I apologize that my initial response was rude. I don't agree with the tenor of your comment, in the sense that I think this post is not sympathetic than your comment makes it sound. And I think his nonfiction is great - it's just not connected to the phenomenon I'm talking about here.
I got about 200 pages in, and hearing that it had a disappointing ending makes me glad I never finished it. I agree with the assessment that it wasn't actually a hard read, just a very long one, with a lot to keep track of. I was impressed with how much he wrote, but agree that it seemed to overreach, from what I read anyway.
IJ aside, I would only add that he was a very good essayist. I will never forget his piece about going on a cruise, or the one about Federer, and others as well. Liking that side of him should be 100% not controversial (I think).
Yes he's a much better essayist than novelist, like many others who viewed the novel as their primary interest. That's an essay I should write someday....
Fully agree! His essay collections are definitely his best books. He was much more interesting as a deeply (perhaps pathologically) self-reflective author who's internal monologue was the main character of his stories, than as an author of post-modern fiction.
I would agree with this. I also got the impression he also wasn't happy with his novel work either and didn't have a particular affinity nor will to be heavily attached to it in his latter years. It's a shame his say, legacy (for lack of a better word), is all wrapped up in one of his worst works. He truly did his best work more on an investigative level: the Iowa State Faire, Cruise Ships, Maine Lobster Festival, McCain/Ziegler, David Lynch, and Television and Advertising. Some of his latter fictional works like Good Old Neon fic wasn't bad, for example, the bathroom attendant, but never really matched his non-fictional essays.
His talent lied in observing the banality of life, an almost Rocko's Modern Life sort of way yet more into the inherent subconscious worming of alienation, the effects from living under a capitalistic society and non-stop media, and feeling of detachment and the subliminal destructive power it has on the self that often one can never be acutely aware of or able to put into cognitive thought. One may just call this capital D-epression coloring the lens of a writing, but it's also something I'd wager hundred of millions of people go through without realizing it and there's perhaps a reason why a lot of his work (outside IJ) was popular with a lot of people through the late 90s and mid/late 2000s. I have long forgotten most of Infinite Jest, but one thing that I still vividly remember is the one-off segment on the Video Telephone, which was remarkably prescient and really ties into where his real strength lied. He was great at describing symptoms, but rarely more than that.
Perhaps one of the reason I enjoy FdB's work a lot is I see a fair amount of similarities between a lot of DFW's non-fictional essay work; although more colored by a lens of political awareness than I think DFW ever was.
Strange coincidence that you write this now -- this whole topic has been bouncing around my head for a couple of weeks now. I read Infinite Jest at the end of last year (at the urging of my very literary female friend, who proclaimed it one of the best books she had ever read). For the record, I thought it was fantastic, but that isn't really the point. Up to a few months ago I had somehow missed all the performative internet DFW hatred, but I stumbled across it as soon as I finished reading, and dipped my toe into the online book world to see what other people thought of it. It was a strange surprise. As you say, almost none of the discussion even mentions whether the book is good or bad, or whether anyone enjoyed it.
It's a really strange feature of online communities -- that so much discourse revolves around throwing negative affect at individual pieces of culture in a way totally unconnected from the actual thing itself. It felt a little like being offered a new food, enjoying it, and immediately being inundated by hoards of people saying "You like that food? Ugh, you're one of THOSE people, I bet you cut in line and play loud music until 2am".
There's nothing particularly masculine or 'bro'-ish about the book. It's a dense post-modern book about addiction and depression and tennis. Why it has become associated with these particular negative things completely escapes me. My literary friend was baffled too... she isn't very online, and when I spoke to her about it she struggled to even understand the dynamic at play.
I am far from an Elon Musk fan (I own zero cryptocurrency and do not drive a Tesla), but the idea that a guy who made a lot of money making electric cars cool is the most evil man on the planet seems really histrionic.
I really do find this a fascinatingly layered thing. In addition to what you've mentioned, in the early 2010s on the internet, my memory is that people still liked (and indeed many worshipped) David Foster Wallace and instead they absolutely despised Franzen, and the two things seem connected. I don't hear much anymore about Franzen and people despise DFW.
In addition, I still think DFW is probably the biggest influence even and especially on the internet essay writing men who claim to despise him. Not so much the specific "and but so" style or whatever, but a certain type of show-off run-on sentence lives on that feels essentially like DFW+sadboy rage about injustice.
I am not in a place where it's convenient to dig out the figures, but while most readers are women, and most workers are women, most high-profile, high-advance writers are men, and most of the highest-ranking publishing executives are men, though both are slowly changing. Under those conditions you can see how sexism could be prevalent. But it's a longer conversation.
That's fair, though I think the point that most highest-ranking execs are men is more persuasive than the fact that most high-advance writers are men. If I'm a greedy publisher, after all, then I want to give advances to whoever will give me the most money, regardless of gender.
But the idea that the vast majority of readers and publishing workers are women seems to be an important one if sexism is stated as the cause for any gender-based disparities (though that doesn't mean that it's NOT the case, of course).
On average, women are more likely to read books by both genders than men (who avoid female authors).
Our books get written off as unserious pink fluffy nonsense (so-called chick-lit and romance) even though many of these books are just as smart and well-written as popular fiction by men about crime, adventure, etc. So we have lots of female readers, but not as much mainstream success as a popular book by a man (with some exceptions, of course).
Not necessarily. I personally work at a nonprofit with over 80% female staff, including all upper management and most middle managers. Lower to mid-level male employees are nevertheless treated significantly better on average (paid better, listened to more consistently, more likely to be given benefit of doubt around mistakes) than their female peers.
As a straight white cis male who loved IJ and likes Wallace’s essays (not to mention being the type who pays for substacks), I appreciate Freddie coming to my defense.
If instead of Twitter, you do a Google search, you'll find almost exclusively positive stuff written about Infinite Jest. The novel remains relevant because it's a great work of art that has an extremely dedicated fan base, nearly a quarter century after it was published. These critics on Twitter are responding to the fact that the book remains beloved to a degree that is unheard of in contemporary fiction, and because the book doesn't speak to them, this makes makes them feel crazy. I'm sure we can all relate to the phenomenon of not being able to understand the appeal of a widely appreciated(relatively so, in the case of literary fiction) cultural artifact. It can be disorienting, and it invites irrational responses, like the assumption that the purported fans of a work of art are actually just faking it. Those of us who love the book aren't overrating it, it truly means more to us than most art could ever aspire to. To put it mildly, it's not for everyone, but it's difficult for art to be universally appealing at the same time that it's *deeply* meaningful to individual appreciators
I feel this way about the TV show Girls. I just cannot like it, and I don't get people loving it. Oh, and I felt that way about Napoleon Dynamite. And The Goldfinch.
The Secret History is one of my brother's favorite books, but my response was kinda meh. But I will say that her description of the deep, bitter cold suffered by the main character was viscerally real for me and has stayed that way to this day. I absolutely loved The Goldfinch and part of what I loved was that same visceral quality she was able to evoke (at least for me). I felt like I was 100% dropped into the story, so much so that I had to take a break from it in the initial section b/c I was so caught up in the main character's despair and anxiety.
Just want to agree that Infinite Jest speaks to a lot of people. I read it while procrastinating about studying for my bar exam in 1998, and I was entranced. There's this A.O. Scott piece on DFW and he describes him as writing with the voice that's in your head, and that is exactly how I feel. I love his essays, and I still haven't been able to finish the Pale King, but Infinite Jest is one of my favorite works of art because it, more than any other, it captured what it felt like to live in Gen X at that moment in time -- at least for this white woman from a middle class/college town background.
Google searches for famous books mostly reveal book reviews and best-of lists, of which IJ is on many which skew positive. The lists are obviously positive, and there's also a well-known bias in book reviewing towards positive for anything but the most popular and problematic authors. Don DeLillo can get bad reviews because he's popular and a lot of people don't like him, but it's frowned upon with debut writers like Wallace was with IJ. James Woods was one of the few people to write mean things about it when it came out and people still say mean things to him about it.
Social media, for better and worse, will give you a better read on the temperature for a popular book.
DFW was a genius. IJ is a masterwork. TBITS is kind of train wreck in my opinion--his aping of Pychon is conspicuous. BIWHM, spectacular. ASFTINDA, incredible. I started to read "Oblivion" (again) a couple months ago and it wasn't jibing with me. I appreciate what Freddie is trying to do in this essay even though I disagree with his assessment of Wallace. As the decades pass, what stays with me about Wallace is how fucking intelligent he was. Just a smart, smart dude. He could have excelled in ten different fields but chose writing and did it with acumen and care.
I started Infinite Jest but didn't get on with it at all. It struck me as a little juvenile. I have, however, been reading The Pale King, and while bits of it remind me of what I disliked about Infinite Jest (please shut the fuck up about sweating), on the whole I have enjoyed it quite a bit and will definitely "finish." It makes me sad to think of what both it and he could have grown into, although I understand perfectly well that it's a shallow and selfish kind of sadness and those who personally knew and loved him have much more legitimate reasons to be sad.
Freddie, this is exactly the sort of piece that makes me glad I contributed to your substack. I dug on it deeply, and would love to read more of these pieces about literary culture and the publishing industry (especially since you are only too familiar with it).
I’d enjoy a version of DFW appreciation that acknowledges that Infinite Jest is a heavy lift to really enjoy (such a heavy lift that I’ve never finished it), but focuses on his essays (notably uneven in their quality), which are the most memorable stuff he produced, IMO.
Big Red Son and Up, Simba are fun, insightful reads on human behavior, and Shipping Out is both the best description of a cruise anyone has written and an avalanche of self-conscious cynicism. He has a rare uniqueness as an observer is hardly ever discussed.
I think the point about the irrationality of hating on toxic IJ litbros when they are so vastly outnumbered by toxic sportbros is a good one, and analogs seem to pop up everywhere these days; see also the extent to which the left (broadly defined) spent the Trump administration yelling at itself. Familiarity breeds contempt, maybe? We tend to write off/dismiss people who aren't in our circle, but if we perceive that someone _is_ in our circle, and is "doing" our circle incorrectly, that's a major offense?
This is absolutely correct. Different left factions often spend way more time hating on each other than on the right. Just look at how many online leftists spend all their time criticizing tankies and "brocialists." I mean, sure, tankies--that is, actual tankies, leftists who actually support authoritarians (and aren't just speaking out against US imperialism)--are wrong. But is it even worth one's time to point that out? The influence of actual tankies on US foreign policy is nil.
David Foster Wallace hate is one of those situations where I need to remind myself that there are 7.5 billion people alive who have never used twitter. Why do we grant it so much influence?
Loved this post though. Have you ever written about your favourite novels? I'd be very interested.
> You would hope that, in a world where Elana Ferrante would be named by many as the world’s greatest novelist, this feeling would dissipate, but literary sexism remains stubbornly real, and that is coming from a person who is probably among the least well-equipped to sense it.
If you read EF and then read Domenico Starnone and then know DS is married to Anita Raja you won't know for sure, if EF is a man or a woman but will help you to wonder does knowing make a difference?
I've never read EF, or Starnone, and even if I had, it wouldn't matter to my enjoyment of the work (or so I think). I might find the whole 'scandal' interesting, and maybe it would (radically) alter my appreciation of the work. As is, it's kinda fun to read to about in an abstract 'gossipy' way.
I just shared the link because I'd come across it elsewhere recently and thought it interesting/sad/ironic given what Freddie wrote in this post.
But EF is such a good example. The books were read & valued and assumed to be autobiographical...but then it comes out the author might be Anita Raja (whose life is very different than the characters in EF's books) or her husband or some combination--so all the autobiographical speculation has to be set aside and the books read for themselves. This causes the reader to wonder if it is the autobiographical or the art that draws one in. I don't think the uncertainty of EF being a person or a combination of people make a difference to many, but it might to some.
Sure! And that's all 'valid' and I can sympathize at least a little. I might feel the same way were I to have enjoyed or been moved (or inspired, etc.) by a work that I thought was autobiographical too.
There are free resources for improving reading comprehension available online!
Maybe, but have _you_ read them either?
Are there really guides to interacting with commenters? Could you link one?
Perhaps. I'm not sure that you're the one to lecture me about it, paul.
deleted my comment due to your apology to OP -- not sure that I would call a single sentence a 'lecture', but okay
OK this was shitty of me and I take it back. I apologize.
I read it as tongue in cheek (but mostly accurate too), but disavowing shittiness is a nice gesture too.
I apologize that my initial response was rude. I don't agree with the tenor of your comment, in the sense that I think this post is not sympathetic than your comment makes it sound. And I think his nonfiction is great - it's just not connected to the phenomenon I'm talking about here.
Never read Infinite Jest... but all the hate towards it makes me want to read it lol
I got about 200 pages in, and hearing that it had a disappointing ending makes me glad I never finished it. I agree with the assessment that it wasn't actually a hard read, just a very long one, with a lot to keep track of. I was impressed with how much he wrote, but agree that it seemed to overreach, from what I read anyway.
Julian Barnes..The Sense of an Ending
IJ aside, I would only add that he was a very good essayist. I will never forget his piece about going on a cruise, or the one about Federer, and others as well. Liking that side of him should be 100% not controversial (I think).
Yes he's a much better essayist than novelist, like many others who viewed the novel as their primary interest. That's an essay I should write someday....
Ah yes, Orwell, Vidal, etc... Thank you!
I always thought Kundera was really an essayist, too.
His essay "How Tracy Austin broke my heart" is a masterpiece.
Fully agree! His essay collections are definitely his best books. He was much more interesting as a deeply (perhaps pathologically) self-reflective author who's internal monologue was the main character of his stories, than as an author of post-modern fiction.
I would agree with this. I also got the impression he also wasn't happy with his novel work either and didn't have a particular affinity nor will to be heavily attached to it in his latter years. It's a shame his say, legacy (for lack of a better word), is all wrapped up in one of his worst works. He truly did his best work more on an investigative level: the Iowa State Faire, Cruise Ships, Maine Lobster Festival, McCain/Ziegler, David Lynch, and Television and Advertising. Some of his latter fictional works like Good Old Neon fic wasn't bad, for example, the bathroom attendant, but never really matched his non-fictional essays.
His talent lied in observing the banality of life, an almost Rocko's Modern Life sort of way yet more into the inherent subconscious worming of alienation, the effects from living under a capitalistic society and non-stop media, and feeling of detachment and the subliminal destructive power it has on the self that often one can never be acutely aware of or able to put into cognitive thought. One may just call this capital D-epression coloring the lens of a writing, but it's also something I'd wager hundred of millions of people go through without realizing it and there's perhaps a reason why a lot of his work (outside IJ) was popular with a lot of people through the late 90s and mid/late 2000s. I have long forgotten most of Infinite Jest, but one thing that I still vividly remember is the one-off segment on the Video Telephone, which was remarkably prescient and really ties into where his real strength lied. He was great at describing symptoms, but rarely more than that.
Perhaps one of the reason I enjoy FdB's work a lot is I see a fair amount of similarities between a lot of DFW's non-fictional essay work; although more colored by a lens of political awareness than I think DFW ever was.
Strange coincidence that you write this now -- this whole topic has been bouncing around my head for a couple of weeks now. I read Infinite Jest at the end of last year (at the urging of my very literary female friend, who proclaimed it one of the best books she had ever read). For the record, I thought it was fantastic, but that isn't really the point. Up to a few months ago I had somehow missed all the performative internet DFW hatred, but I stumbled across it as soon as I finished reading, and dipped my toe into the online book world to see what other people thought of it. It was a strange surprise. As you say, almost none of the discussion even mentions whether the book is good or bad, or whether anyone enjoyed it.
It's a really strange feature of online communities -- that so much discourse revolves around throwing negative affect at individual pieces of culture in a way totally unconnected from the actual thing itself. It felt a little like being offered a new food, enjoying it, and immediately being inundated by hoards of people saying "You like that food? Ugh, you're one of THOSE people, I bet you cut in line and play loud music until 2am".
There's nothing particularly masculine or 'bro'-ish about the book. It's a dense post-modern book about addiction and depression and tennis. Why it has become associated with these particular negative things completely escapes me. My literary friend was baffled too... she isn't very online, and when I spoke to her about it she struggled to even understand the dynamic at play.
I am far from an Elon Musk fan (I own zero cryptocurrency and do not drive a Tesla), but the idea that a guy who made a lot of money making electric cars cool is the most evil man on the planet seems really histrionic.
I think that's what I said!
you are right, apologies for my bad reading comprehension!
if I could edit substack comments I would -- I misread Freddie's post!
I really do find this a fascinatingly layered thing. In addition to what you've mentioned, in the early 2010s on the internet, my memory is that people still liked (and indeed many worshipped) David Foster Wallace and instead they absolutely despised Franzen, and the two things seem connected. I don't hear much anymore about Franzen and people despise DFW.
In addition, I still think DFW is probably the biggest influence even and especially on the internet essay writing men who claim to despise him. Not so much the specific "and but so" style or whatever, but a certain type of show-off run-on sentence lives on that feels essentially like DFW+sadboy rage about injustice.
(And by "many," of course, I mean among the very specific internet bubble I inhabited)
Roughly 80% of publishing is female, so if sexism exists in that industry, wouldn't it be expense of male authors?
I am not in a place where it's convenient to dig out the figures, but while most readers are women, and most workers are women, most high-profile, high-advance writers are men, and most of the highest-ranking publishing executives are men, though both are slowly changing. Under those conditions you can see how sexism could be prevalent. But it's a longer conversation.
That's fair, though I think the point that most highest-ranking execs are men is more persuasive than the fact that most high-advance writers are men. If I'm a greedy publisher, after all, then I want to give advances to whoever will give me the most money, regardless of gender.
But the idea that the vast majority of readers and publishing workers are women seems to be an important one if sexism is stated as the cause for any gender-based disparities (though that doesn't mean that it's NOT the case, of course).
On average, women are more likely to read books by both genders than men (who avoid female authors).
Our books get written off as unserious pink fluffy nonsense (so-called chick-lit and romance) even though many of these books are just as smart and well-written as popular fiction by men about crime, adventure, etc. So we have lots of female readers, but not as much mainstream success as a popular book by a man (with some exceptions, of course).
I am curious if, given that phenomenom, do male writers sell more or less than female writers.
Not necessarily. I personally work at a nonprofit with over 80% female staff, including all upper management and most middle managers. Lower to mid-level male employees are nevertheless treated significantly better on average (paid better, listened to more consistently, more likely to be given benefit of doubt around mistakes) than their female peers.
The Oprah Franzen fracas.
As a straight white cis male who loved IJ and likes Wallace’s essays (not to mention being the type who pays for substacks), I appreciate Freddie coming to my defense.
If instead of Twitter, you do a Google search, you'll find almost exclusively positive stuff written about Infinite Jest. The novel remains relevant because it's a great work of art that has an extremely dedicated fan base, nearly a quarter century after it was published. These critics on Twitter are responding to the fact that the book remains beloved to a degree that is unheard of in contemporary fiction, and because the book doesn't speak to them, this makes makes them feel crazy. I'm sure we can all relate to the phenomenon of not being able to understand the appeal of a widely appreciated(relatively so, in the case of literary fiction) cultural artifact. It can be disorienting, and it invites irrational responses, like the assumption that the purported fans of a work of art are actually just faking it. Those of us who love the book aren't overrating it, it truly means more to us than most art could ever aspire to. To put it mildly, it's not for everyone, but it's difficult for art to be universally appealing at the same time that it's *deeply* meaningful to individual appreciators
I feel this way about the TV show Girls. I just cannot like it, and I don't get people loving it. Oh, and I felt that way about Napoleon Dynamite. And The Goldfinch.
I read her first book, The Secret History, for a book club and despised it. The rest of the group loved it, so I can relate!
The Secret History is one of my brother's favorite books, but my response was kinda meh. But I will say that her description of the deep, bitter cold suffered by the main character was viscerally real for me and has stayed that way to this day. I absolutely loved The Goldfinch and part of what I loved was that same visceral quality she was able to evoke (at least for me). I felt like I was 100% dropped into the story, so much so that I had to take a break from it in the initial section b/c I was so caught up in the main character's despair and anxiety.
Just want to agree that Infinite Jest speaks to a lot of people. I read it while procrastinating about studying for my bar exam in 1998, and I was entranced. There's this A.O. Scott piece on DFW and he describes him as writing with the voice that's in your head, and that is exactly how I feel. I love his essays, and I still haven't been able to finish the Pale King, but Infinite Jest is one of my favorite works of art because it, more than any other, it captured what it felt like to live in Gen X at that moment in time -- at least for this white woman from a middle class/college town background.
Google searches for famous books mostly reveal book reviews and best-of lists, of which IJ is on many which skew positive. The lists are obviously positive, and there's also a well-known bias in book reviewing towards positive for anything but the most popular and problematic authors. Don DeLillo can get bad reviews because he's popular and a lot of people don't like him, but it's frowned upon with debut writers like Wallace was with IJ. James Woods was one of the few people to write mean things about it when it came out and people still say mean things to him about it.
Social media, for better and worse, will give you a better read on the temperature for a popular book.
DFW was a genius. IJ is a masterwork. TBITS is kind of train wreck in my opinion--his aping of Pychon is conspicuous. BIWHM, spectacular. ASFTINDA, incredible. I started to read "Oblivion" (again) a couple months ago and it wasn't jibing with me. I appreciate what Freddie is trying to do in this essay even though I disagree with his assessment of Wallace. As the decades pass, what stays with me about Wallace is how fucking intelligent he was. Just a smart, smart dude. He could have excelled in ten different fields but chose writing and did it with acumen and care.
I started Infinite Jest but didn't get on with it at all. It struck me as a little juvenile. I have, however, been reading The Pale King, and while bits of it remind me of what I disliked about Infinite Jest (please shut the fuck up about sweating), on the whole I have enjoyed it quite a bit and will definitely "finish." It makes me sad to think of what both it and he could have grown into, although I understand perfectly well that it's a shallow and selfish kind of sadness and those who personally knew and loved him have much more legitimate reasons to be sad.
" Goethe? I have three degrees in English and I’ve read like two pages of Goethe."
Da steh’ ich nun, ich armer Thor!
Und bin so klug als wie zuvor
"Wer reitet so spat durch Nacht und wind? Es ist der Vater mit seinem Kind." I've never forgotten the few lines in this poem. Such a heartbreaker.
I studied Geothe in the original language on my way to an inadvertent minor in German.
Freddie, this is exactly the sort of piece that makes me glad I contributed to your substack. I dug on it deeply, and would love to read more of these pieces about literary culture and the publishing industry (especially since you are only too familiar with it).
I’d enjoy a version of DFW appreciation that acknowledges that Infinite Jest is a heavy lift to really enjoy (such a heavy lift that I’ve never finished it), but focuses on his essays (notably uneven in their quality), which are the most memorable stuff he produced, IMO.
Big Red Son and Up, Simba are fun, insightful reads on human behavior, and Shipping Out is both the best description of a cruise anyone has written and an avalanche of self-conscious cynicism. He has a rare uniqueness as an observer is hardly ever discussed.
I think the point about the irrationality of hating on toxic IJ litbros when they are so vastly outnumbered by toxic sportbros is a good one, and analogs seem to pop up everywhere these days; see also the extent to which the left (broadly defined) spent the Trump administration yelling at itself. Familiarity breeds contempt, maybe? We tend to write off/dismiss people who aren't in our circle, but if we perceive that someone _is_ in our circle, and is "doing" our circle incorrectly, that's a major offense?
This is absolutely correct. Different left factions often spend way more time hating on each other than on the right. Just look at how many online leftists spend all their time criticizing tankies and "brocialists." I mean, sure, tankies--that is, actual tankies, leftists who actually support authoritarians (and aren't just speaking out against US imperialism)--are wrong. But is it even worth one's time to point that out? The influence of actual tankies on US foreign policy is nil.
David Foster Wallace hate is one of those situations where I need to remind myself that there are 7.5 billion people alive who have never used twitter. Why do we grant it so much influence?
Loved this post though. Have you ever written about your favourite novels? I'd be very interested.
Regarding the (perceived) outsized influence of haters on Twitter: Yes!
I didn't know David Foster Wallace hate was a thing until I read this post. Thanks, Freddie!
But how much of a thing is it really?
Twitter is a hall of mirrors. And the mirrors were designed (or algorithmically evolved) to prioritize the reflection of disgusted outrage.
Even though my literary tastes don't matter and are nobody's business but mine, I will state for the record that I *loved* Infinite Jest.
> You would hope that, in a world where Elana Ferrante would be named by many as the world’s greatest novelist, this feeling would dissipate, but literary sexism remains stubbornly real, and that is coming from a person who is probably among the least well-equipped to sense it.
Apparently Ferrante might be a man: https://lithub.com/have-italian-scholars-figured-out-the-identity-of-elena-ferrante/
If you read EF and then read Domenico Starnone and then know DS is married to Anita Raja you won't know for sure, if EF is a man or a woman but will help you to wonder does knowing make a difference?
I've never read EF, or Starnone, and even if I had, it wouldn't matter to my enjoyment of the work (or so I think). I might find the whole 'scandal' interesting, and maybe it would (radically) alter my appreciation of the work. As is, it's kinda fun to read to about in an abstract 'gossipy' way.
I just shared the link because I'd come across it elsewhere recently and thought it interesting/sad/ironic given what Freddie wrote in this post.
But EF is such a good example. The books were read & valued and assumed to be autobiographical...but then it comes out the author might be Anita Raja (whose life is very different than the characters in EF's books) or her husband or some combination--so all the autobiographical speculation has to be set aside and the books read for themselves. This causes the reader to wonder if it is the autobiographical or the art that draws one in. I don't think the uncertainty of EF being a person or a combination of people make a difference to many, but it might to some.
Sure! And that's all 'valid' and I can sympathize at least a little. I might feel the same way were I to have enjoyed or been moved (or inspired, etc.) by a work that I thought was autobiographical too.