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.
ellauri100.html on line 333: The same goes for jejune libertarians, of all ages, whose narrow rationalism often materializes in rank offensiveness and a tendency toward naive absolutism. (See this and this, for example. And take this, and this!)
ellauri119.html on line 518: Examples of ludus in movies include Dangerous Liaisons [Okay!], Cruel Intentions, and Kids. Ludic lovers want to have as much fun as possible. When they are not seeking a stable relationship, they rarely or never become overly involved with one partner and often can have more than one partner at a time, in other words a school of partners. They don't reveal their true thoughts and feelings to their partner(s), especially if they think they can gain some kind of advantage over their partner(s). The expectation may also be that the partner(s) should also be similarly minded. If a relationship materializes it will be about having fun and indulging in activities of varying degrees of learnedness together. This love style carries the likelihood of infidelity. In its most extreme form, ludic love can become sexual addiction. No Lee's recognizable traits.
3