Wow! Harold Bloom called Infinite Jest awful...

[dfw]

who does this guy think he is?

what do you make of this?

[tonywalt]

Bloom as a literary critic in the last few years has been largely unimportant. I doubt he ever read IJ, Pale King and likely did not read his cruise ship essay or any others.

[Desolation]

That's not altogether surprising. Being pretty virulently anti-canon, I've never really put much stock in Bloom's opinions anyway (unless, of course, he happens to agree with my opinion, that is). No one has to like anything, but I do object to Bloom's specific remarks - "He can't think, he can't write. There's no discernible talent." What a blowhard.

[Charles Darnay]

A critic with an opinion, and one that is typically eloquently expressed, with a lot of textual reference to back it up. Who are you?

[PeterL]

Was there more to his criticism than what you posted? If so, then what was the it?

[ralfyman]

If the point refers to what was mentioned here,

http://www.wwd.com/eye/people/the-full-bloom-3592315

then I don't think that's a review.

[MementoMori]

Contrary to popular opinion, David Foster Wallace is not the messiah.


Was there more to his criticism than what you posted? If so, then what was the it?

According to this site (http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/critical-analysis/stephen-king-is-cervantes-compared-with-david-foster-wallace.html) he said "Stephen King is Cervantes compared with David Foster Wallace." :lol:

[Drkshadow03]

A critic with an opinion, and one that is typically eloquently expressed, with a lot of textual reference to back it up. Who are you?

Eh, since most of these types of comments occur within popular newspaper articles rather than scholarly ones he rarely includes "a lot of textual reference to back it up."

This is what was written (http://www.wwd.com/eye/people/the-full-bloom-3592315?full=true):


Asked about novelist David Foster Wallace . . . Bloom says, “You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ [regarded by many as Wallace’s masterpiece] is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.”


In the next paragraph he then claims Stephen King is a better writer than David Foster Wallace.

[Emil Miller]

A critic with an opinion, and one that is typically eloquently expressed, with a lot of textual reference to back it up. Who are you?

In all fairness, he has given, inter alia , the following information:

I still need to finish Infinite Jest, but had to return it to the library with 200 pages to go. I'm 17, a senior in high school...

I can just imagine Harold Bloom's face even though he has probably read many such authoritative dismissals in recent times.

[PeterL]

According to this site (http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/critical-analysis/stephen-king-is-cervantes-compared-with-david-foster-wallace.html) he said "Stephen King is Cervantes compared with David Foster Wallace." :lol:

That's one Hell of a putdown, because King is a mediocre writer, I have never read anything byy Wallace, and this article certainly encourages me to continue that.

[manuscript]

i havent read Infinite Jest, but i have closely read a very long article by David Foster Wallace, about a tennis player, for a university research project i did on literary sports writing. it is just a really good and interesting essay. i still remember much more about it than i do about the other sports pieces i read by writers like Gay Talese and Hunter S Thompson. it was not Nabokov, but it was excellent. i believe it is possible that he may have had trouble thinking clearly and in ways that were completely free from emotional distortion or irrationality, as he seems to have suffered from a severe mood disorder. but surely it is just hyperbole to make a remark that the guy had no ability, it seems obvious that he was highly intelligent, and had sophisticated ideas about what writing is and how it can operate. maybe sometimes critics make remarks just to try and prompt readers to think critically rather than simply falling in love with an author. the backhanded compliment to Stephen King is pretty tacky though, it seems extraneous and spiteful.

[Anton Hermes]

I've read just about all of the fiction Wallace published during his lifetime. While I wouldn't call it "awful," I don't consider Jest to be Wallace's masterpiece. That distinction goes to Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, a truly brilliant collection of Wallace's most original and well-sculpted short fiction.

Infinite Jest is uneven and bloated, but it's certainly entertaining and has some classic Wallace routines. I've talked to people who say they "wouldn't change a word" of Jest, but that's just silly. Wallace indulged himself shamelessly, writing silly harangues and interminable descriptions of people ODing or withdrawing. He was a very witty writer, but the comedic value of all that pharamaceutical jargon wore very thin very early on.

[E.A Rumfield]

Bloom as a literary critic in the last few years has been largely unimportant. I doubt he ever read IJ, Pale King and likely did not read his cruise ship essay or any others.

Because he didn't like it you assume he didn't read it?

[Desolation]

This is the guy who apparently reads so quickly that he could read War and Peace from start to finish on his lunch break. I don't see any reason to doubt that he's read Infinite Jest. Maybe even a couple of times.

[manuscript]

dfw, you already started another thread on this exact topic, over here.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?72246-Wow!-Harold-Bloom-called-Infinite-Jest-awful
why did you start two separate threads? i feel annoyed because i took the time to think about it and contribute a comment, and now it seems like my contribution has been thrown in the garbage somehow. are you intending to actually engage in the discussion on either thread?

[tonywalt]

If he can read War and Peace on his lunch break then he's a fast reader.

[OrphanPip]

This reminds me of something someone said to me a couple weeks ago: "What's the name of that guy everybody hates? Oh ya! Harold Bloom."

[ennison]

Wallace could think and could entertain (Mind you I'm easy to entertain). I'd rate him as a very good writer. But if one is hooked up to anti-depressants there may be a knock-on effect in one's writing. The reference to King is a bit unnecessary. King takes his writing seriously even if there are large chunks of dross. That's one of the penalties of being prolific and having an obsession with the bizarre.

[cacian]

Well if he said then so be it he is allowed it. Everyone 's entitled an opinion. He is entitled his and good luck to him.
Although I do like this quote there is a lot of truth in it.


I even resented the use of the term from Shakespeare, when Hamlet calls the king’s jester Yorick, ‘a fellow of infinite jest.’
It’s sort of a dark time. Imaginative energy I think is very difficult to summon up when there are so many distractions. There’s a kind of Grisham’s law [in literature]; the bad drives out the good.”

[tonywalt]

Wallace's short essays in Harpers - chiefly Shipping Out and the State Fair piece (both available online) are the best non fictions essays i've read.

If he had written non-fiction or more conventional books, he would have been widely popular - in addition to be being the most skilled writer of his generation.

[Desolation]

Contrary to popular opinion, David Foster Wallace is not the messiah.

It's funny you should say that...In my writing class, a few weeks ago, my teacher was talking about how essential it is to really dramatize your stories..."Unless you're Thomas Pynchon. No one reads Pynchon for drama. You read Gravity's Rainbow or, say, Wallace's Infinite Jest because they're holy books. They're the New Testaments of fiction." Hovering around the half-way point of Jest (and stuck in Gravity's Limbo), I'm inclined to agree.

Certain things aren't for everyone. Actually, nothing is for everyone. Goes without saying, right?

[ennison]

Well as your pic looks awfully like The Thomas Pynchon I used to know I guess you might be forgiven for saying that. Now Pynchon IS a great fictionalist. Perhaps Wallace is covered by the more generic term of writer.

[Eiseabhal]

My oldest daughter sent me a set of Wallace's essays from Canada.Well they were different. He certainly entertained me.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's funny you should say that...In my writing class, a few weeks ago, my teacher was talking about how essential it is to really dramatize your stories..."Unless you're Thomas Pynchon. No one reads Pynchon for drama. You read Gravity's Rainbow or, say, Wallace's Infinite Jest because they're holy books. They're the New Testaments of fiction." Hovering around the half-way point of Jest (and stuck in Gravity's Limbo), I'm inclined to agree.

Certain things aren't for everyone. Actually, nothing is for everyone. Goes without saying, right?

That strikes me as an odd thing to say, on so many levels. What makes them holy? The analogy makes no sense.