New Scientist on Everything and More: "There are moments where David Foster Wallace pulls off a very convincing impression of maverick writer Dave Eggers's style". How embarrassing for the reviewer
There are 13 reader comments
• Nov 01 2003 • 2:41AM
Yeah, how embarrassing for people (like me) who don't know why the reviewer should be embarrassed
• Nov 01 2003 • 3:05AM
Eggers always seemed to be imitating DFW, but with less creativity or sense of humor (just my 2 cents)
• Nov 01 2003 • 9:06AM
Yeah, how embarrassing for people (like me) who don't know why the reviewer should be embarrassed
You've got no cause to be embarrassed. You're not a book reviewer who, one would presume, would be aware of DFW's influence on Eggers and certainly not the other way around.
• Nov 01 2003 • 10:09AM
Doubly embarassin, IMO, especially since Wallace is/was one of the greatest writers of his decadce, and Eggers is/was one of the most overhyped (in my opinion, anyway).
I hope that Wallace publishes another novel soon -- though in general I feel that the reason Infinite Jest was 1,100 pages along was specifically so that his style and approach would never, ever be used again. There aren't that many new novels about whaling, either, if you know what I mean.
• Nov 01 2003 • 10:59AM
I'd have to say they're both way over-hyped, although yeah, the influence of DFW on Eggers is fairly obvious.
I like both their writing, but my god they're pretentious. At least I've heard that Eggers is a good person.
• Nov 01 2003 • 11:16AM
Embarrassing. Very. Eggers is probably calling DFW to apologize. Embarrassing because this is like a music reviewer discovering the Velvet Underground and saying they sound like the Strokes. As Jason mentions, you'd expect a well-tuned relational chart of chronology and creative influence it part of any self-respecting reviewer's basic tool kit.
• Nov 02 2003 • 11:25AM
Or he could be a high-postmodernist, in which case new books are capable of influencing old books (not kidding) and influence (a la intertextuality, in most cases) becomes a continuum that functions in multiple directions rather than simply being forward and linear.
But somehow I doubt that's what he's going for.
• Nov 02 2003 • 5:50PM
New books influencing old books? Must be pretty high, indeed.
• Nov 02 2003 • 6:02PM
Must be pretty high, indeed. Hahahahahaha, that's awesome.
• Nov 03 2003 • 12:28PM
high on intertextuality, neato...i saw both DFW and DE at a reading once, and each lavished the other with praise, DE much more humbly and in a "he's my idol!" sort of way. despite this lame-o review, i cannot wait to get this book...
• Nov 03 2003 • 4:42PM
Embarassing because DFW is ten times the writer DE is, has a more interesting prose style, and probably smells better too now that he's, w/r/t smoking, given it up, and certainly doesn't cry or kvetch nearly as much as sissy-boy Eggers (the sensitive, incisorless James Taylor of our time), who writes dreadfully cluttered sentences like this one but is praised nonetheless and causes several book freaks migraines and resultant angry natterings, why the focus on this I don't quite know but, like DFW's nicotine habit, I've stopped with this thing, you can too, if only to digest better because there are other things more important to get angry about like killer klowns in oval offices, the like. Dammit.
• Feb 28 2004 • 12:53PM
A good friend can tell you what is the matter with you in a minute. He may not seem such a good friend after telling.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
Craniac • Nov 01 2003 • 1:17AM
Embarassing because DFW preceded Eggers by many years? Or because they are secretly the same person...