Is this accurate?

is this accurate?

Attached: truth.png (773x347, 264K)

Other urls found in this thread:

warosu.org/lit/thread/S667543#p667573
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

no

Define accurate

I don't think think DFW was less educated than the other two but he definitely less educated than them, at least in matters of literature.

>I don't think think DFW was less educated than the other two but he definitely less educated than them

Attached: hXXvc.jpg (419x281, 35K)

It's purely contrarian to call DFW "talentless" and it's absolutely wrong to claim through his moralizing he has nothing to say.

Gravity's Rainbow certainly has its own moral and aesthetic purposes.

Infinite Jest predicted phone addiction but called it a movie

thats freeging deep o.O

Fucking illiterate retard, shut your fucking mouth.

when I first came to Yea Forums in 2013 I was intimidated to post here because I thought everyone here was so smart. Now I read this comment and it makes me want to create 10000 shitposts to douse any flickering embers of sentience or pretense of intelligence left on this board.

Infinite jest predicted instagram filters but they were an actual fake suit first

This

I don't think DFW was trying to appeal to disaffected youth

What then comrade

>Now I read this comment and it makes me want to create 10000 shitposts
i do that all the time, every time
t. australian

No.
The 1st Amendment is the only thing you should study.

b-i-a-s

>no differentiation between talent and genius
>thinks there should be a purpose in GR
>thinks there is no purpose in GR
>making even this image
>not devoting ten minutes to adding a list of a few more things
>use of skillfully

ULYSSES is one of the best. The whole "I wrote Ulysses during the war, what did you do?" is entirely warranted, and anyone who spends to read and understand the book can see this. Mortimer Adler was right that anyone judging a book without understanding it (re-reading it twice or three times if necessary) is casting no good judgment. See Ulysses for the coming together of the genius (Stephen) and the prudent everyman (Bloom); for all that is WOMAN in Gerty MacDowell and Molly and more; for the sadness of leaving home behind, for purpose, for duality of man, for all the weighty themes in a style that goes hand-in-hand with meaning. GRAVITY'S RAINBOW is almost as good. Pynchon loved Joyce, hence the Stephen character in GR who knows 33 languages and who has a Nora girlfriend, hence the supposed Pynchon post on here where he talked about critics failing to recognize what Joyce must have been like in real life (for an interesting cross-comparison see Nabokov's Lectures on Literature and his wavering view that the author's life does not count), and, finally, hence both Joyce and Pynchon's avid love for Shakespeare. Since I'm spending 8 minutes of my day to write up this post I'm not going to spend too much to say more of GR other than there IS purpose to GR, and it is art, and to anyone that says it is lifeless or absurd or meaningless or nihilistic or simply symbolism, I would recommend reading initially for the Roger Mexico Jessica Swanlake relationship, and just identifying that and seeing it's beauty all the way until the end where Mexico goes crazy through overanalysis--such did Marcel in ISOLT and a temporary Leontes in Winter's Tale--just start here and notice this loving bit and then expand into the rest of your analysis. But careful with analysis! "Original sin--the latest name for that is modern analysis" (737). Lastly INFINITE JEST and the rest of DFW's works are pure martyrdom. Wallace himself says somewhere that the only thing he could appreciate in Proust was the church description. Let this clue you in to what type of person he was. He was obviously troubled. His style is key and the only reason Harold Bloom couldn't access it is similar to how those in the third or fourth volume of ISOLT couldn't access the work coming after Bergotte's, because the style was a little difference. The old style-is-the-physiognomy-of-the-mind and genius shows itself only to later generations because it takes time and geniuses are so rare that there's not enough of them around to recognize another. Moreover, those that aren't genius are turned off by the work. (1/2)

(2/2)

If you do not recognize the general hereditary line of Schopenhauer>Proust>Nabokov>Pynchon>DFW (which I will add Joyce configures as a sort of disjointed, standalone, puzzle-piece god), then either you have not spent enough time reading, or you have not had access to the right material, or someone has not properly guided you, or you do not have an affinity for style, taste, whatever.

based digits
>hence the supposed Pynchon post on here where he talked about critics failing to recognize what Joyce must have been like in real life
sauce?

warosu.org/lit/thread/S667543#p667573

enjoy

Yea Forums doesn’t deserve this post

this is the stupidest comment i have seen in some time. You just took five authors in chronological order and called them a "hereditary line," because they write... somewhat philosophical texts?? Please, enlighten us with your affinity for style, guidance, and picking the right material. Sure, there are influences and similarities in all of these authors. But to call it a hereditary line? As if these are the chosen figures of literature in some succession? Did proust even read schopenhauer?

Tard checking in. Why do people think this was written by Pynchon?

Proust read Schopenhauer. So did Tolstoy and Borges but it shows itself most in Proust. This is clear to anyone who has read World as Will and Idea and ISOLT. The high focus on physiognomy, genius, the suffering vacillation of life between pain and boredom, woman as other and high-impressed learner who lives in the moment, the intellect, the asides, the STYLE. They both write long works and are each characterized by their asides. In Proust this is obvious, and in Schopenhauer it's obvious if you read him. In the beginning of TWAWAR he is setting up the foundation of his philosophy but he can find no better place than to stick a chapter in on laughter and a long footnote that summarizes why physiognomy is important. Later on in the same work he has to stop himself three times (excluding the Voltaire epigraph) from going on to correct Kant. Same goes with his ART OF BEING RIGHT, a brilliant little piece that highlights dialectic and how people try to win arguments, but wherein Schopenhauer cannot refuse from going on a tangent on how people believe universal opinion and appeals to authority. Anyway... in Proust and Schopenhauer, lines are sometimes even the same imprint from one work to the other. Again, trust me, and if you've read the works it'll be obvious. In Vol. 2 page 30 of the modern library edition of Proust, Marcel says being in a place is far more beneficial than reading about a culture. Somewhere--I HATE that I can't remember where--Schopenhauer makes an analogy to a man who reads about a foreign culture rather than visiting it. I also hate to start on this example of comparison, because of travelling being close to squandering, but it's good that I start here to because it highlights that both P and S are honest like Montaigne in their views changing; i.e., they say what's good about travel, they say what's bad about travel. The entirety of Swann's Way and, really, the entirety of ISOLT as Marcel ends up following the same path, can be explained by Schopenhauer's the metaphysics of sexual love, where he details how love takes over man's life, and becomes his priority. PROUST: "the perpetual sacrifice which they are making of their comfort and of their practical interests has engendered a spiritual charm..." (and many more of this in the entire chapter. SCHOPENHAUER: (paraphrase): we often wonder how a brilliant man could have landed with someone like her. Proust and Schopenhauer are keen on the analogy and the aside and the insight on life. Schopenhauer: A novel will be of a high and noble order, the more it represents of inner, and the less it represents of outer, life.

Yes