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)
This is 2 years too late, but Michael Silverblatt is a legend. He's not trying. He is extremely intelligent and has an uncanny ability to decipher in writing what only the author knows. In an interview with DFW, he describes the techniques used in one of his novels and Mr Wallace was caught off-guard, completely baffled that he picked up on it. Listen to Bookworm podcasts and you'll understand his incredible insight. The first time I heard Bookworm, I had the same reaction you did. Then on further listening, quickly realized how wrong I was.
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.
@John Greek why the fuck whenever I see a heartfelt authentic comment, the first comment under it is almost always something dickheaded and mean?
@@pod9363 To restore balance in the universe.
@@pod9363 because people are very insecure and scared. That’s what that comment screams of
"Hello, I'm Michael Silverblatt, and this is 'Thoughts for your Thoughts'. I'm sitting here with Leslie Knope ..." 🤣🤣😂😂
Hahahah yes
Is this the guy they based him off? It has to be...
Brilliant conversation. The book contains some of his best work.
"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.
@@HomeAtLast501 In this case I’d place the blame on the interviewer tho. That question was shit.
I got to hear DFW say that he was 'scared poopless'. Thank you for this.
'[P]oop' is a four-letter word.
6:36 * sigma male music *
Bruh💀💀💀
@@joanvega2177 if you have it open on another tab and play it right after he says that, its extremely funny
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.
...you mean a modern woman's expectation of a man to be her ATM machine, butler, dildo, verbal punchbag, mall mule etc ? ;-)
@@inquisitivechimp5408 As a so-called modern woman, none of that has been my experience or expectation at all.
@@dmann1115 Then don't think of yourself as an average modern woman because you are doing yourself an injustice.
@@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 😄
@@tzirufim Truth can be hideous. Which is why most people prefer comfortable delusions.
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.
Dude, the first question he asked too, was just like, pure nonsense.
It’s the same on CBC here in Canada and I’ve always thought the same thing. That it’s such strangely obvious faux seriousness and sincerity.
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.
@@SirNutsalott So true. What nonesense. The cover?
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
20:32 "enethematic"? What is this word? I must be spelling it wrong.
‘anathematic’ - hateful, loathsome
@@Wrenasmir appreciated
Biggest mistake you can make is to try to sound smart in front of someone like DFW.
Poopless.
What is the word he is saying at 15:41? "It can all get kind of ....... ???"
Elco Balthazar “Clang-Bird ish” - A Clang-Bird is a fictional bird that flies in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up its own ass.
clangbird-ish, as in reference to the book "the clang birds" by john l'heureux
brokenfingers98 is there an echo in here?
@@milokelly9066 Sounds like my jive indoctrinated relatives.
@@milokelly9066 You gave the definition. They gave the source.
19:50
I suspect DFW thought two things. One, outbursts count against you. Two, male fans don't actually, that, to me? Damn!!??
Самое невнятное интервью
"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)
This is 2 years too late, but Michael Silverblatt is a legend. He's not trying. He is extremely intelligent and has an uncanny ability to decipher in writing what only the author knows. In an interview with DFW, he describes the techniques used in one of his novels and Mr Wallace was caught off-guard, completely baffled that he picked up on it. Listen to Bookworm podcasts and you'll understand his incredible insight. The first time I heard Bookworm, I had the same reaction you did. Then on further listening, quickly realized how wrong I was.
I met this super insecure midwesterner that got a pretty good impression of DFW. Other than that he was a real dolt! Cha cha cha cha
Amazing insight. Thanks for that.
24:55