oh my
he's just smelly jelly
He's right, you know. The hagiography around DFW is fucking awful. It's one of the main reasons I absolutely despise Franzen.
Also, American Psycho is better and more literary than anything Wallace ever wrote.
>>7885893
no it's not
Is he self aware? All those tweets just make him seem pathetically jealous
All those things also apply to Bret himself
BEE isn't a literary giant but he's right about DFW. Whether he's fueled by jealousy/envy or not, his observations on DFW/DFW fandom is quite correct.
im just really amused by his initials being bee. i could give a shit about anything else about this post though. haha bee
BEE is a fucking retard
he's only known because some broad used his mediocre Piss Christ of a "COMMENTARY ON 1980S CULTURE!!!! LOOK, IT'S A COMMENTARY ON 1980S CULTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" book as source material and made an actual piece of art out of it
whatever DFW was or wasn't at least he was known on his own merits even before his suicide
Ellis is as hollow and phony as his "characters". And he isn't a writer.
>>7885884
based. gonna pick up a BEE book because of this, which one should it be?
>>7885949
it's gotta be Bee, by BEE, b
>>7885949
The only one worth reading is American Psycho.
>>7885949
there all shit [sic]
>>7885949
bee book
>>7885884
Is BEE still butthurt that he was BTFO by DFW in Fictional Futures and the Conspicuously Young?
>>7885982
what's this? do explain
>>7885982
>Is BEE still butthurt that he was BTFO by DFW
This would be a confusing sentence to a grandma
>>7885912
Undercooked toast
Regardless of your dfw opinions ellis is himself nothing great. Perhaps he should consider going into criticism instead as he's not offering anything great to literature
>>7885953
what do you call the ghost of a bee?a BOO-BEE
those aren't even valid criticisms and he's just spouting typical liberal-tier claims without evidence. he also seems unhealthily obsessed with dfw
>>7886030
But that chestlet never had them to begin with.
>>7886056
bee
>>7885884
BEE is a non-entity.
>Ellis, Bret Easton: Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.
>>7886129
kek
>>7885893
We know its you BEE
>>7885931
i totally agree it's heavy-handed satire, but it's satire with good prose. and he was known way before American Psycho. Less Than Zero was huge.
I hope Ellis gets AIDS.
>>7886129
tru
Why do writers hate each other so much?
Why can't we all just be friends? It's not like anyone but a niche audience reads their books anyways.
>complains about the "millennial generation" uses social media just to complain
>uses social media just to complain
http://www.vice.com/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview
Is the inherent narcissism in queer culture the reason they take aging so badly?
>>7886421
is this 4 realsies?
>>7885931
>implying DFW wasn't just ""COMMENTARY ON 1990S CULTURE!!!! LOOK, IT'S A COMMENTARY ON 1990S CULTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "
>>7885893
>American Psycho is better and more literary than anything Wallace ever wrote.
lolno
>>7885884
>DFW
>conservative
kekekekek
>>7886459
He actually was, although he wouldn't have admitted it on pain of death. He voted for Reagan.
bumble bee
>dfw fans this assblasted
>>7885884
He's absolutely right.
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.
>>7886056
We don't judge Anscombe's On Moral Philosophy to the same standards as say Spinoza's Ethics because they are meant to do different things in a different scope.
Complaining that someone didn't create an iron clad argument on twitter is like expecting detailed responses on 4chan, complete with inline citations (with page numbers) and adhering to academic formatting. It's not only unrealistic it's not what the medium is for.
>>7886655
So the medium is for content-free signaling and shitposting, gotcha
>>7886655
>We don't judge Anscombe's On Moral Philosophy to the same standards
You mean "Modern Moral Philosophy"?
>>7886004
>For instance, it’s not hard to see that the trendy
Ultraminimalism favored by too many C.Y. writers is deeply influenced by the aesthetic
norms of mass entertainment. Indeed, this fiction depends on what’s little more than a
crude inversion of these norms. Where television, especially its advertising, presents
everything in hyperbole, Ultraminimalism is deliberately flat, understated, “undersold.”
Where TV seeks everywhere to render its action either dramatic or melodramatic, to
move the viewer by displaying constant movement, the Minimalist describes an event
as one would an object, a geometric form in stasis; and he always does so from an emo-
tional remove of light years. Where television does and must aim always to please, the Catatonic writer hefts something of a finger at subject and reader alike: one has only toread a Bret Ellis sex scene (pick a page, any page) to realize that here pleasure is neither a subject nor an aim. My own aversion to Ultraminimalism, I think, stems from its
naive pretension. The Catatonic Bunch seem to feel that simply by inverting the values
imposed on us by television, commercial film, advertising, etc., they can automatically
achieve the aesthetic depth popular entertainment so conspicuously lacks. Really, of
course, the Ultraminimalists are no less infected by popular culture than other C.Y.
writers: they merely choose to define their art by opposition to their own atmosphere.
The attitude betrayed is similar to that of lightweight neo-classicals who felt that to be
non-vulgar was not just a requirement but an assurance of value, or of insecure scholars
who confuse obscurity with profundity. And it’s just about as annoying.
kekkles
he was allegedly drunk (and probably on coke) writing this, hence the lack of self awareness
this article is much more differentiated and he has some points
https://medium.com/@breteastonellis/thoughts-on-david-foster-wallace-and-the-end-of-the-tour-by-bret-easton-ellis-fc9ba2d76d84#.9tk2mcelb
>>7886421
> the talentless hack's talentless hack
top kek
BEE wrote the most factually retarded version of a crack overdose in LTZ.
If any of you read AP, count the instances of the phrase 'nameless dread.'
I don't even know who that guy is. So I guess DFW is a better writer than he is.
>>7887064
oh I read further and figured out he was the American Psycho writer. k.
>>7886443
yeah norm rekt him
>>7885884
still salty that DFW shit on American Psycho
>>7886421
>the talentless hack's talentless hack
I'm stealing that one. When the hell is the podcast coming back?
>>7885931
kek
>>7885884
DFW is shit but so is BEE.
>>7886421
k e k
ellis is dogshit. those criticisms are just insecurities about his own hack writing.
>>7887155
This is what I wanna know.
>>7886703
>tfw dfw BTFOs your writing style
>>7886703
spot on, no wonder he's still mad
>>7886698
Words aren't all I'll put in your mouth fuckboi
>>7886703
p sad that he has to group writers based on a meaningless term. every writer is different.
>>7886436
yes
t. gay
>>7885884
I am NOT a fan of Wallace. I think he did take lots of Pynchon, Gaddis, and perhaps even Ellis, but to say writers aren't going to be influenced by other writers is complete bullshit (sort of like musicians never revealing their influences)
But he's definitely wrong in his analysis of DFW. I don't think he was an embarrassment to literature, i actually think he was a positive. I don't think DFW was pretentious, but this Ellis guy sure is. DFW- conservative? lol?
Calling DFW a fraud? It's obvious that he was able to achieve some sort of greatness, since it triggered this twitter rant.
Fuck this guy
>>7886421
based norm.
>>7888126
>a meaningless term.
he defines it in the passage you numbnut
>reading any novel by a 21st century author
>ever
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.
>>7885893
Yes and absolutely no
>>7886421
what a white knight fagt
>>7885893
lmao what does franzen has to do with that?
>>7889653
>the reader herself
>>7889823
Readers are female, like boats and women.
>>7889840
Shitlord
>>7886414
writers hate everyone for the most part, why would other writers be the exception
I think Franzen has made some attempts to chip away at the idea of Saint Dave, actually, but he's not going to slam the guy any more than you would slam one of your dead friends.
>>7886129
anyone have a cap of the original post?
>>7885938
>>7889872
bump
