>You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.
>But Stephen King is Cervantes compared with David Foster Wallace. We have no standards left. Wallace seems to have been a very sincere and troubled person, but that doesn’t mean I have to endure reading him. I even resented the use of the term from Shakespeare, when Hamlet calls the king’s jester Yorick, ‘a fellow of infinite jest.'
What did he mean by this?
Don't you know he changed his mind recently?
>I've been reading Infinite Jest all day, which has been totally enjoyable and I'm thinking about how easy it becomes to dehumanize the creator or fans of something extremely popular. I've done this, too. I made fun of Infinite Jest without even having read it. I'm sorry for that, and embarrased.
>When we make fun of Infinite Jest, we're ridiculing the enthusiasm people have for new sincerety. Have we nothing better to satirize? Yes, you can read no discernible talent into the writing, but tens of millions of people have also proven you don't HAVE to. Do we really believe that tens of millions of people who found themselves comforted and inspired by these stories are merely wrong? Isn't our disdain FAR more insincere than anything in the stories?
>Art that is entertaining and useful to people is a good thing to have in this world. And I'm grateful for it and celebrate it. So big ups to the Infinite Jest fandom, and to David Foster Wallace, who has been relentlessly attacked professionally and personally over Infinite Jest in ways that authors of bloated period pieces never are. I'm gonna go back to reading books now.
>>7646650
>big ups
What did he mean by this?
>>7646650
Seriously, there is something catastrophically wrong with John Green.
