0 reactions
David Foster Wallace on Brett Easton Ellis and taking advantage of cynicism.
Quote from a 1993 interview with Larry McCaffery:
DFW: " You can see this clearly in something like Ellis’s *American Psycho*: it panders shamelessly to the audience’s sadism for a while, but by the end it’s clear that the sadism’s real object is the reader herself."
**LM**: "But at least in the case of American Psycho I felt there was something more than just this desire to inflict pain—or that Ellis was being cruel the way you said serious artists need to be willing to be."
**DFW**: "You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporary condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, materialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic and stupid, then I (or any writer) can get away with slapping together stories with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descriptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other."
My comment:
I've never read DFW to be honest, but I've read Bret Easton Ellis. I completely agree with this, and even posted here about this exact same thing (before I even read this interview). Brett Easton Ellis relies on an obvious and pretty vapid fact: Which is that the society he's talking about is vapid and sad. It makes his characters easy to read, and easy to relate to because it's a quick and obvious commentary. I believe he lacks the ability to add anything deep- not that he needs to, but it's interesting because people read him like he does.
I was just posting cause I wanted to see what you guys think? The last time I posted I got ripped apart and I don't think I could have written it better than the interview itself. Idk anything about DFW- but I definitely agree with him here.
#entertainment
source
Quote from a 1993 interview with Larry McCaffery:
DFW: " You can see this clearly in something like Ellis’s *American Psycho*: it panders shamelessly to the audience’s sadism for a while, but by the end it’s clear that the sadism’s real object is the reader herself."
**LM**: "But at least in the case of American Psycho I felt there was something more than just this desire to inflict pain—or that Ellis was being cruel the way you said serious artists need to be willing to be."
**DFW**: "You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporary condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, materialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic and stupid, then I (or any writer) can get away with slapping together stories with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descriptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other."
My comment:
I've never read DFW to be honest, but I've read Bret Easton Ellis. I completely agree with this, and even posted here about this exact same thing (before I even read this interview). Brett Easton Ellis relies on an obvious and pretty vapid fact: Which is that the society he's talking about is vapid and sad. It makes his characters easy to read, and easy to relate to because it's a quick and obvious commentary. I believe he lacks the ability to add anything deep- not that he needs to, but it's interesting because people read him like he does.
I was just posting cause I wanted to see what you guys think? The last time I posted I got ripped apart and I don't think I could have written it better than the interview itself. Idk anything about DFW- but I definitely agree with him here.
#entertainment
source
| 5,000 mlx | |
| 5 | |
| 0 |