This reminds me of what David Foster Wallace wrote: "The next real literary "rebels" in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that'll be the point. Maybe that's why they'll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today's risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the "Oh how banal". To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows."

[–] I_Has_A_Hat 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Is David Foster Wallace a word-smith? Maybe. Critics and reviewers certainly seem to think so.

Personally, he writes far too densely for my tastes. His points get lost in an avalanche of flowery, intellectual language that, even with context clues, I'm never quite sure I'm interpreting right. In the above quote, for example, just what the hell does "endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles" actually mean?

The man also seems to detest paragraphs. That, or he loves them far too much; and ensures they are as long and intimidating as possible. Reading Infinite Jest, you'll often come across blocks of text that are multiple pages long with no breaks.

It's not like he isn't insightful though, it's just that uncovering what he's trying to say is a chore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

If I remember correctly, and I don't have the quote for this, but I think he once said that he was aware that Infinite Jest takes effort to read. It wasn't a deliberate choice to make it difficult for the sake of being difficult, but that it was difficult because we're no longer used to putting in the effort into reading. The deal must be that if you do the work, the story will reward you for it. Any book can be made difficult to read, but if they do it for the sake of being difficult, you will not want to read more from that author I guess.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Cringe is life.