= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
benkuhn comments on Who are some of the best writers in history? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
Okay, so it seems pretty clear that he can't do math (or lacks a good math editor). That's disappointing, especially since he has a degree in it.
But I don't think either of the other two speaks to lack of conceptual precision: the Language Hat post is essentially complaining that he's a prescriptivist, which seems conceptually fine (if possibly wrong) to me. Meanwhile the eXiled one is an extensive (and in places unbelievably hatchet-y) attack on him for I'm not quite sure what--pretending to be folksy and chummy while secretly using big words?
(I admit that I skimmed because the author didn't seem to have a point other than rambling about how the sponsor of the guy who made a movie of a book in the same genre as Infinite Jest once did some questionable political things. So maybe I missed something.)
That's probably LH's essential point, but some of the specific holes they pick in what DFW wrote suggest DFW had a blurry idea of what various words & phrases mean ("à clef", "q.v.", "bethought", "sub" vs. "infra"), and of what people in a particular job/demographic do or say (like thinking that descriptive linguists merely describe people's beliefs about language rather than their usage, or that a "Young Urban Black" pronounces "on" with "that NYCish oo-o diphthong").
Can't say I blame you. The eXiled article does make a number of points, some of them cogent — Dave Eggers really is wrong to treat IJ as a flawless alien artifact with no literary precedents — and some of them silly — like Glazov complaining about pretentious language in IJ's first chapter, which plays out from the POV of a dictionary-reading prodigy with an eidetic memory — but the cogent points are hard to get to because they're mixed with cheap shots and the article as a whole is pretty nasty. (I usually have more of a problem with that kind of nastiness, but for some reason I don't mind it so much in that piece. Maybe because I haven't read Selby or Vollmann or Eggers? Dunno.)
The most relevant bit here is the blockquote with a list of a dozen drug bloopers, which I reckon shows DFW puffed up his drug knowledge with old drug manuals and memories of his alcoholism. DFW mixed up millilitres & milligrams, made a mushy reference to "lightweight tranqs" that doesn't seem to map to pharmacological reality, didn't know what is or isn't a benzodiazepine, and didn't know the abuse potential (or effects) of antipsychotics.
To me, the Language Hat and eXiled posts indicate DFW suffered from conceptual imprecision about language & drugs respectively, just as the Everything and More flubs and IJ's calculus errors indicate fuzziness about mathematical ideas.