically speaking. Stanley was street-smart but intellectually? Awful. But he didn’t need to be. Pynchon’s a case. I have tried to read Pynchon with no success so far, but then I can’t read Whitman—I try. So we just have blank spots. We can’t like everything, and I don’t see any rule for it. Why should you love every woman that walks by?

>>8726652
OP is quoting Nabokov from his book Strong Opinions which is just Nabokov ranting and raving about various novelists throughout history. But instead of OP using the actual authors Nabokov is talking about, he is mapping the criticisms on to 4chan memes.

>>8726550
i thought this was supposed to be a "review books like nabokov"-thread
dissapointed.

>>8726652
he's memeing, but wallace is not at all universally liked on this board, if that's what you're implying.

lel

File: jorge borges.jpg (9KB, 195x258px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 195x258px

>>8726550
>tfw
too smart for wasting time in judging people

>>8726680
who is Stanley?

>>8726802
Probably Stanley Elkin