DFW BTFO

>probably by a female author
>check
>it is

>The book also draws attention to Wallace's less productive failures with regard to gender, race, and the body.

fucking cunt i hate women FUCK I WANT TO KILL ALL FUCKING CUNTS

literary critics should all go die in a fire

yes

There are many things wrong with DFW but post-colonial sensitivity is not one of them.

>gender, race, and the body
heh
every single time
(how do they do it?)

this book makes me want to actually go and read DFW, wtf

fuck that lady

Who is interested in debating if DFW's work can be more considered a "failure" under some strange quantifier? I wonder what kind of audience this thing has.

When did this come out? What's the deal.
> link please

Every single person who's been deeply offended by the "audience pussy" thing but still thinks they can't get away with disregarding DFW's social capital in the lit world

Can have a saintly White Male now can we. Wonder if a book shitting all over Simone Du Beauvoir's spastic theories of reproduction, which definitely failed to describe the body, would ever get a publishing deal.

ITT: Butt-hurt early 20s middle class mediocre white males

>tfw pussy game so legit bitches be writing entire novels about you

NO DISCERNIBLE TALENT

This post is creepy and disgusting

Creepy! Eww!

Being serious nobody actually reads borevoir, they just buy the books their Prof tells them to for their 123 fake degree credit and skim for a few quotes come the night before essays are due.

I've apparently access to it online through my uni's library, here's the bulk of the abstract as it appears on Bloomsbury
>She argues that Wallace’s work is most unified by its resistance to closure, which pervades the structural, narrative and stylistic elements of his writing. Taking a broadly thematic approach to the numerous types of ‘failure’, or lack of completion, visible throughout his work, the book offers a framework within which to read Wallace’s work as a coherent whole, rather than split along the lines of fiction versus non-fiction, or pre- and post-Infinite Jest, two critical positions that have become dominant over the last five years. While demonstrating the centrality of ‘failure’, the book also explores Wallace’s approach to sincere communication as a recurring response to what he saw as the inane, self-absorbed commodification of language and society, along with less explored themes such as gender, naming and heroism.
To my mind this is much, much better at presenting the book, and while I'm browsing through her conclusion it doesn't seem like much focus was placed on the buzzwords in the other abstract overall, but on the other hand the single section on gender seems to be just as bad as you'd expect.

>Commun(al)ity

Why do academics do this? Ditto on the three word alliterative title. Hate that.

>://www.baas.ac[.]uk/usso/book-review-the-unspeakable-failures-of-david-foster-wallace-by-clare-hayes-brady/

> Two moves are fundamental to the book’s success, allowing Hayes-Brady to draw together a wide range of topics (many of which would not be intuitively associated with the unspeakable) under this unifying theoretical umbrella. The first is the division of failure in Wallace into three types: “abject,” (a complete failure to communicate); “structural,” (the failure of a communication process); and “generative” (the nature of communication as necessarily unfinished). This taxonomy ensures that the many examples and close readings provided throughout are always tied to a particular type of failure, preventing the thesis from becoming amorphous. The second move is a reframing of Wallace’s philosophical influences as “encounters” rather than “adherence,” allowing for Wallace’s tendency to take what he needed from philosophies and modify it to his own needs, rather than wholeheartedly committing to dogmas.

> The book’s most vital chapter is its last, which takes the theoretical framework that has been constructed and applies it to Wallace’s treatment of gender. Pointing out that the feminine in Wallace is often found in absences at the center of texts, such as the elusive titular film in Infinite Jest (1996), or ‘Q.,’ the silent interviewer at the heart of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (1999). In this sense, Wallace frequently describes women in terms of their effects on men. Here, Hayes-Brady adeptly criticizes Wallace for his moral failures on issues such as gender and race, his occasional dehumanizing of the “other,” and his apparent incapacity to write about successful love.

>random barely literatre jewish female trying to shit on the most talented contemporary novelist/essayist simply because he's white

will they never stop

She fails to mention he is classist and the fact of his overt disdain for the poor.

it is very likely that she owns one those huge anime pillows with DFW's face pinned on it.

never

I really cant think of a bigger failure than writing a book about an authors failure.

...

Unironically this.

true

Then how would Veeky Forums know which authors to circlejerk over?

lol triggered

To be fair, it's more than a qualitative assessment of bandanna mememan's writing:
>The purpose of writing—which, as he pointed out regarding Markson, can also function as a literalization of philosophical theories—is not to find closure, but to resist it, to frame the possibilities of meaning, not to achieve, and so to close them. Failure, then, read as the absence of closure, is the primary positivity of Wallace’s writing.
And some lines later
>It is perhaps somewhat disingenuous to call a book of this nature The Unspeakable Failures of David Foster Wallace. However, the term “failure” is carefully chosen, and refers to a range of attributes, including the many very real shortcomings in Wallace’s writing. Failure itself was a recurrent theme of the writing...
(From the introduction)
At least this way, failure sounds like an interesting enough concept to warrant a read, though the section on gender does look misguided and antagonistic. So far I've only read Infinite Meme, Consider the Lobster and A Supposedly Fun Thing, and the Oblivion collection, but I hope I'll return and read this after I'm through more of DFW.

Thanks for Correcting the Record!

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail better.

I thought this was a forum for literature.

what does it mean if I'm the opposite of this

It's an English department trope. They think it's clever.

so just more deconstructionist onanism then

>t. someone with no experience in academics

A fuck ton of books are written about other people's writing in the academic world and to call them all failures is absurd

secondary literature is worthless

Definitely, here's her bibliography
pastebin.com/ZbPLyzdY
Sure

Wholly appropriate to DFW, honestly.

...

>Wallace's less productive failures with regard to gender, race, and the body

And people are wondering why opinative boards are turning into /pol/. Political correctness HAS to stop.

Back in the day, the author had to die for the book to live. Now the entire public has to die.

Why the fuck should an author be concerned with the special snowflake nonsense roaming the minds of political aggregates of imbeciles called vitimological groups?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Is this picture an optical illusion or am I just on acid?

After reading this I'm unironically interested.

>The book also draws attention to Wallace's less productive failures with regard to gender, race, and the body.
>gender,
>race,
>and the body.

Oh my fucking god I was gonna post this.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE