What Leslie mentioned about the stream of consciousness was the main point that I wanted to make about this story.
The writing style really caught my attention. It is so simple and conversational, almost like a diary entry, that if one was analyzing structure and not content, and was of the opinion that a work should be considered literature when it utilizes language that strays from typical vernacular, they could almost be right in stamping this text "NOT LITERATURE." It reads like a journal, but it says so much more than that.
I feel as though this story serves to relate to the average reader, as people of all different intelligence levels have struggled with defining who they really are, and discovering whether or not their actions align with their thoughts. However, it is apparent that the author is far more intelligent than the average reader, as his introspectiveness is extremely keen. The author notes that even at the age of four, he was able to generate a quick read on someone's attitude or desires, and just as quickly, generate the perfect response to create an ideal outcome. This is manipulative genius, yet the author still chose to express his opinion on the topic through personal allegories rather than intricate language. Why?
Another thing is the long-windedness of the story. I don't know if the rambling nature served to enhance the informal tone, or if that is just Wallace's writing style (Piekarski did mention that his novel is over 1,000 words).
I agree with the previous posts that the main character of this story could very well have been shaped after Foster Wallace himself, especially if he has been struggling with depression.
Either way, it is an interesting story that I think I will finish soon!
0 comments:
Post a Comment