|
General Updates
|
|
Monday, 26 July 2010 |
|
The real person who appears in Wallace's essay under the pseudonym "Harold Hecuba" was/is my friend Evan Wright, who gives a brief account of how he came to meet Wallace in the introduction to his latest collection of journalism, Hella Nation. [...] Wright, who at the time of this meeting was on the staff of Hustler magazine, and trying rather desperately to get leave the staff of Hustler magazine, also discusses his initial befuddlement at some of Wallace's references (the two in fact became pretty fast friends not too long after first meeting, though) ...
|
|
General Updates
|
|
Thursday, 22 July 2010 |
Consider the Archive: An Evening of David Foster Wallace, 9/14, UT Jessen Auditorium, reception at Harry Ransom Center. Readers include: Elizabeth Crane, Jake Silverstein, Owen Egerton, Doug Dorst, and Chris Gibson. Readings from the DFW archive at the University of Texas' Harry Ransom Center.
|
|
DFW Biography
|
|
Thursday, 22 July 2010 |
Veronica Rueckert interviewed David Lipsky and Amy Wallace-Havens for Wisconsin Public Radio on July 16. It's a good interview to listen to because both Lipsky and Wallace-Havens are given a good amount of air-time to reflect and respond to questions.
|
|
General Updates
|
|
Saturday, 17 July 2010 |
Check out a round table over at The Morning News about sports writing, Paper Tigers, where David Foster Wallace's contributions end up getting quite a mention, including: Katie Baker: [...] But the piece that grabbed me and never let go is “The String Theory” by David Foster Wallace, which is ostensibly about a young professional tennis player named Michael Joyce qualifying for a tournament but is really about T-shirts and physics and IQ and exponents and how much Wallace hates Agassi (“his domination…doesn’t make me like him any better; it’s more like it chills me, as if I’m watching the devil play.”) It’s the glorious opposite of the sport’s typically bubbly coverage. When you’re reading Wallace, tennis has never been more relatable or more melancholy. “The applause of a tiny crowd,” Wallace writes, “is so small and sad and tattered-sounding that it’d almost be better if people didn’t clap at all.” Nic Brown: [...] But my favorite is going to have to be “Federer as Religious Experience,” the essay David Foster Wallace published in the New York Times Magazine in 2006, concerning—of course—the tennis star Roger Federer. It wasn’t until well after reading it that I realized Wallace wrote the entire piece without ever once interviewing the subject. I think it was his most generous work—to himself, and to the reader. It seemed like he was having fun, not something I associate with much else of his work. He also just knew so much about the subject and was so damn smart that it made every sentence leap screaming off the page. Again, the piece was excellent because it was really about beauty, obsession, precision, and the mysteries of the human condition. It just also happened to be about tennis as well.
|
|
DFW Biography
|
|
Friday, 02 July 2010 |
|
Reminder Post:
D.T. Max (of the March 09 New Yorker article, The Unfinished) is currently working on a biography of David Foster Wallace and he's requested your help. If you can, I encourage you to help out: "I'm working on a biography of David Foster Wallace for Viking Press. If you ever spent time with Wallace or he ever sent you a letter or postcard, I'd like to hear from you. Please contact me at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Thank you, Daniel Max"
(This will pop-up once a week for the next few weeks as a reminder, it would be great if any of you are able to help out)
|
|
|
General Updates
|
|
Wednesday, 14 July 2010 |
|
Question: David Foster Wallace – as an American writer, what is your opinion now that he has died? Answer: Is it too soon? It’s too soon right? Well i don’t rate him. The journalism is pedestrian, the stories scattered and full of that Mid-Western faux-sentimentality and Infinite Jest is unreadable. His life story and his battle with depression however is really quite touching…
Jan-Erik over at wallace-l reminded me about Larry McCaffery's 1993 interview with David Foster Wallace: LM: In your own case, how does this hostility manifest itself? DFW: Oh, not always, but sometimes in the form of sentences that are syntactically not incorrect but still a real bitch to read. Or bludgeoning the reader with data. Or devoting a lot of energy to creating expectations and then taking pleasure in disappointing them. You can see this clearly in something like Ellis’s "American Psycho": it panders shamelessly to the audience’s sadism for a while, but by the end it’s clear that the sadism’s real object is the reader herself. LM: But at least in the case of "American Psycho" I felt there was something more than just this desire to inflict pain—or that Ellis was being cruel the way you said serious artists need to be willing to be. DFW: You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporary condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, materialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any writer) can get away with slapping together stories with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descriptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad writing—flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad writing becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentary on the badness of everything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid everything is? In dark times, the definition of good art would seem to be art that locates and applies CPR to those elements of what’s human and magical that still live and glow despite the times’ darkness. Really good fiction could have as dark a worldview as it wished, but it’d find a way both to depict this world and to illuminate the possibilities for being alive and human in it. You can defend "Psycho" as being a sort of performative digest of late-eighties social problems, but it’s no more than that.
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>
|