|
DFW Biography
|
|
Wednesday, 21 April 2010 |
|
Some have complained that Lipsky himself was too present in the text, that he peeks in with a too-high frequency with brief bracketed interpolations. I found the interjections helpful and well-meaning where others have found them self-serving and annoying.
The deeper into the book I got, the more pages I dog-eared, so that by the end, I figured I might as well just enlist the help of a strong friend and fold the corner of the whole book down on itself. The two men talk about movies, parties, fame, loneliness, the genesis of Infinite Jest, and much more, and it’s all riveting. | | No comments for this item |
|
General Updates
|
|
Wednesday, 21 April 2010 |
|
If you’ve never read DFW before, here’s a list of the highlights—and if you have opened one of his books, you probably already know it’s almost all highlights. David Wallace had the rarest gift for a writer. He made you feel smarter while and after you read him. He’s like a mental vitamin pill. And it’s not the kind of brightness that makes you feel stubby, the brightness of the kid who keeps raising a hand in class. It’s a brilliance that welcomes you, that says, “I know you noticed this, come over here and be smart with me.” Wallace was aware of this, too. He said, “What writers have is a license and also the freedom to sit—to sit, clench their fists, and make themselves be excruciatingly aware of the stuff that we’re mostly aware of only on a certain level. And if the writer does his job right, what he basically does is remind the reader of how smart the reader is. Is to wake the reader up to stuff that the reader’s been aware of all the time.” David Wallace’s work is a wake-up pill, a slug of coffee; that’s what the following stories, essays and novels stories are like. | | No comments for this item |
|
DFW Biography
|
|
Saturday, 17 April 2010 |
|
While the book is interesting and yields neat stuff that makes you appreciate Wallace's humanity – he surprisingly asks Lipsky what “seigneurial” means – the problem is that the interview hasn't been silently corrected: It's full of gaffes. I know it's Wallace unplugged, but it's vexing to read pages of “I mean I know, you know, I mean I . . .” or “and uh, so, so no.” [...] Still, it's nice to have Wallace's brainvoice in your head, and Lipsky does turn up some finds. That Wallace loved velvety cotton and consequently appropriated his sister's softer blouses; that he felt inferior to novelist William T. Vollmann; that he was a towel boy at a private club and a security guard for Lotus Software Corp. (after two books and O. Henry and Whiting awards!). Also, that he never heard of Kurt Cobain until after Cobain's suicide, drank two six-packs of pop a day, loved Enya's music and burned for Alanis Morissette. - | | No comments for this item |
|
DFW Archive
|
|
Thursday, 15 April 2010 |
|
What's notable about the list is that along with many three-dollar words that seem rather difficult to pronounce (witenagemot), DFW also marked up more run-of-the-mill entries like the ones for bisque and tennis. Tennis, as anyone who's read Infinite Jest knows well, was of great interest to DFW, who also played the sport competitively. Did he circle bisque while writing Consider the Lobster? We'll never know. - I love that pleonasm is one of his circled words because (as well as being a great word) it is one of the word research options on an assignment I set for high school students. Update: Juv3nal's Wordnik version of the list links each one to it's definition and usage examples. | | No comments for this item |
|
DFW Biography
|
|
Tuesday, 13 April 2010 |
|
New reviews of David Lipsky's book: Ned Resnikoff's review for Wunderkammer Magazine, Consider the Author: Before I go any further, I should probably let you know whom this book is for: primarily, hardcore Jest-heads (as if there is any other kind). If you don’t like or haven’t read any Wallace, than obviously this book has very little to offer you. Fans of his non-fiction might be able to glean something of value from it, but they won’t get the full experience. To the extent that a conversation as fragmented and wide-ranging as the one recorded in this book can be said to be about anything specific, it is about the place from which Infinite Jest came. Lee Ellis' review for The New Yorker, On the Road: Lipsky’s book is an insightful and sometimes frustrating five-day conversation with Foster Wallace. A conversation that likely wouldn’t be in print were it not for Foster Wallace’s death, by suicide, in 2008. It’s hard not to read the book as a series of clues or portents of that event. Discussing his reasons for turning from philosophy (Foster Wallace once applied for graduate studies in the field) and toward writing, he says, ” ‘Cause see, by this time, my ego’s all invested in the writing, right? It’s the only thing that I’ve gotten, you know, food pellets from the universe for, to the extent that I wanted. Seth Colter Walls' review for Newsweek, My Dinners With David: Wallace's fans will have to be judicious in coming years about the volumes that will promise one more encounter with that indelible voice, although Lipsky's book more than passes the test of being in good taste. Conversely, for readers unfamiliar with the sometimes intimidating Wallace oeuvre, Lipsky has provided a conversational entry point into the writer's thought process. It's odd to think that a book about Wallace could serve both the newbies and the hard-cores, but here it is.
| | No comments for this item |
|
|
DFW Biography
|
|
Wednesday, 14 April 2010 |
|
It will either drive you mad, or you will love it for all its messiness. One thing is certain: If you didn’t already love Wallace, this book will make you love him.There are things here that fans or friends may take umbrage with: disclosures Wallace himself might not have appreciated (his comments about other writers); possible outcomes of the book tour (you’ll have to read the boook to find out); and asides that could detract, if you let them.
But focus on the book’s form or its hiccups and you will miss its purpose. Lipsky, I believe, is being purposefully messy or expansive, a critique some reviewers made of “Infinite Jest.”
The purpose is to get us inside Wallace’s head, and Lipsky takes us there. More aptly, he doesn’t interrupt Wallace as he takes us there. We get to see every synapse firing. - | | No comments for this item |
|
|
