Do You Even Lit?

Cracking into the first three chapters of Maugham's 1944 spiritual odyssey. Why do we love Larry so much? Rich talks about his own years of loafing around. Is Larry's decision to take a step off the beaten path less admirable given his 'trifling' $54,000 inflation-adjusted stipend? Talking about the spergy drive to collect All the Knowledge, and how to think about which problems to work on. Is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake a noble activity, or should we actually be building stuff in the world?  CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Synopsis (00:02:18) Everyone loves Larry (00:06:26) The perils of stepping off the beaten path (00:09:30) Larry the trust fund kid (00:12:34) Pursuit of knowledge vs building stuff (00:20:00) How to choose which problems to work on? (00:26:00) Larry as mythic Siddhartha figure (00:28:00) Sex as a brief respite from 10 hours of reading (00:33:04) Maugham’s style and Herman Hesse comparison (00:37:01) Predictions for how Larry’s journey plays out

Starts with light and breezy over-sharing of our masturbatory habits, ends with a downer discussion about how we should re-contextualise Wallace's work thru the lens of the abuse allegations against him. The main stories we talk about: Brief Interview #59: Logically coherent masturbation fantasies (00:01:34) is this a universal experience, why are adolescent boys so creepy, the rare 'gooner to godhood' pathway. Brief Interview #28 (00:10:20) Does feminism create a double bind for modern women, was the sexual revolution a mistake, what's with the neo-trad movement, why everyone should have the freedom to make mistakes and explore their preferences. On His Deathbed, Holding Your Hand... (00:30:02) a paean to r/childfree? do parents sometimes secretly hate their children, why small kids are sociopaths, was the father an unreliable narrator, 'radical honesty' is a terrible idea, are lies of omission morally permissible, rich's experience of fatherhood. Church Not Made With Hands (00:52:42) dreamlike disorientation, modernist subjectivism redux, what does the title mean, ego and pride as an obstacle to healing. The Mary Karr abuse allegations (01:10:38) what are the allegations against DFW, can mental health ever absolve people of responsibility, a framework for separating art from artist, should we reanalyse DFW’s work in light of what we know about his life, to what extent is he telling on himself in this book. Brief Interview #20 and #46: The Granola Cruncher and the Viktor Frankl guy (01:27:25) are harm and traumatic events 'good' if they lead to more meaningful lives, could you weaponise this argument to justify anything, epic levels of cope never before conceived of.

This week's discussion is loosely based around the story Octet, but really we just drill down on what David Foster Wallace is trying to achieve in this collection. How much metafiction is too much metafiction, does DFW stray into self-indulgence, the leap of faith he asks from his readers, is it possible to tactically and deliberately try to be sincere (or is this another double bind), and whether Brief Interviews is really about toxic masculinity. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) The paradox of trying to come across as sincere (00:09:16) Overdosing on DFW’s schtick (00:18:05) is Wallace stylistically rangebound as a writer? (00:22:29) DFW’s take on empathising with the reader (00:25:57) Is Brief Interviews really about toxic masculinity? (00:32:49) Wittgenstein and the language problem/solipsism

Wallace's 1999 collection of short stories takes us to some uncomfortable places (and as always, is eerily prescient). In this week's discussion we talk about his 'juvenilia' coming-of-age story Forever Overhead, his famous piece The Depressed Person, and a smattering of the titular brief interviews. We kinda fucked up the format on this by trying to talk about everything. But salvaged some bits about nostalgia, the blurred lines between narcissism and depression, therapy culture, and why metafiction is played out. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) quick blather and disclaimer (00:01:55) Forever Overhead: mainlining nostalgia of late childhood (00:09:04) starting to get sick of DFW’s tics and the metafiction schtick in general (00:14:54) Brief Interview #11 (the guy who keeps leaving his gf because she is worried about him leaving her again) (00:17:52) Brief Interview #3 (the airport shaggy dog story) (00:20:40) Brief Interview #31 (how a great lover really pleases a lady) (00:26:02) The Depressed Person: sincere or a satire of self-obsessed narcissists? (00:34:14) is identifying with this character a massive self-own (00:37:30) Should everyone really go to therapy? (00:44:24) Having a cute baby as cure for depression

An anticlimactic final discussion to an anticlimactic book. We are confused and afraid. Cam is on the brink of quitting reading altogether. This discussion covers Parts 2 and 3 of To The Lighthouse. Actual book-related content starts at 11 minutes. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Normative ethics and incest cold open (00:11:00) Infectiousness of social energy (00:15:16) The Chad Carmichael vs the Virgin Tansley (00:22:16) Entropy and the passage of time (00:26:21) Lily Briscoe as Virginia Woolf (00:33:00) sidebar on which book to read next (00:34:32) On finally getting to the lighthouse (00:42:22) What's the significance of Lily's painting? (00:43:48) Final thoughts on why this book gave us trouble

Rich waxes lyrical about the dinner party scene. Do men have impaired theory of mind, or are they just assholes? On the invisible mastery of social reality, and capturing subjective experience in literature. It goes well enough that the boys decide to actually read the rest of the book. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) pre-roll jibber jabber (00:12:55) a man monologues on the male tendency to monologue (00:17:35) bogged down by poetic prose (00:22:33) Women as facilitators of social interactions (00:32:02) Do women have better theory of mind, or are men just assholes? (00:42:12) Mastery over social reality is invisible (00:48:34) Subject-object distinction (00:51:50) Where to from here (00:55:27) Further thoughts on value of subjective experience in writing (01:02:06) Are we gonna actually finish the book

A fragmented jumble of multiple shifting perspectives, punctuated by abrupt jumps between topics and timelines, infused with the frustration of trying to express intensely-felt experiences within the bounds of mere words. (oh and we also talked about a Virginia Woolf book)   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) - we are NOT going to the lighthouse (00:11:16) - Rich makes the case for persevering (00:14:16) - Cam pleads preference for plain prose (00:17:51) - Ideas that can only be conveyed through fiction (00:25:21) - Synopsis of part 1: The Window (00:27:30) - Autobiographical elements from Woolf's life (00:29:40) - What ideas would a modern Bloomsbury group explore? (00:32:15) - C.P. Snow's The Two Cultures: literature as status game (00:40:40) - Bryan Boyd lens on the importance of stories for advancing knowledge (00:44:33) - exquisite peer pressuring Cam into continuing with the book

These days the 'multiverse' idea is standard marvel slop. But if we read this story in 1941 it would have blown our tiny little minds. how tf did Borges sit at the cutting edge of philosophy and physics without doing the classic info-dump spergy thing? We read one of our favourite stories in search of Clues (actual plot-related analysis starts around the 1 hour mark)   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) synopsis and throat clearing (00:06:43) Borges the troll (death of the author redux) (00:16:23) How this mf had so many original ideas (00:22:12) Cho Chang discourse (00:30:30) Conceptual analysis of being cool (00:42:20) History of the multiverse (00:52:23) ambiguity of the Liddell Hart intro (01:01:22) Fatalism and free will (01:18:53) What motivates Yu Tsun? (01:25:05) maze strategy chat (01:31:20) When we first encountered the multiverse (01:34:00) Does multiverse imply all possible things happen? (01:49:25) Real hypertext has never been tried

Our critical consensus on John William's sleeper bestseller Stoner: There is almost no plot The main character doesn't get the girl, or really succeed at anything Gigantic violation of 'show don't tell', starting on literally page one WE FUCKING LOVE THIS BOOK could it be...a perfect novel? we try figure out why we relate so hard to Mr William Stoner, the great shining exemplar of principled mediocrity. CHAPTERS 00:00:00 - the perfect novel 00:06:23 - synopsis 00:10:20 - why each of us loved this book 00:17:02 - Mediocrity as the modal outcome 00:22:26 - Is Stoner a good stoic or too passive? 00:33:24 - Edith and toxic femininity 00:42:36 - Subverting the hero/saviour trope 00:48:00 - The Lomax/Walker feud 00:58:30 - Academia as an asylum for misfits 01:03:00 - Lust and learning with Katherine Driscoll 01:07:30 - Dying with dignity 01:10:32 - Where does this stand in the canon? 01:17:18 - Ignoring ’show don’t tell’, plain sincere prose 01:20:40 - assorted culture war stuff 01:28:35 - choosing next book

closing out the last section of the book with death, entropy, and thwarted ambitions: Why David Deutsch wouldn't approve of Houellebecg True artists impose their vision upon the world Sacred values and euthanasia Should kanye get back on his meds Not sure why the audio cuts off abruptly at the end but it does feel appropriate CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Third act murder mystery wtf (00:08:03) Yearning for some bygone era (00:13:49) Deutschian critique of MH’s pessimism (00:20:38) Euthanasia and sacred values (00:30:52) What does Houllebecq’s death signify? (00:39:44) Final thoughts on map vs territory (00:48:23) being open to criticism vs imposing a singular artistic vision upon the world