Made me think.

File: 5152719+_5b7a31230ba901cda2229559b845df88.jpg (59KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 380x380px

>>9817918
>author is a woman

File: 1497180231154.jpg (78KB, 488x358px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 488x358px

>>9817918
> So while I was barely acquainted with David Wallace the man, his reputation was another matter.
>These two things aren’t the same, not in the case of any writer: a notion that many people would agree with in principle but that everyone has a hard time bearing in mind on a daily basis. Even the reputation of a reputation is subject to distortion. That Wallace was not widely regarded as a “great” writer during his lifetime is quickly being forgotten. Of course, a writer’s reputation changes over the years—that’s to be expected. Literary works grow or shrink in significance as the moment in which they were created recedes and as new readers bring new sensibilities to bear on them. But our memory of a reputation’s evolution itself changes, or at least that’s what seems to be happening in the case of Wallace.

What the fuck am I reading

>>9818035
fbpb

>>9818044

People have changed their minds about DFDubya.

Wow, maybe I'm ready to be a writer in New York!

Or maybe the whole point is to pad-out some empty chunk of pulp that people buy as decoration.

File: 6a010534a3c8d0970c010534b8c350970c-800wi.jpg (40KB, 275x270px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 275x270px

>>9818094
The narcissistic entitlement of these New Yorker kikes never stops surprising me.
Like she's talking as if the entire public has a responsibility to keep track of and restrict their opinions to be consistent with her own personal social bubble, like there's a grave injustice taking place otherwise

>an article by a woman defending DFW
what the fuck
>an article by a woman attacking people who only speak in hearsay and anecdotes about authors without ever having read the work (like every article ever written by a woman about DFW)l
what the fuck
>a good new yorker article
WHAT THE FUCK

>>9818121
>he read an article by a woman

Ola Reddito

File: whatever_dood.png (623KB, 723x459px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 723x459px

>>9818118

Yeah... yeah man... it was the jews all along...

I mean, this settles it. That's that.

I've already been calling DFW-haters losers, so here is even more reason.

This was the definitive word on that quirky pseud as far as I'm concerned.

http://exiledonline.com/david-foster-wallace-portrait-of-an-infinitely-limited-mind/

>>9818174
yeah cause someone else told you it was to be your definitive word. brainlet

>>9818129
I mean kike in a figurative sense obviously

>You've read your last complimentary article this month. To read the full article, SUBSCRIBE NOW

>>9817918
>stunningly accurate

Article is mostly platitudes and Barnum statements. "Lit-chat" as a term is useless and over-broad, especially considering the fact that one has to be in specific social circles to even hear it to begin with. I appreciate the need to understand how cultural context shapes interpretation of an author's work, but fuck, this is as middlebrow as it gets — the author contributes nothing to the conversation besides pointing out that context exists.

All that being said, her ultimate diagnosis of the situation — that DFW's work has two sides, the side that innovates and the side that stirs the emotions — is accurate, and she's right to point out that most readers tend to see one or the other. But this could have been expressed much more clearly and much more thoroughly.

Overall, 6/10 would send to a friend.

>>9819513
Yeah it's not nearly as bad as some of the people in this thread are making it out to be

>>9817918
Spot on about Franzen. I personally have never and never will read anything of his, yet still feel entitled to having an opinion on it.

>>9818118
This is the jewish authoritarian personality they tried to project onto the goyim.