What is it about DFW that makes low testosterone men who consume bean-based drinks so mad...

>white Americans born after 1945

Error: Not found

How couldn't you be depressed being the son of two liberal university professors?

I’d kill myself if I were him, XD

Why?

1. They probably haven't read any of his work
2. They are probably judging the man, not the work.
3. DFW was intellectual and athletic, which is "rare" and "unfair." He was bullied for his perspiration and acne and being thin - he matured into an elite, while being an outsider. He played tennis competitively and studied philosophical logic and set theory. He hated irony, but he could be ironic. He was edgy yet very normal. He grew up in the midwest. He found success really quickly. He embodies a generation that probably most people younger than 30 hardly understand, though I hope I'm wrong, because the moral problems that concerned him are timeless and prescient, and I started reading Wallace when I was like 20 and felt like it had been written in 2011.

At the same time, his tone could be really smarmy and self-ingratiating and arrogant. Which, for whatever reason, somehow remains readable to a lot of white middle/upper middle class men, today. He attacked from the inside, but remained an insider, and called himself an outsider or misfit. His life of ample contradiction probably just makes people angry.

>At the same time, his tone could be really smarmy and self-ingratiating and arrogant
In interviews or writing?

infinite jest 10/10, no meme

he seems to play up the "aw shucks, i don't know" thing in interviews, while his text is more confident in its implications
this might be projection, because this is what i do

I'll get around to reading him one of these days. Anyone who could point out that irony and detachment isnt sustainable back in the 90s before it totally consumed our culture sounds worthwhile to me.

Budweiser has been supporting the gay agenda for decades to be fair. It's all these other companies that'd be offering Nazi or Stalin themed Happy Meals if they thought it'd sell well, trying to jump on the cringeworthy corporate circlejerk bandwagon wanting to put you dick in another man has become.
If I was Bud I'd probably be seething.

>DFW was intellectual and athletic, which is "rare" and "unfair." He was bullied for his perspiration and acne and being thin - he matured into an elite, while being an outsider.
As much of an outsider as the son of academics can be I guess.
It's not like he was raised by single parent from "projects"

Fucking this

>all these other companies that'd be offering Nazi or Stalin themed Happy Meals if they thought it'd sell well

Another "capitalism has a mind of its own" conspiracy theorist. "Capitalism" isn't pushing globohomoschlomo products on you, the jews running Wall Street and international financial institutions and running the books and boards of these corporations are. They are the ones who attack you if you aren't upholding the agenda, not "capitalists."

You’re restricting yourself from a lot.

Attached: 572F3F3E-D982-4529-81A3-2CD09DEAF68F.jpg (1024x722, 64K)

Well only a faggot would drink bud light anyway

This is always a strange criticism. Writing is a high art and the best writers naturally come from the elite or educated classes, and always have. Within white / European culture there is a fluidity that allows others to rise to the top, and there are groups like Celts / Irish who are by way of culture more creative storytellers, but to criticize a writer for being well-bred physically and intellectually stems purely from resentment.

The best writers have always, and will always, come from high European stock. And good literature has become so difficult to find precisely because non-whites, women, and lower class people have been allowed to pretend they have equal facilities by the jews running publishing institutions in the west.

thats why you're a braindead retard who doesn't have the option of breathing through their nose

This drawing is a sin, blasphemous and degenerate, don't put religion into a graph or an equation, just don't.

I mean, a lot did. See Coca Cola and Fanta.

It's not a criticism of DFW per se, rather a criticism of the idea of him as an outsider, which he was not. It is also not all that rare to be intellectual and sporty, but to call DFW sporty is pushing it a little and also buying into his narcissism a bit.

whoa I get a FREE GIFT for joining?? wtf I love jesus now

Literally who?

I was nodding with you all the way up to your second para whereupon I started laughing

*Dallas Fort Worth.

>but to call DFW sporty is pushing it a little and also buying into his narcissism a bit.
Are you telling me that you look at that this man and don't see an athletic dynamo? You think those Nike trainers are just for show? Please. That frumpy wide-hipped son of a bitch could move.

>In interviews or writing?
I mean, both, for sure, at least that's how I feel.
Read the essay "How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart."
It's pretty smarmy, but at the same time, it's dead-on accurate. Which is what's so frustrating about DFW. It's really hard to "argue" against his points or find fault. He's already found every problem related to what he's talking about. He's a total head-case, but I still enjoy and respect the work.

This was a highly enjoyable comment user.

welcome to the jesus club user!

feels morally and spiritually excellent man

Attached: 1560848549827.jpg (900x900, 70K)

>As much of an outsider as the son of academics can be I guess.
>It's not like he was raised by single parent from "projects"
No, but still, coming from fairly affluent and well-educated parents (his father was an analytic philosopher) kind of sets you apart from most other kids. He dropped out of Harvard, had substance abuse problems, was a "late-bloomer" by his own accounts. I don't get the impression he felt he belonged, even if he knew "how" to belong to a particular social class. I mean he ended up at AA and NA and in rehab/psych ward where he gathered material for writing IJ. Which, again, can seem shallow, like he was just using "addiction" to craft a good story. But then again, the same pattern can be found in almost all of his fiction. If it isn't other people's lives he's "stealing" from, it's his own. "Good Old Neon," for example, is basically a short autobiography.

>The best writers have always, and will always, come from high European stock. And good literature has become so difficult to find precisely because non-whites, women, and lower class people have been allowed to pretend they have equal facilities by the jews running publishing institutions in the west.

I don't think it's hard to find good literature. It's just not coming from top publishers. It might not be being published at all, or, it might be older stuff. I think DFW was aware of the impending threat of the marginalization of white people and frankly, higher education. But everything about his condition and generation suggest an idiosyncratic paradox, if you think about it. Plus he read a lot of Derrida and the post-Structuralists. Which I think he loved and hated simultaneously.

Hemingway is trash tier too. Baby literature, for faggots only.

DFW only appeals to all those unsuccessful middle class retards with dreams of relevancy. The only thing I'm thankful for is that he realized it and ended his pitiful existence before spewing even more garbage.

Link us your successful novels and interviews please

>
>Hemingway is trash tier too. Baby literature, for faggots only.

Nice bait there.

Attached: 6e4.png (644x800, 14K)

>It's not a criticism of DFW per se, rather a criticism of the idea of him as an outsider, which he was not. It is also not all that rare to be intellectual and sporty, but to call DFW sporty is pushing it a little and also buying into his narcissism a bit.

He kind of got the best of both worlds though, which I think some people see and despise.

He isn't taught or read probably because he's one of the last white, Ivy-educated, intellectual authors in America. The Updike generation was killed off for their "sexism" and "racism." I think people are confused about DFW. He was within the establishment, and disdained the establishment, and disdained his disdain for the establishment. Which he thought was cliche because most other academics felt the same way: we dislike our dislike of academia, but here we are, just like America. Whether that's the corruption of white morality or just American morality and duty, it seems pervasive. He wrote for personal reasons, sure, but I still take his work to be difficult and worthy of hard study.
And I still think he believed in literature.

anyone who has heard george steiner talk about hemingway would not be as retarded as that guy

>he seems to play up the "aw shucks, i don't know" thing in interviews, while his text is more confident in its implications
>this might be projection, because this is what i do

Agree. Most of his interviews show how ignorant the interviewer is regarding his work, which I don't think he took lightly. But there are still plenty of like.. messianic moments in his fiction and essays. "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again" is really funny, but pretty smarmy, too, which always made me sad. He was really aware of the smarmy thing too, which just adds to the layers of the DFW neurosis.

A Jew talking about a fascist. We do really get creative in our mental gymnastics, don't we?

I think his main difference to most students wasn't that he was "sporty" but that he was "social", his undergrad dissertation if you look into it was an example of this: he was able to use lots of high level concepts and synthesise them without having to fully understand what he was doing (so not get bogged down with details) because he talked to several other people to use their understanding. This is exceedingly rare.

Hemingway was a fascist?
No wonder I like him so much. It seemed like it from his work, but did he explicitly endorse anything of the sort?

You mean you guys don't do this?

Why do americans missuse the "fascist" term?

It doesn't seem they know what it means. Just throw it around when you don't like someone lmao

>graph of how one becomes dead to sin through doing the Word and following Christ is sin, gift of salvation by following Him is heretical
Explain yourself. Who is Jesus?

Attached: E25AD1A8-8763-4B67-A4E4-FFEF7839706C.jpg (386x381, 25K)

"Americans"? It's jews, bruh. Fascism arose in response to jewish bolshevism and was an expression of European peoples coming together to counteract the internal jewish threat, so they use it as a blanket slander term to discourage nationalism and ethnic homogeneity because it's bad for jews.

Is that the ZZ top parade?

This

>Baby literature
My fucking sides
And also man, have you given David’s work a shot or are you one of those closet bugmen who talk shit on the sidelines because they think it’s cool to talk down on him?

No, you retard nigger. The Jews running finance ARE capitalists through and through (and vice versa), and their Judaic influence spreads virally throughout capitalist society, so that if you don't uphold whatever the fuck their capitalism wants you get attacked by what amounts to their goyish minions. Read a fucking book for once, /pol/tard.

Attached: 1567668879745.png (1080x1080, 999K)

Yeah, good luck with that
>Jesus: bunch of lessons on moral excellence and how it's necessary if you want to move in with God
>Paul: lol everyone gets saved, come one come all and get your ticket to heaven

user, what would you say is the best of DFW within the frame of, uh, illustrating what he's absorbed from Derrida and the post-Structuralists? Unironically interested in his fiction but I also don't know where to start besides the standard answer of "Infinite Jest", which is probably the correct answer regardless. Thanks!

National SOCIALISM is the answer

Attached: 1566801524552.png (500x775, 646K)

Strikers talk on Strasserism has made me believe that it wasn't really different from National Socialism and that the breakaway occurred more because of personality conflicts - I like the memes though

Pynchon is OK

I've only heard people praise him, dislike him but admit it's because of personal taste, or joke about him tongue-in-cheek. I don't think I've ever seen someone who hated him and got angry about it the way I do with McCarthy or Pynchon. What I want to know is why no one on Yea Forums has made a chart to DFW yet.

dumb frogposter

Kike

Attached: image.jpg (3021x1774, 960K)

Seethe

>DFW belongs squarely in the old white world of prestige literary commodities,

Stopped reading right there

Is his first novel any good? I've never heard anyone talk about it, and I've never met a single person who's read it.

It's okay.
Clearly was written as a sort of academic exercise, there not really being a cohesion beyond a meta-point to the whole thing in the end. it's crammed full of unnecessary shit that's basically just "look how clever i am"-tier. It's the only one of David's books that really tries to include a love story as key part of the plot.

Cope

i always have to correct this.
Good Old Neon is NOT an autobiography, it's a biography of a person he knew.
So many RETARDS don't know how to read and just skim through that last paragraph/page and don't understand that it only switches to his POV in the last sentence.

can't deal with your obsolescence, whitey?

not that guy you're quoting but youre misunderstanding why he's mad.
David cucked himself like jesus did, he was an ally.

cont'd:
his point is that David does not truly belong in that world. He's mad that he's even attempting to co-opt him into his favorite genre.

Bugman bugman

Your squat time in white countries is running out, shitskin.

fucking word salad

that's why the soibeans crowd believes though, they want to distant themselves from the old white world that placed a value on muh eloquence and muh literary tradition, the moping over authenticity or inauthenticity, worthless drivel next to their direct tweet-sized performative ethics and outrage at injustice.

before 1945

that's not even close to word salad, everything he said was completely clear if worded a bit weirdly

Normally I enjoy reading longer posts here, but you could be a little more concise and direct. What you wrote was a fucking headache.

Not white tho
Just don't like identity politics
Go to pol

>Not white tho
So you're posting here... Why?

How in the hell would you ever come to the conclusion that Hemingway was a fascist? He literally fought against them in the Spanish civil war

>Just don't like identity politics
all politics are identity politics, disowning identity politics just makes you a major cuck regardless of your race.

>all politics are identity politics, disowning identity politics just makes you a major cuck regardless of your race.

tribalism doesn't have to be the center of politics. Ideas can be the center

Go fight someone out of your tribe i guess if you're fix into your tribe idc

Only white people think in terms of abstract ideas. These brown peasants flooding white countries don't give a fuck.

Tell me you didn't actually write this

>lol ur retarted and mouth breather

Good one! I didn't really see where this disproved the notion that ultimately nobody knows who the fuck DFW is a decade after his death besides this autistic cult and people into literature , and that it's laughable to put him "cemented in western canon" with authors who are known by global society like hemingway, king, or poe.

Wallace is far and away the most popular literary figure of the last 30 years, and comparing long-dead historical figures is a non sequitur.

I think you need to go outside and stop living in your echo chamber. There's no other explanation to think that DFW is more known than King for instance, unless you are severely socially inhibited.

>it's a non sequitur to compare him to authors who have actually cemented themselves into western canon because they're old and i said so

ok

Since you're new here, here is the mandatory trinity of Yea Forums classics:
Gravity's Rainbow
Infinite Jest
Finnegans Wake

Stephen King is not a literary figure, dumb fuck.

>hes not because I said so

You truly are an intellectual. What amazing combination of genetics your mommy and daddy must have to have created to make something as special as you.

based about King

I kinda have to disagree though. Even King's best novels are plain simple, but DFW is a lot more subtle and his themes are much more complex and are given much more thought.

Currently reading IJ and it just blows my mind every once in a while because the amount of thought put into writing this is tremendous. The sheer Eschaton chapter is genius, and its just a small part of a much grander narrative. From his interviews DFW seems like the guy who is always the smartest one in the room, and IJ just proves that he is also the smartest one in recent American literature. You burgermen are very lucky to have him in your canon.

You are clearly not intelligent drawing these retarded comparisons and comparing genre fiction swindlers with literature fiction writers. Saying DFW hasn't attained Poe status is beyond dumb, regardless of what one thinks about Wallace.

>Wallace is far and away the most popular literary figure of the last 30 years
b8 or delusion, the age old question

I genuinely think you're not trolling, so I'll give you a little practical experiment. Go to the library (or anywhere) and write DFW and Poe's names on a card, and ask if they know the author.

More people will recognize Poe than DFW. I understand your reality is mostly Yea Forums, so I don't think you're a slobbering moron as seems apparent, but you either have to be mentally inhibited,a NEET, or dickriding DFW too hard, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

>Which is what's so frustrating about DFW. It's really hard to "argue" against his points or find fault.
That's because he was an hyper-correctionist autist at heart. Everything for him was naturally formulated in terms of logical dilemmas, often unsolvable ones. That's also why he's ultimately a rather boring and often lifeless writer despite a few pangs of heart-wrench here and there. He desperately try to be more than an autist, but he couldn't.

It's not hard to argue against him, you just have to recognise that his premises and his way of framing things is very narrow and unsatisfactory. Like his exposition of Berry's paradox in Good Old Neon. It seems unescapable until you realize the whole basis of the problem is bogus, sentences such as "the smallest possible number definable in x words" don't actually define a number, ordinary language definition can't pretend to reach that kind of precision without ambiguity.

i don't think that guy was a soi though, i think he was saying he respects eloquence and tradition, he does not want David to belong there, which in many respects he doesn't.
I like the first thing you said though about him representing a sort of awkward limbo transitionary state, he really may be the last of his kind, the last pale king you might say.

Then what. White people should sink to the level of triablisim to maintain their culture.

Shit i think I played myself

Won't that just into totalitarian thought policing?

David warned us about that tbqh

Just so everybody who hasn't been involved in sports past little league knows, being regionally competitive in a child/teenage age division in tennis or any other sport doesn't take talent or is impressive, literally anybody without physical disability can do that so its strange to equate that to his literary ability

he'd spoken about that as well though.
In that famous germany interview he sets the record straight.

i am not that poster, i just wanted to say that it speaks of his devotion rather then talent. it takes practice both to compete and to write

Can you read? Of course Poe is better known, he's been in the conversation for 150 years and is studied by nearly everyone in schools.

>rather it feels like being one of Dr. Pavlov's subjects, a bright metallic feeling, reminiscent of halogen lights .
this part is sort of cringe.
Please clarify.
> Isn't Wes Anderson the definition of a reactionary filmaker, going as far as to give the nazis the pastel treatment in Grand Hotel Budapest?
explain.

White people have to gain in-group racial to expel the non-white hordes, yes. Dying on principles is stupid. If we want a society governed by abstract ideas we have to understand that it has to be a white society first.

I think you're confusing the narrator and the author user. The pov at the end is that of the narrator (who happens to be called David because the author is a clever man).

Your original post (or somebody elses post that I responded to then you did, no you can't absolve responsibility) was discussing the popularity of DFW, which I compared to authors who are leagues beyond him in popularity.

Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension before getting butthurt and expecting me to understand your autistic train of thought where you're arguing against an assertion that was never made.

Identity politics is a modern leftist invention. You are yourself prisoner from a leftist mold of thought.

That's because the majority of Americans stopped reading literary fiction some time in the 20th century, not because DFW isn't a writer of worth. You could make the same argument with just about any post 1950 American author. More people will recognize Poe than:
McCarthy
Pynchon
Gaddis
Heller
DeLillo

So: not an argument.

Attributing everything that threatens your narrative as being a left wing conspiracy theory or creation to bring down the right is a conservative invention. You are yourself a prisoner from a conservative mold of thought.

It only speaks to how much literature has lost ground in public space tho. Wallace is somewhat famous in the US, niche to obscure everywhere else. It's a far cry from the popularity the greats of only 50 years ago enjoyed. I think it's also kind of deserved, DF is nice but not that great.

You're an idiot. I said comparing DFW and long-dead writers who have been taught to everyone in school is nonsensical, which it is. Please leave Yea Forums immediately, moron.

no, the narrator is a real person that David knew and grew up with. He's inserting aspects himself into his history to make sense of what happened, but this is mostly done one coincidences such as having a single female sibling. The man's history and story actually existed, it's ultimately mostly fiction/speculation about the narrator's (David's friend) last moments & feelings, David is just trying to empathize. The author part is not worth drawing attention to as it's already a given, hardly clever, and sort of corny as iit s so obvious it's almost irrelevant and on-the-nose.

It's taught by undergrad professors in english literature classes. Literally pseud tier.

>it's nonsensical because i said so and it is moron

Ah, you've bested me again . Thank you for gracing me with the opportunity to engage in discourse with a man of your intellect.

t. boomer. tribalism has been the norm throughout human history, 1945-2016 and the reign of muh individual was an abnormality in the greater scheme of things

and it confuses people into thinking that it's some sort of suicide note.
David's true suicide note story is "All that" which can only be read online.

link: newyorker.com/magazine/2009/12/14/all-that-2
Everyone should read this story if you want to understand.

The enemy doesn't care about muh liberal principles, muh universalism or muh freedom of speech so why should we? I'm beginning to think those were nonsensical ideas to begin with. no holds barred tribal conflict and sheer animal struggle are the essence of the human condition to pretend otherwise is self delusion.

So race war then? How are you going to expel anyone?

Sounds like Zionism desu

Nice try but you didn't even get my simple post.
I never even mentioned a conspiracy and I don't believe there is one in this case. Ideas don't need conspiracies to spread. I also have no stake in the /pol/-related debates that obssess americans. And I have no grand narrative to be threatened, not any that would figure among the commonly discussed narratives on Yea Forums at least.

I also didn't make totalizing claims (like did with his "all politics is identity politics"). I just pointed out one single thing (identity politics) as being originally a leftist obsession, which only later was adopted by the right. As you see it's all very simple.

You are right, however, that attributing everything to leftist conspiracies is a modern right wing tactic and now obsession. It only serves to ridicule right wing people more than they already have been. Overall it's amusing to see how the American left and right are locked in some mutual predator-prey race to the most garish discourse and the most caricatural common reflexes. Hysteria on the left, disingenuousness and carefully cultivated narrow-mindedness on the right. This mostly applies to Twitter fortunately, but twitter tend to seep over other areas of life.

news flash: the whites will lose.
David tried to warn us, the only way we can win is through fascism which will backfire in a different way than anarchy, but similar.

>no, the narrator is a real person that David knew and grew up with.
The narrator in the first part of the story is a fictional voice user, it can be modelled after a real person but it definitely isn't one.

And I was talking about the narrator at the end. There's a change of pov in the last page as you say, which implies a change of narrator. But it's narrators all the way through, it would be hard to argue that the first is 100% someone DFW knew and whose life he telepathically understood down the tiniest detail while the second is 100% DFW and has nothing to do with the first.
The best you can say is the first narrator has objective elements in his life (like working in some yuppie corporation) that don't apply to DFW, and that he is closely designed after another guy who shared some of his life with DFW life like attending the same school. This much is believable and even clear from the story. But ultimately you can't say how much of his obsessions DFW put into the fictional character he designed after his friend, and how much is DFW's guesses about his friend's state of mind. Good Old Neon seems oddly prescient about DFW's later life.

It can get behind your point that people are too often collapsing two narrators into one however.

TL;DR: We mostly agree but I still feel there's a lot of DFW in the inner life of the first narrator.

Non-whites can be removed non violently, just as they came non violently.

Whites won't lose. The jews who've been kicked out of everywhere will lose as they always do.

Read: newyorker.com/magazine/2009/12/14/all-that-2
this is the real truth about David' mindset.
I see your point on it being oddly prescient about his feelings of fraudery but it's also likely that David really did recognized those qualities in his acquaintance (who died in 1990) as well.

>are locked in some mutual predator-prey race to the most garish discourse and the most caricatural common reflexes.

it's called accelerationism, the right is bound to win, simply because social schismogenesis runs faster than demographic changes, and because leftists, lacking an overarching idea of the volk tend towards fragmentation on ever narrower mutually hostile or at least suspicious identity categories. The more powerless leftist feel the more they will lash out with increasingly absurd sadomasochist cultural politics all we have to do is to keep needling them until the majority feels no choice but to come back to the reassuring narrative of das volk which by that point will not feel at all radical or hateful but like plain common sense

cont'd:
what i mean to say is that David's death, while caught in a sort feeling of failure, was also a very deliberate and meaningful act that many people miss the point of.
It wasn't as empty or meaningless as the narrator of GON.

>The specific instance traceable as the origin of my religious impulse after my interest in the cement mixer passed (to my parents’ great relief) involved a nineteen-fifties war movie that my father and I watched together on television one Sunday afternoon with the curtains drawn to prevent the sunlight from making it hard to see the screen of our black-and-white television. Watching television together was one of my father’s and my favorite and most frequent activities (my mother disliked television), and usually took place on the couch, with my father, who read during the commercials, sitting at one end and me lying down, with my head on a pillow on my father’s knees. (One of my strongest sensory memories of childhood is the feel of my father’s knees against my head and the joking way he sometimes rested his book on my head when the commercial interruption occurred.) The movie in question’s subject was the First World War and it starred an actor who was much lauded for his roles in war movies. At this point my memory diverges sharply from my father’s, as evidenced by a disturbing conversation we had during my second year at seminary. My father apparently remembers that the film’s hero, a beloved lieutenant, dies when he throws himself on an enemy grenade that has been lobbed into his platoon’s trench (“platoon” meaning a small military grouping of infantrymen with close ties from being constant comrades in arms). According to my father, a platoon is usually commanded by a lieutenant.

>Whereas I remember clearly that the hero, played by an actor who was noted for his portrayal of conflict and trauma, suffers private anguish over the moral question of killing in combat and the whole religious conundrum of a “just war” and “justified killing,” and finally undergoes a total psychological breakdown when his own comrade successfully lobs a grenade into a crowded enemy trench and leaps screaming (the hero does, fairly early in the film) into the enemy’s trench and falls on the grenade and dies saving the enemy platoon, and that much of the rest of the film (albeit constantly interrupted by commercials when I saw it) depicts the hero’s platoon struggling to interpret the action of their formerly beloved lieutenant, with many of them bitterly denouncing him as a traitor, many others holding that battle fatigue and a traumatic letter from “Stateside” received earlier in the film exculpated his act as a kind of temporary insanity, and only one shy, idealistic recruit (played by an actor I have never seen in another movie of that era) secretly believing that the lieutenant’s act of dying for the enemy was actually heroic and deserved to be recorded and dramatized for posterity (the shy, anonymous recruit is the narrator, in “voice-overs” at the film’s beginning and end), and I never forgot the movie (whose title both my father and I missed because we didn’t turn on the television until after the movie had begun, which is not the same as “forgetting” the title, which my father jokingly claims is what we both did) or the impact of the lieutenant’s act, which I, too (like the shy, idealistic narrator), regarded as not only “heroic” but also beautiful in a way that was almost too intense to bear, especially as I lay across my father’s knees.

did he hang himself with that dumb bandanna?

true fact: he firrst tried to use it to tie a hose to his car exhaust

is this the guy that wrote a meme 1000 page book and did a bad thing to that poet lady?

yeah but she wrote this poem about him:

Suicide’s Note: An Annual
BY MARY KARR
I hope you’ve been taken up by Jesus
though so many decades have passed, so far apart we’d grown
between love transmogrifying into hate and those sad letters
and phone calls and your face vanishing into a noose that
I couldn’t
today name the gods
you at the end worshipped, if any, praise being
impossible for the devoutly miserable. And screw my church who’d
roast in Hell poor suffering
bastards like you, unable to bear the masks
of their own faces. With words you sought to shape
a world alternate to the one that dared
inscribe itself so ruthlessly across your eyes, for you
could not, could never
fully refute the actual or justify the sad heft of your body, earn
your rightful space or pay for the parcels of oxygen you
inherited. More than once you asked
that I breathe into your lungs like the soprano in the opera
I loved so my ghost might inhabit you and you ingest my belief
in your otherwise-only-probable soul. I wonder does your
death feel like failure to everybody who ever
loved you as if our collective cpr stopped
too soon, the defib paddles lost charge, the corpse
punished us by never sitting up. And forgive my conviction
that every suicide’s an asshole. There is a good reason I am not
God, for I would cruelly smite the self-smitten.
I just wanted to say ha-ha, despite
your best efforts you are every second
alive in a hard-gnawing way for all who breathed you deeply in,
each set of lungs, those rosy implanted wings, pink balloons.
We sigh you out into air and watch you rise like rain.

I'm a little drunk can I get a TLDR - was it a nice poem?

Nah the "whites" will be mostly fine.
Accelerationism is still indebted, in its teleological view of history, to the monologic concept of modernity developed by Hegel which is a natural product of subject philosophy as started with Descartes and Kant.

It always has to be a single overarching entity that is "bound to" subsume everything and assert itself dialectally through history. Nevermind the thematic changes, whether it's Hegel's Absolute Spirit, Marx's praxis, Nietzsche's Will to Power, Heidegger's Being, Bataille's Sovereignty, Derrida's arch-writing and now Land's capital, the old dynamic stays the same, and people keep crafting hypostasis out of simple observations.

It's like Western speculative thought hasn't learned from the mistake of its past 200 years.
Land and other accelerationist might look like daring thinkers but essentially they're Hegel 3.0: Cyberpunk deleuzian boogaloo. Which is not surprising for a guy whose main influence are Marx, Kant and Deleuze. Land is not any greater than the sum of his influence, unlike most great philosophers.

Read Luhmann for a better, less memey take on cyberetic society than Land's, read Habermas for a comprehensive criticism of the inherent problem of subject philosophy and the teleogical view of history that arises from it.

Also it's plain weird to equate accelerationism with a necessary return to "the reassuring narrative of das volk" (even though that narrative has historically been violent and radical in action if not in principle). But I suppose weirdness is accelerationism's schtick.

Thanks I'll read it now.

Worst shit I've ever read. Seen this woman on Twitter, totally insufferable.

Jesus Christ she can’t do line breaks worth a damn.

You're thinking in very coarse abstractions, of course you would end up in the usual pseudo-Nietzschean "animal struggle" quagmire.
Nevermind that our ability for cooperation is the single most important reason our species is not already dead.

she loved him.
he loved her.
They broke up, he came out on top.
she's mad that he didn't get in trouble for affairs with students (he escaped via death) but Junot did .

have sex, incels

not the best poem i've ever read but it has it's moments. There're some good lines

Nature = groups competing for resources. No one is above it, and white people's recent naiveté in believing we are has led to our institutions being taken over by jews, who engage in sweeping nepotism and put their own tribal interests above all else.

lol, have sex

Tribalism isn't identity politics, the latter is a modern dialectal inversion of the former, with all th emphasis on "cheking your privilege" and "making room for the underprivileged" (and the right's "critique" of SJW -90% of the time mere whining- is no exception, it's yet another inversion of the earlier trend).

>1945-2016 and the reign of muh individual
You're thinking 1680-2019, not to mention universalist projects have existed since at least the birth of the Catholic Church, and that it isn't unheard of for hunter-gatherer tribes untouched by European culture to display high-level of individualism (see Kaczynski's criticism of anarchoprimitivist myths for instance, he mentions a lot of sources).
It's pointless to write this off as an "abnormality", normality doesn't exist in history, and this trend has been domineering in the workd's most important powers for the better part of the last 200 years. For better or worse it's a definite component not only of our world, but of that of our father and grandfathers, as well as of our children and (probably) grandchildren.

As for the "grand scheme of things", to the extent that such a scheme can be envisioned, neither you nor I can have any serious claim of knowing what it is.

this
mainepublic.org/post/why-maine-so-white-and-what-it-means-ask-question
white people are masochistic
here is an article written by white people who live in a 95% white region
unsurprisingly, they want it to be less white

it's a jesus thing.

White people have been gaslighted for decades by jewish propaganda telling them that their history is evil, that their ancestors oppressors, and that nonwhites are poor victims and it's their moral imperative to uplift them. We aren't doing it to ourselves, our racial enemy is running our cultural institutions.

>jewish
no sorry it's white suicide not white genocide
it's a hard pill to swallow

Nature is a cope word. And "groups" is such a vague word that it could very well be understood as "humans vs everyone else"(which is kinda what our world-wide society is doing right now).

> white people's recent naiveté
What you call naiveté helped and was helped by European supremacy over the world (I suppose when you say "white" you men "Euopeans and their descendants in the US"?).

>has led to our institutions being taken over by jews
Nonsense. The ideals you're talking about are 200 years old at the earliest, the "taking over" in the US s barely 40 years old, and it doens't even apply in a lot of Western countries. You also forget how Jews and "whites" (again, Europeans and WASP Americans I suppose?) have benefitted from cooperating in the past (see: the creation of the atomic bomb, which in the end was only used against the Japanese).

Overall you don't seem to be too realistic about how those groups boundaries can be drawn and where the cooperation links go. You may find the US's doting of Israel unwise (as I do) this doesn't mean there is absolutely no benefit to be taken from this cooperation, not to mention the much wider topic of Europeans and Europeans Jews where your claim is actually pretty weak.

Who said anything about white genocide? Jewish cooption of our institutions is a recent phenomenon. We have to oust them and kick them out like we have 100s of times already.

Get your head out of your ass.

lads are suicidal thoughts genuine if you know you could never actually hurt yourself let alone """demap""" yourself

yes, sometimes insane amount of stress can make you do something irrevocable even if you were certain you were safe from that

>Link us your successful novels and interviews please
I think this one was ok. Been a while since I read it.
electricliterature.com/a-brand-new-interview-with-david-foster-wallace/

As for novels, you know, I've only read IJ. Didn't read Pale Kind. Didn't read any of his early novels. His essays are mostly good. Some of his short stories are good.

>This is exceedingly rare.
I mean, but you read and research when writing a thesis, as well as talk to professors. Maybe he had an intellectual advantage, definitely. He was smart.

>illustrating what he's absorbed from Derrida and the post-Structuralists?
Wallace was skeptical of assumptions and rationalizations. In a word: historicity. But also, tautology, and the banal. Instead of writing "he was in pain," Wallace uses a character to embody the experience in like 50,000 words. There's an avoidance of, and an obsession with, platitudes. He's always reaching for the most specific, most exact definitions, but he realizes that that it will always fall short. TLDR; post-Structuralism translates into literary themes such as: use of present tense, avoidance of ambiguities, internal dialogue, fracturing of time (most obviously in IJ).

>Good Old Neon is NOT an autobiography, it's a biography of a person he knew.
I know it isn't an autobiography. The character's name is Neal. Which I've read is a homophone for "nihil" which means nothing. Even if it was fictional, or was based on "someone he knew," it's way too close to the real author.

>based about King
yep.

>That's also why he's ultimately a rather boring and often lifeless writer despite a few pangs of heart-wrench here and there.

I relate to it quite a bit though. There's some quote somewhere about making "the head weep like the heart," or something like that that sounds kind of dumb, but I feel like that's really what he was after. I think once he found success it was impossible for him not to be self-conscious about having a voice and imagining what the world must be thinking of him. So, his demons were underpinning his success and celebrity.

Also thought the "what's framing the frame" thing of Russell's paradox was more tasteful in G.O.N.

>Just so everybody who hasn't been involved in sports past little league knows, being regionally competitive in a child/teenage age division in tennis or any other sport doesn't take talent or is impressive, literally anybody without physical disability can do that so its strange to equate that to his literary ability

Nah. I'd say anxiety, indifference, and disinterest kept me from playing high school sports, even though theoretically I had enough mass and height to play pretty much any sport. But the things that kept me from doing it were a weakness. When you don't want to go to practice, you go anyways, or else you're done. It's really simple.

DFW had an inborn desire to do really well. Failure at tennis and boredom in philosophy/logic led him to seek success in writing. There are lots of MFA students but there aren't a lot of "rock-star" writers/professors out there is my point.

if this is actually Karr's poem, it's shitty.
I guess all readers of DFW are a joke.

he was like hemingway, manly and a total retard

it's a good poem actually, regardless of your feelings to either writer.
you must be an angry little person.

>it's a good poem
It's peak cringe.

how so?

Huh?

you've never been in love.
unironically: have sex.

he's just posting 'huh' in every thread to random posts, i guess this qualifies as entertainment for some people

It's corny, pretentious, and the writing is mediocre. Karr is a hack.

I don't think it's cliche enough to be corny, plus its very bittersweet in the context.
Pretentious is codeword for "i couldn't do it".
mediocre? Definitely better than anything I've read on Yea Forums.
She might be a hack, but she wrote a nice poem.

What?

It's a corny, cringe-worthy poem written by an old hack feminist.

i disagree with the first two claims and i agree it was written by an old hack feminist but i think you might be an incel.

You are hanging out in this thread and calling everyone who doesn't like the shitty poem you posted an incel. That says a lot about you.

no, just you.
It's a good poem.
If you read the thread even people who dislike the poem concede it has its merits.
youre not only dumb and ugly but insecure too. classic incel.

Not even close. You have called 4 or 5 different people incels for making fun of the crap poem you posted. That does not reflect poorly on anyone else but you.

no i haven't? show me where.
i only just started doing this in these last posts, moron.
you're only further demonstrating your lack of comprehension.

>it's white suicide
You don't kill yourself when the media tells you you're the best.

fyi retard: wasn't me.
It's a good poem, any reasonable person would agree you'd have to be a bitter incel out to "own women no matter the cost" to dismiss it as complete trash.

meant to quote this:

yikes

is word salad code for "i dont understand this because i'm a retard"

it's a real thing schizos do, but it's often used how you say

no i believe schizophrenia is a meme.
okay it's true some "schizos" just say random shit for attention for a reason, but if they're remotely aware of whats happening its usually code.
schizos are really just scared as fucking shit for no reason but they don't realize this.

even "normal" people engage in pointless wordplay so.

actually i'll correct myself.
it's not for no reason.
but if they realized the reason, they wouldn't be so afraid.

well we'll agree to disagree about that one. That conditions destroys people's lives and they have no idea what is even happening.

yea but you agree with me.
they don't realize what is happening because there are aspects of life that they are ignoring. why do you think most schizos are unique in their madness?
let's just say that i've been into that shithole and being aware of certain aspects have gotten me out of it.

I think it's a physical brain disorder. I have bipolar disorder and when people try to tell me it's thought patterns i find it laughable. Nobody who has experienced mania would ever think that, and schiziphrenics are much more disconnected from reality than bipolar people.

>Non-whites can be removed non violently, just as they came non violently.

Like how?
Also are you suggesting you'd take a white methhead over a high skilled Christian black family man?

im personally not interested in ethnic cleansing, but why accept either of them? Assuming that user is a fascist he's probably not exactly fond of methheads.

i'm gonna be brutal with you because we're on Yea Forums.
don't you think the physical is influenced by the spiritual/mental? and vice-versa?
i used to think i was bi-polar too, but be aware of things that happen to/around you on a momentary basis. what do you think your "thought patterns" are influenced by? i'm not siding with the psychologists who want to drug you up but be aware of patterns in your life that might be affecting you.
schizophrenia isn't real in the mainstream media in the sense of seeing/hearing things that aren't there. i've had these PERCEPTION distortions in a milder sense and i'm grateful that i come from a good enough background that people around me are "nice" enough to not fuck me up even further that i'm able to be able to recover.

a lot of isn't as mystical as the psychs might like you to believe, it's just everyday bullshit that you have to deal with. you would probably get better advice from comedians even though that's dangerous because they might be more fucked up than you.

reality is complicated and 2bh the psych wormhole is a cop-out. "reality" is built on illusion and a lot more brutal in actual action than what they want you to believe.

but it's not a cruel 4chanesque "i'm gonna torture you because i enjoy it" thing, it's quiet and it doesn't even seem to matter until it does.

my only real practical advice is be aware of what's happening around you. the world is complicated and reality is as well you have to take it seriously while also seeing it as a game. it's fucked up.

No I appreciate the comment and I get where you're coming from, if you say you used to think you were bipolar, did you ever actually have a manic episode? Like a 2 month long period that felt like you were at every second coming up on a shrooms trip while also being on uppers or molly or something, thinking everything around you was symbols of God, sleeping 4 hours a night and not being tired, massive change of personality, etc.?

Because that doesnt seem like a matter of 'looking at things as they really are' that seems like my brain was being flooded with chemicals that made my entire perception of reality and behavior alter dramatically. And then it just went away, and i really have no idea why it came or went.

The psychs didnt tell me this, I experienced it, and then later i went to see a couple who confirmed what it was, but i dont see a therapist or take meds.

DFW is probably the kind of writer who low testosterone men who consume bean-based drinks talk about when they drink after taking their Adderall or Vyvanse script.

Constantly shitting on the masculinity of some made-up straw man is the easiest way to signal that you're insecure about your own.

Men who have a satisfying social and sex life don't really think about masculinity that much. People are the most critical of their own insecurities.

Came on Yea Forums for my weekly visit and saw your post. Thank you for reminding me that every thread on this subreddit is like talking to that weird guy who wears nothing but jeans.

/pol/ ruined this fucking website. If anyone knows any literature forum that isn't retarded or overrun with 22 year olds in a masculinity crisis please let me know.

wait is wearing jeans weird now?
isn't it the most socially acceptable form of pants for adult males?
you're saying i should wear shorts??? I'm skeptical of you and your logic.

Ironic coming from a guy who's incapable of arguing besides brainlet half-truths such as "nature = people fighting over food lol". Try a bit harder next time, that level of bait borders on insulting.

>did you ever actually have a manic episode?
i genuinely thought i was jesus about 5 years ago. probably nothing as intense as you, but as i said, madness is all different you have to consider the context.
>Because that doesnt seem like a matter of 'looking at things as they really are'
there aren't really "things as they really are". you have to comprehend the the world and the situation you are in and come up with some structure on your own.

my point is that you have to figure it all out on your own. nobody can really help you. good for you that you didn't take meds. but yea you really have to just figure it out for yourself nobodys gonna fucking help you.

but onto what we were talking about. i genuinely don't believe "mental illness" exists in the way that we are fed. i believe they exist in the context of the human condition and that if we are suffering or lacking in some way it will manifest but not in some abstract "CHEMICALS ARE FUCKING MY BRAIN" way. OF COURSE our brain chemistry is gonna change if we're lonely and feel like fucking shit but if you just address the chemistry part of it you're not addressing the root cause. we have to be honest about our own situation and psychology looks to me like a cop-out of our own fucked up situation for fear of looking a loser or whatever in exchange for some "chemicals" bullshit explanation.

What are you talking about? All the onions guys at my college love DFW if they're into books at all

>22 year olds in a masculinity crisis
yeah this is weird, what's with all the self-hating gays and trannies recently? I assume there always were some homofags on this site, but they never brought it up. Now we have daily "how do i stop wanting to be dominated by others men" threads. Keep it to /adv/ and /lgbt/ guys.
Same with the /pol/tards and their (((they)))

you are definitely not gay/trans

Don't compare people who expose jews to trannies.

but they are the same people you retard fucking cunt

I think i see what you are saying, the interplay of your mind with your outside circumstances in life, and how that affects your physical brain, and it's all intertwined in a massively complex way.

Funnily your notion of 'the situation you are in' was a big part of my thoughts back then, I used to use the term 'embedded' a lot, like we belong to some universal thing but we are embedded in this particular consciousness that shrouds it and we have to deal with shit on a very case by case basis, which i used to call the 'little purposes throughout the day'.

It becomes a chicken and egg situation though, because it's hard to tell if the circumstances caused the mindset or vice versa. It's both i guess. But I still believe we all have different genetic propensities for this stuff and that that has to do with our brains.

Back to rěddit, faggot.

yea but we don't belong to some "universal thing". i get that you're past that. but that's basically jungian "collective unconscious" which is BS.
>It becomes a chicken and egg situation though
BUT NO
i get that it feels like im attacking you right now but idk what to say im trying to help.
i can only help anyone as much as they want to help themselves. and i won't lie i'm trying to help you as much as i'm trying to help myself in some way even if i'm doing better than before. pay attention to what's happening around you. this carl jung "collective consciousness" is a bunch of bullshit because it suggests that we're in it together but no we're in this on our own and you have to realize that by default people are out to get you like you are out to get them.
it's nothing malicious, it's just the reality of people being around each other. to reconcile that with love and existing around other people is the tough part. you have to find the balance. like i said, you have to figure it out on your own.

can you even be aggressive without using a homophobic/racial slur? limpdicked fucking cunt.

Wasn't carl jung for me, never read him, was mystic stuff related to the long tradition in the west and outside it. Also to do with the philosophy id been writing for years before, a concept of a fundamental reality we can necessarily never know but belong to. During the manic episode it was assoicated with Christianity to me, but that's just my background living in the West I think.

And youre really not being a dick at all, this is Yea Forums, i expect to be called a faggot retard on a regular basis, it's not going to hurt me lol.

And ive thought a lot in the past few years that maybe that universal thing really isn't real, and like you say what matters is making sense of this stuff and loving people close to you and doing what you can and whatever.

Its a question im not sure ill ever figure out.

>During the manic episode it was assoicated with Christianity to me
maybe you didn't read jung. but jung's entire shit was built around that. yea theres street cred for going through some famous persons shit without even realizing they existed lol, but jungs entire madness was built around christianity and many people go through the same worthless guilt trip that christianity puts on them. me included.
>And youre really not being a dick at all,
i mean yea i'm just sensitive to being an asshole to people who are genuine in their replies, but 2bh you're going through a christian hangover i wish you all the best i think/hope you'll figure it out haha

Jung has always struck me as a charlatan because I really don't like Freud, so i never read him. I glanced at his concept of archetypes and it seemed like completely arbitrary quasi-metaphorical bullshit.

And it's really not about Christianity for me, it came about through purely secular philosophy, Christianity just seemed the closest religion to the universal love and meaning feeling I had and it's embedded in our entire culture in a lot of ways. I was raised atheist.

all the best to you too

One will improve the economy and social fabric. What downside is there?

I mean, during winter months it's acceptable ( tho you might wanna throw in some khakis) but when it's hot you come off pretty weird wearing some sweaty ass jeans all the time. Even just cycling some black gym shorts in there a few times a week during the summer makes you come off much less autistically homicidal.

But if you don't know how weird guys who only wear jeans are, you gotta long way to go.