David Foster Wallace and Bret Easton Ellis

Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 

olso4644
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 111

21 Aug 2010, 10:28 pm

I've always liked both writers. Now i find it somewhat funny that Ellis hates Wallace for critiquing his work as shallow. Which it is. I mean, you can talk all you want about how the characters are shallow, and not the writing, but that's just an excuse to get away with easy writing (easy, as in from a published author's standpoint, not easy in the general things you can do)


I mean i like both writers and i thought wallace's criticism of ellis was just. I just thought it was funny (not in a ha ha way) that after wallace committed suicide that Ellis would criticize his work as being unreadable. That's almost like saying, i don't have the intelligence to read a contemporary writer's work.


Anyway. i dont know why, but i am always enthralled when i find out that two writers have a grudge against one another.

I know a lot of people don't like these two authors on here, but i always wonder how goodkind felt about Robert Jordan's books because goodkind always kind of looked like an A$$. And he did come after jordan, and jordan's writing is, in general, better (in my opinion)



Shone
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

10 Oct 2010, 4:35 pm

I love David Foster Wallace, and not so much Ellis. As far as social criticism goes, Wallace was more perceptive and more creative, his characters more vivid having internal dialogues that were more honest-- Ellis' characters seemed to be motivated by 'the irony Ellis wanted them to show' or something else Ellis wanted to prove-- he wanted the reader to think he was a perceptive author (In reality, his characters just said the "clever" quips Ellis probably thought of in his spare time.)
Wallace, now we all realize, was likely a tortured person who was looking for honesty and authenticity in a TV culture, or in a world where people "smile warmly at you only because they want something from you" (think advertising/social-posturing) . And I think he truly hated it. So his characters were, I think, built on that honesty, which was not a snarky or self-righteous honesty (like someone who speaks their opinion no matter what), but an honesty that shows us what we don't want to hear (the hideousness from 'Brief interviews'. He didn't want to be seen as clever or funny, i don't think, because he ultimately hated the things he criticized enough to kill himself.
Ellis i think of as more of a social critic, Wallace as an artist/philosopher. So i do think DFW was a better author, and was right about Ellis. Wallace is totally readable, you just have to be smart!



olso4644
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 111

14 Oct 2010, 5:13 am

yeah Ellis is fun to read, but i think his books for me are guilty pleasure reads. They're fun, easy, and they don't require much thought. He pretty much said. All culture is superficial, therefore at the end of my books i'm going to be witty and say that nothing ever changes. If nothing else, instead of portraying society as it is (in rich spoiled kids cases, at least of the books of his i have read) he should show ways that this part of society can change. I mean, that's what is supposed to happen in books. progress. Not showing it is a cheap way to get out of thinking all that hard of the book you are writing.



paolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,175
Location: Italy

18 Oct 2010, 11:20 am

Wallace in Good OLd Neon describes himself as ASD up to his final decision to take his life. He was a great writer. The best of the last generation:
(Melville's Bartelby thr story of a refugee from society, who starves himseld to death is a classical perfect literary achievemnt in the field.) Have read Ellis but wouldn't know.


_________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
--Samuel Beckett


Shone
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

18 Oct 2010, 9:37 pm

http://aspergermindspeaks.blogspot.com/ ... nd-go.html

It just clicked!! of course hes was on the autistic spectrum! this makes me love him so much more. If only he were still around...

You know, all of my most treasured heroes end up having some kind of psychological "disorder". everyone from Jimi Hendrix (believed to have aspergers), to einstein, to basically every philosopher ever-- certainly wittgenstein, to (probably) Mitch Hedberg, to again, basically every original writer and jazz musician (thelonius monk, glenn gould)... these are awesome, genius, brave, and honest people, and DFW was among the best of them.

If only the world-- and people-- were more accommodating and understanding...



olso4644
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 111

20 Oct 2010, 7:04 am

if they were more understanding i doubt they would have had the drive they did to make something of themselves and i doubt they would have made something of themselves anyway because it is the lack of understanding people have that makes these people so good. It is their mystery, and the mystery surrounding what they do that makes them the people they are, or became.



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

20 Oct 2010, 1:38 pm

olso4644 wrote:
yeah Ellis is fun to read, but i think his books for me are guilty pleasure reads. They're fun, easy, and they don't require much thought. He pretty much said. All culture is superficial, therefore at the end of my books i'm going to be witty and say that nothing ever changes. If nothing else, instead of portraying society as it is (in rich spoiled kids cases, at least of the books of his i have read) he should show ways that this part of society can change. I mean, that's what is supposed to happen in books. progress. Not showing it is a cheap way to get out of thinking all that hard of the book you are writing.


Progress is usually what happens in books and to characters, but rarely happens in life. :lol:

I suppose it's the form most satisfying to the majority of readers; a sequence of stuff, progression, some peaks and troughs with a general 'upward' trend, then explosive climax and resolution. I think I just described a map of sex.

I do know what you mean though. I'd say that American Psycho is one of the best things I've ever read, but in the end it just kinda meanders away into more of the same. Less Than Zero, very similar. Rather anti-climatic.

Not every artist is interested in portraying or effecting change. If you want an artist who does that, I think you're barking up the wrong Bret Easton Ellis.

I've not gotten round to reading Foster Wallace. There was a time that my ego and my self identification as a well read person would force me to remedy that.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


Last edited by Moog on 21 Oct 2010, 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

MeshGearFox
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 243
Location: NYC

20 Oct 2010, 2:32 pm

Wallace is a much better writer than Ellis. Wallace is funny and philosophical and culturally perceptive. It is very difficult as a writer to engage with serious questions of being in the world and still be entertaining (Broom of the System). Didn't Ellis just write a sequel to American Psycho? That is a desperation move. Also, criticizing more respected writers to get publicity is pretty lame too. Ellis is a one hit wonder. I would not even know of his work if it wasn't for the movie. Wallace's work was diverse and continually changing with time -- he had so much potential. You can tell how much he cared about his stories and characters because of the wealth of verbal acrobatics he brought to them. I also connect with what he was trying to do. I still reread the analyst scenes in Broom to laugh and admire the gift of great art. His death was truly tragic to me.



Kaybee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,446
Location: A hidden forest

20 Oct 2010, 11:44 pm

olso4644 wrote:
I mean, that's what is supposed to happen in books. progress. Not showing it is a cheap way to get out of thinking all that hard of the book you are writing.


Nothing is "supposed" to happen in books. There are many different literary styles. Some people like books which don't follow the (stereo)typical exposition-->conflict-->climax-->denouement pattern which Moog so erotically described for us. Some people even prefer books which have no resolution or progress, or even any climax (apply the sex metaphor to that preference all you like).

As for the question, I've never read any Wallace, but I do appreciate Ellis. I love (and hate) American Psycho and quite liked Less Than Zero as well.


_________________
"A flower falls, even though we love it; and a weed grows, even though we do not love it."


Shone
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

20 Oct 2010, 11:50 pm

olso4644 wrote:
if they were more understanding i doubt they would have had the drive they did to make something of themselves and i doubt they would have made something of themselves anyway because it is the lack of understanding people have that makes these people so good. It is their mystery, and the mystery surrounding what they do that makes them the people they are, or became.


Thats true... true but a shame. They (We?) have such interesting perspectives but it is because they (we) DONT fit in-- because they (we) see things from outside of the cultural framework-- or the framework of social norms that keep the wheels of civilization thoroughly greased. this is what allows them to reflect such unusual ideas/works of art, etc. I mean-- reclusive/unusual authors like Joyce, Pynchon & Salinger = eternal win, while flavors of the month that produce widget-art or widget-ideas are forgotten in a season.
I'm willing to wager that most famous writers and artists and philosophers, if examined by today's psychologists, would be seen as possessors of asperger's syndrome or autism. I mean, i was thinking about this the other day-- i realized that much history and the literature and art from those past time periods were NOT recorded by NTs! Art and writing was done by scriveners and savants and those who had strange knacks for things but were still supported by a social system, or employed as court musicians and artists, etc. The NTs were just like the NTs of today... Working, Drinking, Socializing, Working, Drinking, Socializing, etc., maybe raising a family and maybe consuming the ideas and writings of a few interesting people. They were likely not contributing to the material history of their time-period (apart from what they built in the way of buildings and objects), but the arts were far to specialized and far too expensive to teach back then. Savants recorded history, in my opinion... or at least, a significant portion of history's recorders were savants. NTs would dread sitting alone for hours--days-- their whole lives-- scribbling, scribbling, scribbling, painting, painting, painting, composing, composing, composing...



olso4644
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 111

21 Oct 2010, 7:42 am

You're right to a certain degree, but i think that all disorders (i hate calling them that) should be put under that umbrella of seeing things from an interesting perspective. I'm sure many were autistic, but i have difficulty believing that Salinger is autistic, and there are a few others. Hemingway comes to mind. Though i do think that there are quite a few autistic ones too.

And Kaybee, i agree that not having any sort of climax imitates more so the reality of life. What i'm saying is that books shouldn't follow this model. Because it just furthers the deterioration of our culture, the disenchantment, the deconstruction, circular thought etc. etc. Take Harry Potter. Harry potter is my favorite books, for many reasons, i guess the most important reason though is the message, and whether it is good or bad is debatable, considering Harry is an ends justifies the means type character, but i guess the most important message in that book is that it doesn't matter what you think or feel, what matters is the action that you take.



And that is the problem i have with books where no one changes. If no one changes it gives rise to theories that people like Adolf Hitler weren't evil people, that they were that way for a specific reason, and there was nothing they could do to change this. I happen to write a lot, and i think that writing a book where nothing changes is a cheap way of getting out of actually writing something worthwhile. It is the same epidemic seen in television. If television characters don't change, they eventually become stereotypes of who they once were. Although this isn't as plain to see within the context of one novel, it is over a lifetime of one's novels IE Ellis, which as he has gotten older, has gotten more and more terrible. His book Lunar Park was a goddang travesty. It may be realistic to write a book where nobody changes, and it may be okay to do so, but i would like to think that writers have a duty to help the world, help shape the what the world will be. They are the artists, along with television (scarily) that shape the sociological movements that will take place in the future.


That sentiment may be a little dramatic and egotistical (in that i hope to get published one day) but i think it is, for the most part true



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

21 Oct 2010, 2:12 pm

Hey olso4644. that's all very well, but these are mostly just your opinions and preferences. No one has to do anything other than what they want to, what they feel is right. Artists have no obligation to behave how you want. Viva la difference, I say. There's plenty of authors out there trying to change people's lives in a more direct way. So read them. Or take that mantle for yourself, that's your business and your right.

I feel you might be overlooking a certain quality of Easton Ellis' work. I don't know how anyone could read American Psycho and not come away from it questioning themselves, their culture, their world. And that is how the change is likely to manifest.

I've not read Lunar Park, and have no burning desire to. Without reading the rest of his oeuvre, I suspect you may well be right in calling him a one trick pony... but it's a pretty good trick.

I hope that your ambitions of becoming a published writer come to fruition and make you happy.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


olso4644
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 111

22 Oct 2010, 11:01 am

Well of course it is all opinion, i thought i made that clear enough. And you're correct, artists don't have any obligation to behave in any way. For that matter, people don't have any obligation to behave any way either. And yet everybody has an opinion about everything. That point was redundant. This point is redundant.



I read American Psycho, and didn't question myself, my culture, or my world. And i am fine with graphic novels. One of my favorite books is A clockwork Orange. American Psycho is only (a few) clever tricks that he extends for three hundred pages. Oh, if i talk about clothes enough it will contrast against this superficial culture (which he has already written to death on) and this one where he murders people. And if i have nobody at all notice this character behaving strangely it will say . . . The fact is, he spends three hundred pages talking about high society in a way that is completely different from something like Mrs. Dalloway. Rather than seeing high society with more depth, he illustrates the superficiality of high society with someone not only superficial, but disturbingly so. I would be willing to accept something of that caliber in a short story, but for 300 pages! How egotistical can you be to find words to illustrate high society with a superficial character and not have anything change in the end. Whatsoever!

Oh yeah, the Dante references are clever. I forgot to mention those. Huzzah!

Alas, you're correct, and i am being an a-hole for extending my opinion so far onto somebody. The truth is, i like reading Ellis's earlier work, but i despise him, and what he has to offer to this world. (I liked Less than Zero, and found Rules of attraction moderately okay, and American Psycho is when i began to become opinionated on the subject)

Clever tricks are all fun and games, but if they don't go anywhere, what's the point? If he wants to illustrate society as it is, have some class, don't use an extreme serial killerl. (I'm sure there is probably one out there, but i don't believe for one second that anybody would ignore somebody like that when it is so blunt)

Alas, i ramble.



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

22 Oct 2010, 12:23 pm

It's funny you mention A Clockwork Orange, as that's a favourite of mine too. :)

I guess we can agree to disagree over American Psycho. I should probably read Rules of Attraction if you rate that.

BEE did seem to kind of fall into some kind of super decadent slump after a few books. He'd probably admit the same.

Of course it's all opinions, it's just that the language you've used at times suggests that you're writing facts and not opinions, and that always gets my goat... :lol:


_________________
Not currently a moderator