I've got this probably irrational thing against posthumous art of any kind really. It's sort of to me the same as if someone embalmed a recently deceased athlete (exhumed beforehand if necessary) and set up an elaborate in-stadium puppeteering system to reanimate them in a game. Even if it were done with extremely advanced tech that could replicate the corpse's former athleticism, speed, and talent, you'd be watching some Frankensteinian abomination traipse all over the ashes of great memories you had watching someone do things physically unfathomable to you. Moments of awe that defined people's childhoods, that took the breath of millions at once. Whether you can even tell the difference, there's something fundamentally wrong there that you can't but also don't really need to put into words. The same way that it's wrong to associate that kind of a performance with the real human athlete that was, I mostly find it wrong to associate posthumous art with the real human artist that was.

For my part, there's not much anyone individually can do about posthumous music/writing/cinema/etc, so all I try to do is abstain. That means I'm probably missing out on some great stuff - the vast majority of Kafka's work, for instance. But it's a stand I mostly stick to anyhow. I find it offensive to the artistic spirit to release something in someone's name without their permission, when they did not have overwhelming input on the final product. Mac Miller's Circles being a good example. We know he planned it as the second part of a Duology with Swimming, and had recorded soke amount while alive. But he also died like, what, a month or two after Swimming came out? It's obvious he hadn't completely finished Circles while he was alive, and probable he would have added to/cut from/modified the version that got put out a year or so after he passed in some way. That's something I think is patently wrong to do. The "mostly" part being in cases when the work was pretty much entirely finished by the artist while alive, such as Biggie's Life After Death album. Technically, it's posthumous, but he had set a release date before he passed, and he was not dead for long when that date came, making it extra eerie.

I've read a bunch of DFW's short stories and find his work pretty amazing, but I'm pretty terrified of Infinite Jest. I do want to tackle it one day, but I wanted to ask about the Pale King for now. So, because it was pubkished after his death, by definition TPK is a posthumous work. his death was a suicide, that means it was premeditated by him. It wasn't sudden or unexpected. If he had the book ready and it was his instruction to publish it after his death, then it would fall into that minority category for me where Life After Death is. How modified is the published version from whatever state DFW left it in? If he did indeed intend for it to be published after his death, was it some sort of weird postmortem companion, as though his death itself was a part of his artistic vision (that's a really fucked up question and obviously no degree of artistic genius in a piece of any kind can come within a lightyear of measuring up to the insurmountable loss and grief that his death would have incurred to his loved ones, but I am curious)?

TL;DR... idk, how finished was TPK when DFW died and does it seem that he intended it to be released in a state proximal to the one it's in, I guess?

I was really into DFW last October. Someone with so much charisma, raw and obvious intellect. I tripped on LSD solo and its been living with me ever scince...

Does DFW really have as much influence on media or did he simply rearticulate something everyone was saying in say the 1990s.

I believe his influence on shows has parpetuated MY ENTIRE LIFE. I was born in 1996, so 28 yo now. Obviously I have consumed media from prior to 96' and lots after.

Obviously US television show The Office was impacted, they named a character after it. But here is the thing, I beleieve that Rick & Morty is actually one of the more true embodyments of DFW's style of work. All wrapped around fractals, DFW mentions this often enough in interviews that fractal structure is what makes so much of his work work.

I believe DFW or the era he came up in (which is kinda the question im asking here) has influenced my entire existance. The media machine & capitalism essentially took what DFW HATED & only used for good and the media machine altered it into what capitalism does, into consumer programing.... I mean the irony, its stuck with me for over a year. Im a professional.... i dont drink or smoke and havent tripped since....

I cant get over it. I dont want to under play the tradgety that is suicide & frankly when he took his life it never made a blip on my radar... perhaps I caught a word of it on Goodmorning America, but certainly never a second.

His fractal excicution, writing incircles but right when you think you know where its going it changes axes or direction all together, to those who arent sure wwhat fractals are, its a drug thing.

So did he cause this? Did he simply observe what others were doing and put it into words? Did I simply blow the roof off my head and im insane?

Hapoy Tuesday

Of course, I think DFW tried to connect the AA steps and ideology to the philosophy of ETA coming from both Schtitt and deLint. There is a clear pseudo-science, blind faith aspect to their training style and mentality that is instilled on the young players just like the AA/NA crocodiles advice to the halfway house patients and meeting attendees. Both the young players and recovering addicts should not question and “just do”. On Schtitt and deLint, I wish we would have gotten more of them. I think they are among the most fascinating characters in the novel. I find Schtitt’s friendship (if you can call it that) with Mario also very heartwarming. Though, it may just be that the reason Schtitt opens up to Mario is because he (Mario) is the embodiment of a “listener”, and someone who “just does”, which may make the whole thing less heart-warming, ultimately.

What did you think of Schtitt and deLint? Did you like them? Hate them? Didn’t much mind them? Why?

Hello, I am a pretty much obsessive dfw reader, to a fault, but have never really discussed it with anyone. Its been many years since I tried to write anything but I am trying to write something right now about the differences between IJ and TPK. In the meantime, I want to share an opinion I have about the two novels.

My opinion is that dfw expresses much more compassion and sentimentality towards his characters in TPK than he did in IJ. Both books explore the obsessive crevices of interior life, but TPK seems to possess a certain awareness that the internal struggles that makes us feel most isolated are actually possessed of the most universal human characteristics. I mean to say that the loneliness of internal struggle, obsession, and self hatred is actually incredibly universal among people. There is something about the way he writes TPK that brings me in closer as a reader to these internal struggles. I’m thinking specifically of Cusk and his obsession with his sweatwhich is not too far off from something I dealt with in high school.

All the pathos of IJ’s characters is there, but there is a certain agape type feeling to the prose that invites you more into the character and the basic universality of their struggles. Does this make sense?

Edited to add paragraph breaks

Shades of DFW in Sally Rooney’s new book per this review:

“Ivan, by contrast, receives a style more reminiscent of the obsessives in David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest and The Pale King which Peter pejoratively characterizes as ‘International Chess English’: the exhaustively attentive, hyper-descriptive style of a person so unconfident of his interpretation of codes and cues that he must explicitly analyse each social interaction like a chess puzzle.”

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/like-a-prayer

I have heard its name many times in many places but I have never researched it. For those who have read it, I would be happy if you could explain it in your own words.

Hello ! I've read here and there about the book and it got me curious and want to buy it. But, the thing is english isnt my first language and my vocabulary is kind of limited, especially when it comes to things names.

So you get an idea I dont fully understand the words of descriptive passages of the book 1984. I just get the general idea of the description but not the details.

Is that enough to read Infinite Jest ? Should I consider reading a translation ? Or get back to it another time ?

I'm aware that it seems like an obvious answer

And oh my god, it needs to be twice as long. DFW’s trademark overly meticulous humor; the heartfelt all-too-human moments of sincere anxiety and regret, panic and guilt; the odd pacing that makes the eventual lightbulb clicks—“a-ha! that’s who that was!”—all the more satisfying.

I knew going in that it was an unfinished work. I did not expect to be face to face with such a brutal truth: that I would come to love these bizarre snippets, and that their proper structure and conclusions will never be known to us.

Thank you DFW 💙

uhh okay so i've been reading some dfw stuff for a while, and i'm currently making my way through infinite jest, and i have this really stupid question regarding his overall work and philosophy. as someone who was born after the 2000s and doesn't have much knowledge of postmodern literature, what the fuck is he talking about when he mentions cynical, self-ironical, insincere etc postmodern works? does anyone have any examples of the kind of books being written then that pissed him off so badly. another way to put it is what are some examples of the postmodern current he wanted to oppose? pls this has been keeping me up at night

First time reading IJ and I just finished the “Hal visits Inner Infant Support Group” chapter….

I just….I was…I was GUFFAWING in bed last night reading the last page…and then felt like crying…then shaking with laughter…that almost turned to tears…

I think it’s how IJ creates this dichotomy inside of me that makes me fall in love with this book. One of many reasons, but definitely the impulse to break apart with laughter and tears at the same time.

I don’t even know what I want to say other than this book is incredible and I am so sorry that DFW is gone from the planet but so grateful that he was here and gave us everything he had and didn’t hold anything back.

That last line…..”his face unspeakable….” Just astounding. Amazing writing. Amazing amazing.

Thank you for letting me share 😉

Could be an essay/fiction/non-fiction/article/theory but I would like it to be related to fashion, especially consumer behaviour, branding, "lifestyles", advertisements etc etc.

think "consider the lobster" but... for miu miu

If anyone has any reccomendations that would be great. thanks

Thank you Justin!

“So Joelle was awake at 0400, cleaning back behind the refrigerator for the second time, when Orin cried out in the nightmare she’d somehow felt should have been hers.” (IJ, p. 747, first edition hardcover)

What did you all make of it? I just read it and really liked it.

Hi DFWians, I accidentally came across Wallace 's famous speech This Is Water months ago, thus I was introduced to him.That speech struck a deep chord with me in a way no one else did and I've been a DFW stan even since. I was depressed for almost an year and now recovered. In hindsight, I can see many parallels between us in terms of our neuroticism. The thing is, being hooked on DFW kinda makes me worried. This may be related to the fact that he committed suicide. I have even delayed reading Infinite Jest for I fear it could be like a trigger for my relapse. I'd be glad to hear the seasoned perspectives from y'all.

I think about, far too often, what IJ was communicating with Orin being a Punter specifically in football. Not a kicker, not a DH is baseball, not any other sport and any other position but the greatest football punter to ever exist.

Here's some things off the top of my head that are interesting:

Theme of lonliness

Punting and kicking are essentially games grafted onto a separate sport, they seem weirdly out of place in a athletic competition that's primarily, ball on ground.

Punting is to give up. With Orin being the Perfect punter, all his victories are pyrrhic

Arguably the most useless (starting/#1) position in all professional sports - which is what I thought the joke was on my initial read

A team sport where the action is purely individual (recall that Orin always perfectly coffin corners his kicks, so there's no chance of a PR/kick 6 type situation)

A punt without a return is also, arguably, the most boring play in american football. Contrast this with the cheering crowds at Orins college games. This is anti-entertainment framed in the most American Entertainment possible (IJ is Profoundly American, [ETA as city on a hill, Jim's death by microwave being 90s Plath etc etc])

Please share more thoughts if you have them!

I'm slowly working through all of DFW's stuff. So far I've read Oblivion, On Tennis, and a few other assorted work by Wallace like Consider the Lobster. I didn't post anything for Oblivion because I don't have anything to say besides WOW. Instantly made DFW one of my favorite authors. I read Good Old Neon and I've been totally hooked on DFW since. I have not read Infinite Jest or The Pale King though. I'm planning on reading Infinite Jest next. I had some things I wanted to say about the book, which I enjoyed.

SPOILERS

One problem I'm having in thinking of the book is for every criticism I have for it, I can find a reason for it not to be a criticism. For example I was frustrated there's no definite resolution at the end. After all these absurd and fascinating narratives and characters converge, I was so excited to see what would happen. Would Lenore's great grandmother emerge from the tunnels to confront the ensemble, reveal just what actions were her cohort's doing, what her intentions are? It's kind of implied there is some confrontation by the 98.6F temperature as well as the final chapter where Mindy echoes "alphabets of old people" and "Lenore died in your phone tunnel" suggesting Rick saw her enter the tunnel in some way. Also a book is mentioned, possibly the great grandmother's book she took with her. More than just the story, I was excited to see how DFW was going to write the ending! Although some resolution is suggested, I found the end very disappointing. But maybe the lack of resolution and vacuum for clarity is a final statement on the theme of language and communication in the book? Very well could be. But what, then? When any criticism can be explained by 'it's not a bug it's a feature' then what can I really think about the book? Whose cop-out is it, his or mine? I don't really know what to think.

Is it possible my confusion has to do with not having read Wittgenstein? The sections of the book being labeled as 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c &c. reminds me of set theory. Norman Bombardini struck me as "what if the set of all sets which do not contain themselves was a person?" Or at least, what if a person was trying to become the Russell set? I initially thought from this book that Wittgenstein used language as a kind of universal model, like Turing machines or lambda calculus, where for any observable phenomena there is an isomorphism for its essence in the model. Except language is not a formal system, and also language is not viewed as descriptive by Lenore Sr, but prescriptive, like words actually can create or have real effects in the world. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I was wondering if there is actually any bearing in Wittgenstein's philosophy or if this was an idea made up by DFW to characterize Lenore Sr. an existential radical thinker. All the commentary on this book I've read describes it as a book on words and language, but honestly I didn't get it.

END SPOILERS

A final aside: My friend said I should get one of those companion books for Infinite Jest, but I read on here that some of the stories in Oblivion are harder to read than Infinite Jest, and I not only had no problem reading the stories, I loved the way they were written. So I'm inclined to think I can read it on its, but can't hurt to hear what others think about it. If the supplemental material enhances the experience for some. Regardless, looking forward to the next book!

https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/05/02/red-line-train-dragging-death-preliminary-report

Did anyone else see it and think it felt straight out of JOI’s filmography? Everything from the weird Shakespearean dialogue, the campy acting, the goofy editing, the (maybe purposefully) on-the-nose messaging about art and societal rise and fall. Even the fact that Coppola had to entirely self fund the project by himself. When I saw it in theater about half of the crowd had left before the film ended, it all just felt like the sort of ridiculous spectacle I imagined JOI films to have in the book.

Side note: I liked it