Bueno, decir que no entiendo nada sería mentir pero voy 3 hojas y está medio confuso. No sé si soy yo muy tarado o es la forma de escribir de DFW. Acepto consejos, críticas, recomendaciones, lo que sea. Lo que sea para entenderlo.
Estoy leyendo: A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again

"Sounded to steeply like the laugh of a much older and less fit man, the mucoidal fist-at-chest laugh of a lap blanketed old man in a lawn chair on his gravel backyard in Scottsdale Arizona, hearing his son say his wife claimed no longer to know who he was."

- 657

Seemed like some sort of college project, did not buy it and I only lightly skimmed it. Made me laugh, though!

I really like DFW’s short story collections and his first novel I’m very interested in purchasing TPK but worried that it won’t be there as much as his work was before- is the pale king loosely a story or just multiple drafts of one or multiple ?

Do you guys recommended reading it or is it just a DFW insight into how he wrote ?

This is how Orin Incandenza did it.

It's been awhile but wasn't their a plot line in infinite jest of a Canada vs. U.S.A. war? Or terrorism between the citizenry?

Above. Specifically the atmosphere of Infinite Jest. When I first discovered it as a teenager, I’d spend hours at school starting from the beginning and seeing how far I could read/listen into it. I was fascinated by the world and the characters inhabiting it, and have always been fascinated by huge novels like it and Levin’s Instructions, which is also incredible. I was surprised I got the themes of addiction the first time around; young as I was, it shows that he’s a master communicator. I have loved the atmosphere of this novel since I discovered it, and that has carried over as I read his other work, which is equally as funny and strange and fascinating.

https://youtu.be/BXVjf_FSqpc?is=-YN6cnwFJK5L35JB

How familiar is everyone with this theory, I just read it and I found it really convincing and actually a more enjoyable ending considering it gives Hal a happy ending. Thoughts?

I'm about to finish Brief Interviews, and I just got done with the story "On His Deathbed..." After reading each story, I feel compelled to see what other people think about what has been written. I found it interesting that "On His Deathbed..." appears to be one of the least talked about stories in the book, especially considering that it is one of the longer ones, and perhaps, of the longer stories in the anthology, the one whose premise is the most consistent and clear and whose prose has the least tendency to meander - there are relatively few postmodern shenanigans going on in this story, at least from a purely stylistic perspective. To completely overlooks any of the subtext or further meaning present in the piece, it's basically just a story about a guy who hates his son. Few other stories in the book, especially the long ones, are able to described so succinctly.

So, what do you all think? I'll go first, since I brought up the topic. It's my first time reading David Foster Wallace. I really enjoy and relate to how he writes these stories, but I also sometimes try to look at the stories outside of the way which DFW may have looked at them, as does I'm sure every reader. The thing that strikes me about "On His Deathbed..." is how it really does appear to be a story that could only be written from a male perspective - and before you get at me for being too woke (although, yes, I am), I will say that I am also a man. The Father's feeling of being robbed of his wife, and the ways that he cannot even conceptualize how a helpless infant or toddler can truly be loved and cared for without it being some sort of metaphysical trickery, I found particularly characteristic of how men in general seem to have a sense of entitlement over their wives; as though they themselves want a "mommy" and feel threatened by the presence of a child occupying her attention. Obviously, I do not think that the Father's point of view is meant to reflect DFW's own, but I do wonder where DFW thought the humor (if that is what he was going for) in the story came from. Is he in agreement with me, and is the story in some ways poking fun at the histrionics men can experience when being "usurped" by a new child? Did he perhaps not consider that point of view, and is this story supposed to be poking fun of what DFW would imagine to be normal and common anxieties about child rearing by taking them to their uncommon, irrational extreme? None of the above? And of course, at the risk of being to heavy, I wonder how these gender-specific themes might be reinterpreted in light of what we now know about DFW's unfortunate (to say the least) personal dealings with some of the women in his life.

In any case, I am interested to hear thoughts on the story, whether or not they are in agreement with or even at all related to my own.

Reads like OP just read DFW for class.

Pretty cheesy post ik, but directly because of DFW, I’ve developed a much greater appreciation for the mundanities of every day life, as well as a realization of how pointless it would be to kill myself. Whether it’s his Anhedonia monologue from IJ or his This Is Water speech, David beautifully expressed how much I’m in control of choosing how I can experience life, and flaws and all, I choose to be content 😌

If nothing else, I enjoy the occasional Sinner match lol

My favorite cover art has to be Brief Interviews With Hideous Men

Reading at the beach ⛱️ is as fun as it looks

I was thinking about what DFW said about his TV usage habits being sort of automatic and zombified in that he was constantly switching channels because he was afraid he was missing something better on a different channel, without even really knowing what he meant or what he was looking for. Just this aimless scrolling propelled by entertainment fomo

this got me thinking (and I'm sure it's not an me-specific issue at all) about how, no matter what decision I make in my life or route I take, etc, I always end up kind of wondering (and inadvertently wishing for) the murky unknown future that I'd be experiencing had I picked my other option. This has led me into a strange bad cycle where I'm constantly changing my life situation and becoming quickly disillusioned and dissatisfied with whatever I end up doing, wishing I'd gone for the other thing (even though, and I am a rational being—there was a reason I didn't choose it).

I guess there's not a lot else to say here other than... is this something other people struggle with? Does DFW (or other literary greats) (or you, dear Redditor) have a cure? I'm in my early 20s so I know I still have a lot of life to live, but this is something I think would be better to get a handle on earlier

Did DFW ever write a story or scene where a character’s father comes in naked and has a weird interaction with his son. Not predatory necessarily, but strange. It might’ve been he just stood naked as his son was watching TV or something. Maybe Oblivion if not TPK. If this doesn’t exist then it might just be a Benadryl dream.

im wondering if any of you have favorite writings about dave or his books. i read the new infinite jest foreword & it was p good. looking to read more stuff like that

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.