Michael Silverblatt interviewing David Foster Wallace after the release of 'Brief Interviews with Hideous Men'. The interview took place August 12, 1999.
Whenever I feel lost. When my mind is racing, banging itself against the walls of my own skull, I listen to David Foster Wallace. Rest in my peace. thanks for the peace of mind today, I needed it.
"The book's inner subject is different than it's ostensible subject. Is this true?" Yeah, really brilliant. And then Wallace gives his usual response about it being a hard question, and basically admitting he's bs-ing in his response.
The dirty little secret hiding in plain sight; is that men are objectified no less than women are. It simply has some different manifestations, and we don't at all talk about it in popular discourse.
@@inquisitivechimp5408 I write this without wanting to question the truthfulness behind your statment, but it sounds like something that could come straight out of one of the interviews in BIWHM 😄
Bruh, why do american radio hosts who talk to writers so often have this pretentious silent voice going. It almost seems a performance of intellectuality. Weird.
Honestly thought the same about silverblatt in particular, but the more I listen to his interviews, the more I realize he's just that way and there's really no ego in it. Pretty sure he has ASD, iirc and has given talks about that. I think there's one he gave at Cornell that touches on it.
Silverblatt is actually a really great reader. He used to annoy the fuck out of me, due to his monotone delivery and dry pauses but he poses meaningful questions that David finds more engaging than other interviewers I've seen with him
"Я знаю мужчин, я знаю женщин, я знаю себя". В каком смысле знает? Он не может знать несколько миллиардов человек, это несколько миллиардов индивидуальностей, у каждого из которых свой внутренний космос. Следовательно, когда он говорит о том, что *знает* их, он имеет в виду гендерные различия, коллективное бессознательное, паттерны поведения, характерные для этих социальных групп, но при этом отрицает, что в книге есть попытка разобраться в психологии. Такое чувство ,что он просто издевается, и его задача дать максимально расплывчатые обтекаемые ответы, которые по сути не значат ничего.
I'm not a fan of the interviewer, he's trying way too hard to sound intelligent. Some of his questions could be asked very plainly, but instead he substitutes it with rambling, pretentious use of language to come off as more highbrow. It contrasts sharply with Wallace, who speaks more plainly but has far more to say.
Agree. I guess some interviewers feel a need to sound “smarter” when they are interviewing a writer, but it always comes across as pretentious. You can see it happen in a lot of Charlie Rose interviews (though thankfully the guests usually cut him short when he rambles on and on unnecessarily)
