ellauri063.html on line 426: The novel is widely noted for its unconventional narrative structure and its experimental use of endnotes (there are 388 endnotes, some with footnotes of their own). It has been categorized as an encyclopedic novel.
ellauri063.html on line 432: Infinite Jest is a postmodern encyclopedic novel, famous for its length and detail and for its digressions that involve endnotes (some of which themselves have footnotes). It has also been called metamodernist and hysterical realist. Wallace's "encyclopedic display of knowledge" incorporates media theory, linguistics, film studies, sport, addiction, science, and issues of national identity. The book is often humorous yet explores melancholy deeply.
ellauri073.html on line 275: Quickly on your attacks on Wallace's writing style, I will mention that -- contrary to your rather baffling notions -- people did enjoy Infinite Jest and other works of his. They will continue to do so for decades. Listen Fartey: his work will live on. People recognize great writing wherever it materializes. Forget your distaste of footnotes, or your struggle in understanding the themes and ideals his work encompasses. His audience is clearly beyond you, so try to see that not everyone feels the same as you. You don't have to like his writing, but when you detract from it it makes it even more apparent that you are the lesser man. Your comments on Foster's writing ability led me to some of your other articles, and to be completely honest, it wasn't all bad. I genuinely enjoyed your "Fucking vs. Making Love" poetry bit, although it did seem like a cheap knockoff of Black Coffee Blues. Regardless, I can still acknowledge that the piece had its moments. However (and this is where I want you to pay attention you tub of lard), the piece can also be slammed in several areas. This is highly important, as we can see the parallels between this aspect of "Fucking vs. Making Love" and anything David Foster Wallace wrote. When it comes down to it, your writing can be criticized stylistically and formatically just like his can; the only difference is that there are few that actually give a shit about your writing, whereas Wallace's work is meaningful to the point where people have legitimate incentive to think critically about it. So defile it with your petty blog posts all you want, but at the end of the day you're the one who's only making yourself look bad, and as a heavily obese man based in Europe you are surely having few problems achieving this in the status quo, since Europeans are notably fatist.
ellauri190.html on line 315: The Russo-Polish geographer and ethnographer Zygmunt Gloger in his "Geography of historic lands of the Old Poland" (Polish: "Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski") explains that at the time the term "Little" was interchangeably with the word "new", and in his footnotes, he clearly states that, at least in 1903, Little Russia (Malorossia) was perceived in such manner. Prior to the revolutionary events of 1917, a large part of the region's élite population adopted a Little Russian identity that competed with the local Ukrainian identity. At that time it was trendy to be Russian, large or small.
ellauri264.html on line 492: Ladies and Gentlemen: There are five hundred reasons why I began to write for children, but to save time I will mention only ten of them. Number 1) Children read books, not reviews. They don’t give a hoot about the critics. Number 2) Children don’t read to find their identity. Number 3) They don’t read to free themselves of guilt, to quench the thirst for rebellion, or to get rid of alienation. Number 4) They have no use for psychology. Number 5) They detest sociology. Number 6) They don’t try to understand Kafka or Finnegans Wake. Number 7) They still believe in God, the family, angels, devils, witches, goblins, logic, clarity, punctuation, and other such obsolete stuff. Number 8) They love interesting stories, not commentary, guides, or footnotes. Number 9) When a book is boring, they yawn openly, without any shame or fear of authority. Number 10) They don’t expect their beloved writer to redeem humanity. Young as they are, they know that it is not in his power. Only the adults have such childish illusions.
ellauri368.html on line 325: Revealer of Secrets merits immense respect among readers of Judaic literature. With it Perl not only inaugurated a new branch of Hebrew writing but also entered the fray that was raging between enlightened maskilim and inspired hasidim , taking aim against corruption through sophisticated comic parodies. According to tradition, Perl's parody was so convincing that hasidic readers initially assumed that Revealer of Secrets was a genuine hasidic work. This impression was furthered by the presence of innumerable scholarly and pseudo-scholarly footnotes adorning the text.
ellauri368.html on line 339: The novel used the epistolary tradition of European novels such as Samuel Richardson's Pamela and brought this style into Jewish literature. Perl also made use of scholarly and pseudo-scholarly footnotes throughout the novel.
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 131: One ugly phrase in a personal letter, for instance (out of a vast personal correspondence), referring to Franz Werfel as a "Jew-boy," and some murky generalities about Werfel's "Jewish attitude toward his work," do not an anti-Semite make. Rilke cherished the many Jews he knew, including Simmel; he enjoyed reading the Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber and steeped himself in Jewish Scripture, claiming that Judaism was closer than Christianity to God. He also remained a lifelong champion of Werfel's work. And a reader discovers buried deep in Freedman's footnotes that Rilke wrote the offending letter to the poet Hugo von Hoffmannsthal, a good friend and an important patron. Hoffmannsthal was also Jewish, and he shared Rilke's negative views on the superambitious Werfel, who emigrated to America and, in 1941, published The Song of Bernadette, a novel about a miracle at Lourdes. Freedman doesn't mention that about five months after Rilke wrote the letter to Hoffmannsthal, along with a nearly identical letter to his patron Princess Marie von Thurn und Taxis, Rilke again wrote similar letters to the two of them praising Werfel's poetry so exuberantly that they almost sound like retractions of his first letters.
8