Very sad news, Infinite Jest is one of my favourites - a deeply impressive work. 46 yrs old, Damn. I think he said that he wrote Infinite Jest around an idea of sadness and being lost in America. Must have being very real for him. RIP.
After reading Infinite Jest I thought to myself that this guy either has a remarkable degree of insight and empathy for the pain and suffering of so many different types of people, or it’s a miracle that he’s still walking around drawing breath. I guess now we know which. 
Personal insults are not allowed outside the Pit, Cosmic Relief. If you have a problem with a poster, take it there.
You knew him personally?
Well, that’s an upsetting way to start my Sunday.
RIP, David Foster Wallace. If there’s an afterlife, I hope that it provides you with as much pleasure as your work has brought me.
Damn. Did not see that coming.
Moderator reminder: We long ago in Cafe Society established the policy that a thread about the death of a celebrity is not the same as personal mourning: negative comments about the person are acceptable in an obituary thread, just as they would be in any other thread about a celebrity.
I personally dislike this policy. I personally think that obituary threads should be respectful. However, when it was last discussed, the vast majority of members felt otherwise, and the mods agreed to set this policy based on that opinion.
As a math guy, I really enjoyed and appreciated his Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity. It’s not every literary genius who can write so knowledgeably and well about mathematics.
Although funnily, I remember seeing a lot of mistakes in the math described in Infinite Jest. He obviously knew enough to sound convincing to the average reader (ok average IJ reader). This is very sad news and it’s a shock even if it’s not much of a surprise when you look at his oeuvre.
I hope he’s somewhere in the great beyond, smiling wryly. 
I like how you used the corn in there for texture.
A couple of mutual acquaintances; met him a few times.
The footnotes, for example, are a bit much sometimes and I think it’s important to recognize that many of them are for his sake, not the reader’s. Oftentimes when he gets into jerkoffy territory I recognize that as the way a certain type of mind tends to work and I recognize it in myself and I deeply appreciate how well he expresses himself. Exploring the tributaries of the stream of consciousness, in a way. He certainly doesn’t bend over backwards to make things easy for the reader, but many argue that he bends over backwards to make things hard for the reader. I disagree with this – to me it really seems like he gets wrapped up in the little games he plays with himself, and if there’s a thread you can follow naturally the rewards can be huge.
I wonder such short acquaintance were possibly long enough for you to have formed an intelligent opinion. Or, rather, I would, if I believed you, which I don’t.
That just sucks. Brilliant writer; I particularly enjoyed his mixing up of different styles within a single work.
Eh, I dunno. I read Consider the Lobster, and was sort of annoyed that too often the footnotes seemed basically there for the sake of having a lot of footnotes, and were more or less contentless. Which is sad since I actually like footnotes when they’re used to include interesting asides or digressions.
The article on the porn industry was interesting and funny (which is probably why it was put first in the collection, hence suckering me into reading the rest of the book), but the rest of his essays in that collection just came across like he was trying too hard to impress.
Maybe I’ll get to infinite Jest someday.
Did he have an especially well-known non-fiction essay? I know I’ve read something by him, but not any of his books…
(The Updike piece linked upthread was, well, uproarious.)
Right. Because that’s the extent of my fantasy life. Not that I want to be rich or immortal or anything, my fantasy life consists of pretending I’ve met David Foster Wallace. Not Brad Pitt, or Elvis: David Foster Wallace.
:rolleyes:
Actually I was referring to your tendencies towards contrariness & iconoclasm-for-the-sake-of-iconoclasm.
A) Not to junior mod, but this thread isn’t about me, but about Wallace.
B) I’m not much of a “me too” poster. This means that disagreement is more likely to inspire me to participate in a thread than is agreement. You misread this as disingenuous contrariety; you are mistaken.
I think I’ll let this go rather than continue a thread hijack.