I've not read any of DFW's fiction (yet). As for DeLillo, to pick on him because I've read the most books of his, White Noise is great, but Underworld is just long and ultimately boring, I think. I liked The Plot Against America, but I have little patience for Roth and Updike and their phallo-centrism, as DFW himself diagnosed it. In some ways it's not the content of the books (they do have their moments of humour) so much as the worldview. I look at Rabbit's life and I'm just like, Shoot me if that's really all there is to it.
"Humanistic" there is a key word--I don't really see myself fitting terribly well into the definition of the humanist subject, or at least, I'm not convinced that it's better to continue to insist that the humanist subject can include everyone instead of just writing books about non-humanist subjects.
I think in some ways the idea of genres is more trouble than it's worth, but it's also a convenient way of organizing arguments, if nothing else.
no subject
I've not read any of DFW's fiction (yet). As for DeLillo, to pick on him because I've read the most books of his, White Noise is great, but Underworld is just long and ultimately boring, I think. I liked The Plot Against America, but I have little patience for Roth and Updike and their phallo-centrism, as DFW himself diagnosed it. In some ways it's not the content of the books (they do have their moments of humour) so much as the worldview. I look at Rabbit's life and I'm just like, Shoot me if that's really all there is to it.
"Humanistic" there is a key word--I don't really see myself fitting terribly well into the definition of the humanist subject, or at least, I'm not convinced that it's better to continue to insist that the humanist subject can include everyone instead of just writing books about non-humanist subjects.
I think in some ways the idea of genres is more trouble than it's worth, but it's also a convenient way of organizing arguments, if nothing else.