I've just finished reading DFW's essay entitled "Authority and American Usage". I thought Wallace was a pretty okay guy up until now, but I've got to change my mind.
For someone who once said
>I come to writing from a pretty hard-core, abstract place. It comes out of technical philosophy and continental European theory, and extreme avant-garde shit.
He seems hopelessly uneducated about actual philosophy, and it shows in this article. He accepts Wittgenstein's claims about language. He goes on to say that "[...] Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations proved in the 1950s, words actually have the meanings they do because of certain rules and verification tests that are imposed on us from outside our own subjectivities", whilst still maintaining that "meaning is inseparable from some act of interpretation".
It's like he has no grasp at all of Wittgenstein and couldn't even understand what is written at §198 of PI. I like his other essays but this one just showed me how much of a hack he was.
Have you guys ever been so disappointed with an author? What do you think of DFW's essay? Do you agree he has a certain naivety when he brings actual philosophy into his writings?
Just accept his superiority, senpai. He's a published author despite being depressed and psychotic. What are you, OP? A /lit/izen. Lowest of the low.
>Have you guys ever been so disappointed with an author?
No, I love everyone I read.
Can we stop with the DFW circlejerk already? No one but Americans know who the guy is.
Terrible article, probably his worst. You're right about his misinterpretation of Wittgenstein, and even on a linguistic and grammatical level it's all over the place. Check out this linguist's BTFO of it:
http://languagehat.com/david-foster-wallace-demolished/
>>9190235
>implying non-Americans are relevant
>>9190262
What a great text. Even the comment section is great. I wish /lit/ could have such discussions.