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.)
the Language Hat post is essentially complaining that he’s a prescriptivist, which seems conceptually fine (if possibly wrong) to me
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”).
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 [...]
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.
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.