Do You Even Lit?

Wandering through Samuel Beckett's 1953 absurdist play Waiting for Godot. Did Beckett actually have an interpretation in mind, or did he deliberately write a maximally vague story that everyone could map their own interests onto? How well does the humour hold up over time? Where does Beckett rank in the canon of absurdist and existentialist writers? What proportion of reported suicides are actually autoerotic asphyxiation accidents? etc  CHAPTERS (00:00:00) gooning oneself to death (00:05:28) synopsis (nothing happens, twice) (00:07:32) Initial reactions + arguing about interpretation 00:17:16) What are we waiting for? (00:22:09) Religious, Freudian, Marxist interpretations (00:26:56) tHaT’s sOOO RANdoM!! (00:31:00) Beckett’s fame (00:35:01) Beckett vs Camus (00:38:02) The One True Interpretation

Our final session with W. Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge (chapters 5-7). Elliot Templeton as the last relic of a dying age. Was he really happy? We consider his self-worship and clout-chasing Catholicism as a counterpoint to Larry's spirituality. Rest in power queen. Sophie MacDonald attempts to climb off the wheel of suffering via more prosaic means. Did she get what she wanted? An argument over whether Isabel is a total psycho or only a minor-league bitch.  Larry's spiritual journey as a synthesis of the best parts of the Eastern tradition. Was this whole book just a delivery mechanism for Vedic philosophy? On the transmigration of souls, God as a deadbeat dad, and whether it's bad for society to encourage serenity-maxxing. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) tattoo discourse (00:02:18) The sad (?) saga of Elliott Templeton (00:16:31) The sad saga of Sophie MacDonald (00:29:25) Is this whole book just a delivery vehicle for vedic philosophy? (00:36:18) Larry’s struggle with the problem of evil (00:42:11) Oneness and universality of transcendent experience (00:47:03) Buddhism as a mind-killing philosophy (00:52:22) The boys experience with meditating

Discussing chapters 4 and 5 of W. Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge. Larry becomes aloof and reserved. Is he really bringing anything to the table besides his sexy forearms? Has he gone full woo-woo granola cruncher? Why can Kosti only talk about spirituality when he's drunk? Why aren't muses a thing these days? CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Synopsis (00:02:23) What do we think of Larry now? (00:13:54) Curing Gray’s headache (00:16:50) Christian mysticism as thinly veiled Buddhism (00:20:05) What does Kosti’s character represent? (00:28:30) Why we can take Larry more seriously than typical hippie (00:33:10) This book would hit way harder at age 18 or 20 (00:41:28) What happened to muses? (these old service sector jobs)

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