Many excellent points as always. But I think that something you assert here is a misstep: it's the passage where you suggest (in passing) that David Foster Wallace has a solid literary reputation and it connects to how he comes across as caring in his books. I wonder if you missed out on or forgot about the sad business of his entangleme…
Many excellent points as always. But I think that something you assert here is a misstep: it's the passage where you suggest (in passing) that David Foster Wallace has a solid literary reputation and it connects to how he comes across as caring in his books. I wonder if you missed out on or forgot about the sad business of his entanglements with the writer Mary Karr (as told by Karr herself in May 2018 or so). I think Karr's revelations about his personal conduct and the follow-on reassessments of his work really did a number on his reputation. I'm a huge fan of DFW and had that "say it ain't so" reaction at the time of Karr's news. Perhaps I over-reacted and all things considered he is still regarded as top shelf, but your assertion practically made me wince since I think his rep took such a serious hit. In any case, looking forward to Part 2 and beyond. Thanks.
I'm well aware of the charges against David Foster Wallace. But I stand by what I say in this essay. Perhaps I should write about this subject at some time—or deal with the larger issue of what degree of human frailty we can allow in an artist. I think it's safe to say that I'm more forgiving than the broader culture right now. That's not to claim sainthood for all the problematic figures (which would include Miles Davis, John Lennon, Chuck Berry, Charlie Parker, and many other legends whose reputations would be precarious if we dug deeply into the troubling details of their biographies). My view about DFW is exactly what I say here about Kerouac—the writing espouses kindness and compassion, and that's important to me. The artist often falls short of the art—but how often have we seen that? We will need to empty the library, bookstore and record store shelves if we feel human frailty and shortcomings are incompatible with works of art. If individual consumers want to restrict their cultural diet based on a moral cleansing regimen, I support their right to that choice. But they should respect my desire to forgive and tolerate, which does not imply condoning transgressions, nor does it require others to join me in this tolerant approach.
I really appreciate this response and agree with most of it. I for one would love to read more of your thoughts on these matters in a future post. It's remarkable how so much of the commentary on these questions strikes me as simply not helpful or insightful. At the moment I can't think of a writer who wrestles well with the topic--Ethan Iverson comes to mind (short remarks he's made on issues of race and gender seemed right on) and Marc Maron tackles this sort of thing as it plays out in the world of comedy in a way that is fascinatingly raw and funny and personal. But I can't think of a good essay that has hit the spot, apart from Rebecca Solnit writing about Thoreau and the misguidedness of his attackers.
Well said. I think one can separate the art from the artist. And whether a person chooses to do that or not is completely up to them, and completely fine. In the latest craze of purity tests and orthodoxy, we seem to have forgotten that.
Many excellent points as always. But I think that something you assert here is a misstep: it's the passage where you suggest (in passing) that David Foster Wallace has a solid literary reputation and it connects to how he comes across as caring in his books. I wonder if you missed out on or forgot about the sad business of his entanglements with the writer Mary Karr (as told by Karr herself in May 2018 or so). I think Karr's revelations about his personal conduct and the follow-on reassessments of his work really did a number on his reputation. I'm a huge fan of DFW and had that "say it ain't so" reaction at the time of Karr's news. Perhaps I over-reacted and all things considered he is still regarded as top shelf, but your assertion practically made me wince since I think his rep took such a serious hit. In any case, looking forward to Part 2 and beyond. Thanks.
I'm well aware of the charges against David Foster Wallace. But I stand by what I say in this essay. Perhaps I should write about this subject at some time—or deal with the larger issue of what degree of human frailty we can allow in an artist. I think it's safe to say that I'm more forgiving than the broader culture right now. That's not to claim sainthood for all the problematic figures (which would include Miles Davis, John Lennon, Chuck Berry, Charlie Parker, and many other legends whose reputations would be precarious if we dug deeply into the troubling details of their biographies). My view about DFW is exactly what I say here about Kerouac—the writing espouses kindness and compassion, and that's important to me. The artist often falls short of the art—but how often have we seen that? We will need to empty the library, bookstore and record store shelves if we feel human frailty and shortcomings are incompatible with works of art. If individual consumers want to restrict their cultural diet based on a moral cleansing regimen, I support their right to that choice. But they should respect my desire to forgive and tolerate, which does not imply condoning transgressions, nor does it require others to join me in this tolerant approach.
I really appreciate this response and agree with most of it. I for one would love to read more of your thoughts on these matters in a future post. It's remarkable how so much of the commentary on these questions strikes me as simply not helpful or insightful. At the moment I can't think of a writer who wrestles well with the topic--Ethan Iverson comes to mind (short remarks he's made on issues of race and gender seemed right on) and Marc Maron tackles this sort of thing as it plays out in the world of comedy in a way that is fascinatingly raw and funny and personal. But I can't think of a good essay that has hit the spot, apart from Rebecca Solnit writing about Thoreau and the misguidedness of his attackers.
Thanks again...
Well said. I think one can separate the art from the artist. And whether a person chooses to do that or not is completely up to them, and completely fine. In the latest craze of purity tests and orthodoxy, we seem to have forgotten that.