Is Veeky Forums's hatred of David Foster Wallace like /tv/'s hatred of Tarantino...

Is Veeky Forums's hatred of David Foster Wallace like /tv/'s hatred of Tarantino, in that he's actually a talentless hack who normies think is cool and talented; or is it like /mu/'s hatred of The Beatles, in that they're incredibly talented and influential people but the board is full of edgy contrarians?

He was a talented hack.

I feel sorry for people who understand culture only through these vague and pointless analogies. I feel even more sorry for people who don't understand that memes aren't literal.

He was the greatest writer who ever lived. It's nothing more than a meme

>non-answer
>pants-on-head retarded non-answer
>"it's nothing more than a meme and he's talented" answer
So he's talented? Is that what I should get from this?

>please, please tell me what to think

Read him and decide for yourself. His short stories should be a good place to start (Good Old Neon).

The tug-of-war between anons regarding the praise and slander of DFW reflects firstly the pervasive ambiguity of hivemind patterns here, secondly the tendency for morons here to bicker over poorly substantiated opinions, and lastly the remora like propensity of anons to either cling on to writers like DFW who they think represent highbrow literary prestige or tryhard highfalutin prevaricators

Veeky Forums doesn't actually hate DFW, but memeing Infinite Jest into the Veeky Forums mainstream was intentional, mainly to figure out who the true pseuds of the board were. His other work is actually okay. Not great, but okay.

He's honest to goodness pretty fucking shite and everything he tried to do was done better by guys like Delilo, Roth, Pynchon, etc.

I have read him. I just want to know what Veeky Forums thinks about him, and I can't tell if it's a /tv/ hatred they believe is deserved or a /mu/ hatred that's more of a joke.

>I refuse to state my own opinion and calling inquiries into it just people asking me how to think
Just kill yourself. In real life, you are shit. Die now.

>I have read him
well then share your thoughts or fuck off

solicitations for unreciprocated opinions not welcome

>Veeky Forums is a single entity
>/tv/ is a single entity
>/mu/ is a single entity
>I'm too autistic to tell when people are joking
>I need the approval of these boards to regulate my thinking

holy shit lad if you don't see the problem you're beyond help

If you've read him and still can't tell you should neck yourself. Form your own opinions and stick to them. Unless they're retarded.

Don't forget Barthelme and to a lesser extent Carver.

>Delillo
Fucking lol. The most overrated of all the pomo fucks.

The Beetles weren't good this can be proven by simple mathematics.

are you saying DFW was better than DeLillo at the whole "modern life is so odd and let me make a biting satire of it" thing? because if not delete your worthless post, because like your existence, it's totally irrelevant

His fiction is an atrocious mess of "dude vocabulary lmao"
His nonfiction isn't terrible, but reads like a 15-year-old HST fanboy's first assignment for journalism class
Also the Beatles were never good

lol. form your own opinions man

I think the trend across all fan boards is to be bored by or aggressively against the mainstream fluff (beatles, harry potter, comic book movies, farmville). When you delve deeply into an area you generally find a lot of stuff that's a lot more interesting than whatever reaches the front pages of magazines or prime-time tv. And it's not just contrarians bored by the beatles these days. That's music for old people and has little to do with what's happening in music now or for the last few decades. When either Paul or Ringo die, most kids won't care, because they won't know who either of them are. Popular music is shaped by what the kids listen to and create, not by what old people reminisce about.

The DFW stuff has a lot to do with him being an awkward young guy in dorky clothing, so a lot of us are looking into a mirror when we see him. He's certainly a lot closer to being like us than most authors.

this is water

>or is it like /mu/'s hatred of The Beatles, in that they're incredibly talented and influential people but the board is full of edgy contrarians?
>Beatles
>good
Okay fine
>influential
There was a lot of Beatles contemporary bands that had greater impact. /mu/ screechs because bands like TVU or Beach Boys don't get the praise they should because they were a lot more influential.

Tarantino is fine. To say that he's talentless is just mindlessly being contrarian.
The Beatles were way way more influential and had a greater impact than those two bands you mentioned. I like all three bands a lot, but those two don't compare

You're really bad at this :/

What does it mean to have talent? How do I know if someone is or is not a "talentless hack" do I just trust your opinion?

At what? At being a contrarian with no real opinion?

>The Beatles were way way more influential and had a greater impact than those two bands you mentioned
C'mon TVU&Nico spawned more genres alone than the whole of Beatles discog.

Also Tarantino is talented yeah but he is kind of a hack. He borrows too much from his inspirations. Fuck, Lady Snowblood anyone?

You're missing The Kinks, they're barely brought up compared to the Beatles, yet they were just as influential

Head-and-shoulders above every criticism against Wallace is the fact that his fiction is boring. People feel the need to intellectualize their hatred of him just because he was such a raging pseud. They're trying to pre-empt the "oh you just don't understand it" argument, which is completely irrelevant if his writing is so bland and tiresome to slog through.

inb4 the classic "it's supposed to be bad that's the point" pseud gambit

>pants-on-head-retarded

you sound like a faggot

>/mu/ hates The Beatles
>He fell for the copypasta meme
Lol you're such a fucking smoothbrain user

I don't know if I have ever seen a post more stupid than this one. Congrats on your (You)

In no aspect is DFW better than DeLillo.

Before any serious discussion of Infinite Jest can commence, it's important to establish a few things. When we talk about David Foster Wallace, we’re talking about a genius of the highest calibur. A man whose I.Q. could not be measured. Even the most prestigious I.Q. tests cap out at around 200. Beyond that, they get imprecise. So when we talk about Wallace, we really don’t know whether we’re dealing with a man with an I.Q. of 200 or 300 or what. When it comes to Wallace-tier geniuses, everything goes out the window. You see, Wallace could have entered any field he wanted. He was a real-life Will Hunting. He could’ve been a doctor or a lawyer, or both, if he wanted. He could’ve been a pioneer in physics. He could’ve been a codebreaker for the NSA. But no. He decided to be a writer. He decided to devote his life to aesthetic beauty and to illuminating for us the way to live. That was the beauty and the tragedy of his life. In one way, it’s a blessing to have been born in Wallace’s time, to be able to hear his voice in interviews, to hear him delivering his famous commencement speech, which is already transforming people both intellectually and spiritually. On the other hand, I will surely die before we know even half of the secrets buried within the labyrinth of Infinite Jest. That I consider a curse.

It’s been eighteen years since Infinite Jest was published and scholars have only begun to come to terms with its full implications. This is what you must understand. Wallace reverse-engineered not only the novel, but all of Western literature as well as language itself. Packed within Infinite Jest is Hamlet, The Brothers Karamazov, Gravity’s Rainbow, Ulysses, and everything else. Hell, it even serves as an overview of human history, from dawn to today. It's about 85% a history of Western philosophy as well. It’s a book you could spend a lifetime studying. A lifetime spent in bliss, no doubt. Indeed, it would be more worthwhile to spend one’s life reading and rereading Infinite Jest than to achieve being “well-read” in the traditional sense.

Of course we don't understand everything about the book yet. He knew things about life that we won’t discover for decades. Our job is merely to get on the road. In the decades to come, we may, if we’re lucky, discover scientific applications for the new paradigms of thought Wallace gave us. We may have to throw out science altogether. We simply don’t know yet. For now, we have to be content with our vanguard roles. We are the ones who will break the ground and loosen the soil for the Wallace’s future interpreters. This is not only our pleasure, but our duty.

I will never not laugh at the greatly deserved ridicule of this hack fraud. DFW will be remembered by posterity as the most incompetent snake oil salesman western literature has ever produced.

The only sincere act of his life was when he kicked away the chair. His life was nothing but a series of ironies and lies predicated on the the joke that is new sincerity. The big punchline was the creaking of the rafter and the piss trickling down his leg to the floor.

his epiphany that the only viable thing for him to do was to kill himself was the best thing to happen to literature in 30 years since he began writing because behind all the self aware gimmicks and self help books and the drugs and the audience pussy there was no discernible talent

this is true

>beatles
>incredibly talented and influential

nice pasta faggot

But Tarantino actually was talented and the Beatles, while not total hacks, aren't too special.

Wtf I hate the beatles now

Veeky Forums is filled with edgy atheists who believe in irony above all else

Veeky Forums is the anti-DFW

Paul was an exceptional bass player with a great vocal range, and was a great songwriter. Harrison was a phenomenal guitar player, especially on the slide, he later proved to be a great songwriter as well. (Look into the All Things Must Pass Album). And Ringo, although, not the most technical drummer, had perfect timing and a distinct sound. You could easily identity Ringo's drumming from other drummers. Lennon was an excellent songwriter and wasn't too shabby on the guitar either, (nowhere near as good as Harrison on the guitar, but still good).

The Beatles are Godly, and your bait is weak.

are people this deluded that they cant imagine their favorite band being disliked?

Yet all they produced was simple, predictable pop rock. Not that they weren't good at that; they were. But good isn't great.

No, it's when people make asinine statements like "The Beatles aren't incredibly talented and influential", are people perplexed.

You say good, I say great, but what I am not saying is greatest. I simply recognize them for what I, and many other believe them to be. Do I understand that there were many other more technically proficient groups, and musicians? Of course. But, they don't take away from the greatness of the Beatles.

TVU was taking tricks from the beatles. The Beatles invented the deliberate use of feedback in a rock record. The Beatles invented the TVU.

>"The Beatles aren't incredibly talented and influential"
they were influential, they ruined all pop music.

and if anyone can defend glass onion, please do so.

dude what lol ther was no pop music to ruin, if anything they invented it

>The Beatles invented the deliberate use of feedback in a rock record. The Beatles invented the TVU.
>White Album came out in '68
>TVU&Nico came out in '67
Sure thing bud. Their first mianstream experimental album that created TVU came after TVU started, yeah sure thing.

Why do so many old people stagnate and just listen to the same music for decades? Doesn't it get boring listening to the same playlist on repeat on the local classic rock station?

As early as a couple years ago people were worshipping him. If lit hates him now then it's just a dialectic reaction

I Feel Fine came out in 1965, dumbass. While John Lennon was bringing guitar music to heights that would influence the course of history and art, Lou Reed was writing novelty jingles for little kids

He was bold, edgy, and unpredictable. It was like a meteor hitting landing on the bottom of the ocean, creating a large literary wave of brilliance that was felt by everyone intelligent enough to understand his message. He redefined what it meant to be a writer. Not only was his style verbose, it was also deep. Every word - and I mean EVERY WORD - was there for a reason, making the reader feel a certain je ne sais quoi. I'd put him right up there with Faulkner, Joyce, and Tolstoy.

Seriously, the man was on another level. I can't believe he killed himself. Why did he do that? He had so much more to offer the world, like a 1000 page epic about the modern day political climate. Imagine what Wallace could've done with the craziness that has enveloped politics in 2017... it would have been insane.

Wallace had it all, really. He was smart, witty, experienced, and most of all, highly observant. The way he could make the most banal of situations seem like a once in a lifetime experience is something that will always impress me. How he could take the ordinary and point out the small details that differentiated it from other seemingly ordinary moments.

Wallace loved life, until he realized that life didn't love him back. His story, no, OUR story is one of false promises and misunderstood relations. As sad as it is to say, Wallace never reached his full potential. Sure, he wrote one of the greatest novels in history and cemented himself as one of the all time greats, but he never reached the lengths he could've. We will never get another David Foster Wallace.

Never read any of his shit though haha.

You're a robot. Not a human being. Maybe a parrot more like. Something that only consumes and regurgitates half understood things

why bother reading someone who couldn't even live with himself. the only sincere moment in the life of David Foster wallace was when he kicked away the chair. the rest of his life was a lie, the new sincerity was a joke whose punchline was the creaking of a leather belt around the rafter.
his literary career was a menagerie of self help lies told to keep his depression at bay. the audience pussy and drugs were the ghosts at that feast of hypocrisy. the depression was warranted because behind all the gimmicks and the self awareness and the bandannas was no discernible talent

/mu doesnt hate the Beatles

Wow What a litterate post MR author

>Never read any of his shit though haha.
LMAO

Well done

Are you seriously arguing that TVU is better than the Beatles? Lou Reed was a hack. If anything Ray Davies was the greatest pop songwriter of the period. Waterloo Sunset alone is much more beautiful than Jesus or Pale Blue Eyes for example.

Yes, that's actually spot on.

thank you, i pride myself on my literacy. did you like my use of the words remora and prevaricators? they're 'big' and obscure, but my usage of them unequivocally establishes the merit of my opinion. sesquipedalianism = legitimacy 100.1%

The Beatles fucking suck though. Tarantino is pure contrarians and kids trying to fit in.

>people assuming when I say TVU I mean Reed
I'm talking about John Cale you cockmunchers, Reed only assumed total control over the band after Loaded.

And yeah they put out a song with a twang in 65 but when did they started using it deliberately throughout a full album? White Album, '68.

The Beatles are actually shit and you know this so here is your (you)

2/10, made me reply

He could arrange letters like no other and took the game hangman to a new level.