I like watching interviews with DFW and find myself infatuated with what he has to say...

Try his essays or short fiction first.

huge david foster wallace here but no, not worth it.

i'm thinking of getting his bio myself, every love story is a ghost story...

It's terribly written. It contains the most convoluted and difficult-to-follow proofs of the irrationality of the square root of 2 that I've ever seen, a proof which is supposed to be so simple its pretty much universally used as the first example of proof by contradiction.
The book is about the most interesting episode in the history of mathematics, as well as all the philosophical "backstory" to the episode. Its one of the most popular subjects in "pop mathematics" so it shouldn't be hard to find a better book. It should only be read if you're interested in DFW rather than the subject matter.

t. mathematician

Metal gear!?

The Pale King is the ideal DFW, everything he believed that the novel should be, philosophically . Good Old Neon or the story Oblivion is the closest that I felt to his real psyche, with all of the bitterness, loneliness, and labyrinthine thought loops.

>yfw yurz t'ruly was dfw

Don't get that biography - it contains little new information and is massively underwhelming. Anything interesting about the man he either said or wrote himself.

I see a lot of people interested in Infinite Jest here. Some people are eager to jump in, others are intimidated. I've read the book about eleven times, so I just want say a few words and address people who are thinking about reading it or are just beginning.

Before you embark on your journey into the mind of a genius, you have to understand a few things that are very important. When we talk about David Foster Wallace, we’re talking about a man whose I.Q. could not be measured. Past 200, I.Q. tests get imprecise. We don’t know whether we’re dealing with a man with an I.Q. of 200 or 300 or what. We can’t measure it. When it comes to Wallace-tier geniuses, the standard tests simply don’t apply. 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 a book you could spend a lifetime studying. A lifetime spent in bliss, no doubt. 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.

You must understand that, on your first time through, you will not understand everything Wallace is trying to communicate to you. Don’t worry. He knew things about life that we won’t discover for decades. Your 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 ways of thinking Wallace gave us. We may have to throw out science altogether. We simply don’t know. 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 Wallace’s future interpreters. This is not only our pleasure, but our duty. And for that, as Wallace famously said, "I wish you way more than luck."

wew

Just add some stupid subjective interpretations that you can't get out of your read while you're reading and that's basically every foreword I've ever read.

...

fk off dude he was a regular guy

I still don't understand what new sincerity actually is.

You have to read Brief Interviews with Hideous Men.

If you enjoy what he has to say about irony in contemporary postmodern culture, you'll enjoy BIWHM. Several of the stories are examples to prove his points about things like irony and cliche in storytelling, the problems/limits of metatextual writing, and above all psychology and neuroses in 1990s society (which are incredible, as they are of even greater relevance now than at the time of writing).
Some of the book can be quite tedious to read. A lot of the short stories have this same plot structure of:
>Starting with some psychological quirk in a character
>Describing in increasing, repetitive detail a concentric vortex of reasons why the character is completely unable to escape this quirk
>The character's life becomes totally impossible to live under this psychological vortex,
>Then they killed themselves :)
There are definitely a few failures amongst the short stories but I would HIGHLY recommend picking it up. Or at least start with "The Depressed Person", or the final "Brief Interview" in the book (about a hippie being raped).

Let's talk about film adaptations.

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men was obviously a mistake.

The End of the Tour was great, but not an adaptation.

I don't see how IJ is ever going to be made into a movie unless they just focus on a couple of plot lines but that's doesn't work.

Pale King could be interesting but it would be hard getting the ideas across since they're a bit difficult to portray using actors.

Brief Inteviews with Hideous Men shows some of his flaws as a human being/a writer. And I mean that in the way he breaks the fourth wall, and makes a note about how shitty it is that he's making a meta-commentary about his own writing, but is doing so anyway. Which kind of incites a plethora of emotions depending on how you take it.

IJ would never work as a film, it would have to be a television show (which, unironically, I think DFW would have supported). I have no idea how you would incorporate the footnotes and information overload though.

Broom of the System would be the only work that would make sense as a film.

I think, no joke, Tarantino would do an amazing job on this film.

Here's why.

First of all he knows how to fragment movies with non-chronological scenes, random cuts - think the anime scene in Kill Bill or the Samuel Jackson voice over in the Hateful Eight.

He also knows how to work with intertwined story lines (Pulp Fiction) and telling a story without being explicit, this is important when trying to portray The Entertainment (the tape) or Joelle (the prettiest girl in the world), like he did with Reservoir Dogs.

There's also a lot of pop culture references, drugs, violence and generally long, everyday type conversations.

It would either be a massive failure or it could really work.

Tarantino doesn't know how to make a subtle film, nor can he seem to portray psychological profiles other than his normal loud tropes. Part of his trademark style is his bluntness. It's hard for me to imagine Tarantino doing Mario any justice without just making him an idiot-savant.

It's true that they both share a love and understanding for America's television obsession, but that's not really enough.

If we're talking big directors, only Paul Thomas Anderson could do it. He was taught by DFW after all, and has consistently proven that he's able to handle multi-narrative works. Even if DFW hated it, there are few films that are as close thematically to DeLilo's or DFW's work as Anderson's Magnolia. And given that he adapted Pynchon, I have a feeling the dude has a serious love for his Pomos.

Robert Altman might've been able to do it as well (I would have fucking killed for an Altman adaption of JR), but he's dead.

Let's not forget that Wallace thought of Tarantino as more or less a cheap, Hollywood knock-off of David Lynch.

Wow didn't know PTA was a student of DFW. Yes he would be a good pick. Charlie Kaufman too now that I think of it.

Inherent Vice though... that film was hard to follow. All I remember is straining my brain for 3 hours just trying to follow the plot.

Yeah, he took Wallace's english class, apparently called him up one night for an extension on his White Noise essay. DFW was suppoedly going to write a book about Porn, but then Boogie Nights came out and did exactly what he wanted to do.

>All I remember is straining my brain for 3 hours just trying to follow the plot.
That's why it was good. Captured the confusion and paranoia of the book pretty well. I hope he does more adaptations of books in the future.

Yeah, well, he's a cheap, Hollywood knock-off of Don DeLillo, so it all evens out.

>DFW never got to cover Trump's election
>DFW never got to see the new Twin Peaks

Please respond .

irony was overdone in postmodernism lit. it's cliche. avoid it. that's it.

in one of his interviews he was asked this same question and he told the reporter that it was in a sense like his safety blaket.

well that's retarded and wallace was retarded and I bet you're also retarded. so lets not forget that either.

New sincerity for david foster wallace was overcoming the need to hide behind irony. irony is often used as a shield to protect yourself from the potential judgment of others. it doesnt have to be literarrly but just thinking that you are being judged so in a sense new sincerity was for DFW going back to accepting or putting forward the things you before hid behind irony. but if we are talking about new sincerity in literature or art in general it was about still adressing the topics that in post modernism became cheeasy or cliche and were deemed cheap but adresing them in a new way that isnt as superficial as they were in the past. he's wor is a great example of how to take simple cliche thing as a one night stand and make it very deep and meaningfull. i highly recomand you to read (or listen i think its still on youtube) his work named interviews with hidious men exerpt 20 this is one of his best creations if you ask me.

Read A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, especially the last essay on American culture and irony

Or any of his essays, for that matter. They're all pretty personal. Especially:
>How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart
and my personal favorite
>Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff About Choice, Freedom, Limitation, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness
Which will make you believe that Tennis is a gift from god and the peak of performative activity.

started IJ yesterday, and as expected, just as happens with joyce at least in this dankhole of a board, specifically ulysses, the book is fucking great, detailed and interesting descriptions, funny dialogues, (lost my shit in the wardine chapter, I was expecting it I must say, and read the whole chapter smiling) and nice prose and themes, and 98.5% of the people that say it is shit is composed of shitposters who probably don't even read anything lacks patience, attention, dedication and/or neurons and couldn't get past page 30.

>Tarantino

He's not competent at all at *complex* narrative though. His narratives are either straightforward, or vignettes. He's alright, but his genius is really his skill in allowing scenes to last long enough for them to be interesting, in movies that seem like they don't warrant such prolonged and subtle cinematography. The narrative feels intense but the camera is edging you.

DFW is one long cummy

just watched the film...even more forgettable than DLW

>(lost my shit in the wardine chapter, I was expecting it I must say, and read the whole chapter smiling)
is this bait? it's not meant to be funny

>DFW never got to see bronies become the prime example of the new sincerity movement he talked about

how re bronies DFW's new sincerity?

Can you give an example of how sincerity and authenticity contradict tradition. I don't get it.

He's just trying to push for a "muh degeneracy" argument, don't fall for it.

>Altman adaptation of JR
holy shit that would have been amazing

Whats even sadder is that JR was literally written for Altman.
>What do you think of Robert Altman? The way he makes movies is fairly similar to the way you do your novels.

>Gaddis: You’re right. Nashville fascinated me. At the time I was working on J.R and had this idea that maybe Robert Altman would come across my book and make a movie of it; he could do it.