Originally Posted by Levin (Post 301651)

It seems Wallace's primary failing is that he was captive to his style, and his narcissism. Which reminds me of something funny Wallace said (to bring this full circle back to Waters' linking of Updike and Wallace): "Mailer, Updike, Roth -- the Great Male Narcissists." Takes one to know one.

But if you agree with Waters, I have to disagree with you. Saying that Wallace lacked experience to have the necessary insight is not correct. Rather, he lacked the necessary insight into the experiences he had. Tolstoy lived a large life, but Tolstoy's insights are not inaccessible to authors leading different lives, such as those who raise peahens and peacocks. And not all great authors must have Tolstoy's style. Take Hemingway (Waters' crush), his style is much different (although I've heard Tolstoy in Russian is much more pointed, direct, and declarative than our English translations).

And so even if it's true that Wallace lacked insight (which I disagree with), then it wasn't because of his lack of experiences. If anything, he experienced a range of human emotion and waged more soulful battles than most. And that is more than enough to write a morally game-changing novel, which is what he wanted to do. Apparently it was his style and narcissim that held him back.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 301650)

I am very well aware that I am looking at Wallace through the lens of one man--the writer of the New Yorker article, who possesses his own biases.

His portrayal of Wallace's life showed much insularity and navel-gazing, as well as personal trials and suffering. You had the impression that he was part of the American writing machine, with the right American writing friends, that he was moving along with the right gigs, but otherwise unhappy, unfulfilled, unconnected. Is any of this true? Hell if I know.

You can't blame a man for shooting high and falling short. How often is a person born that will end up not writing an epic novel for the ages? Every second?

Wallace's desire to accomplish something that he hadn't the ability to do, is something many of us can relate to. Except we have even less chance than he.

Wallace had a beautiful basketball athleticism, let's say. But that was not enough. He wanted the beautiful game. He wanted the shot, the court-vision, the anticipation, the ball-handling, the ability to inspire and move his teammates. Hell, he was in the NBA, most would be happy just with that. But as I said before, some are cursed to wish they were Jordan when they are only Paxton. To sit next to Jordan, to feel his sweat dripping on you, but to be a million miles away.

I've never read a single book by Pynchon, Roth, Updike, Delillo, or Wallace. Honestly, even after reading about them in these articles, and a review here or there, I have little desire to do so. I revulse at the thought of tiring myself that way.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 301655)

If he was self-absorbed, and his writing also so, there was nothing about his life's depiction that argued his actions were not also so.

You want to show an entire generation out of the wilderness? Try moving your own two GD feet first.