Or they should.
Despite the title. this is neither a review nor a critique of the late, great DFW. Rather, the title reflects the conclusions of SCIENCE!
Today, the Solipsist visited a website called “I Write Like.” We, of course, would have preferred a site named “We Write Like,” but perhaps we can chalk that up to our Foster-Wallachian stylistic affectations. On this site, one cuts and pastes selections of one’s prose into an algorithmic window, where it will undergo stylistic analysis. The program performs its tabulations and, before you can say “deconstructionism,” lets the visitor know which master stylist his writing most resembles--or whether he writes like Dan Brown. The Solipsist takes a certain pride in reporting that his style most resembles that of the aforementioned DFW.
Lest you dismiss this as a fluke, we point out that we had ten different Solipsistic musings analyzed. We got one Arthur C. Clarke--which surprised us, as (A) we haven’t read much of his work and (B) with all due respect to Mr. Clarke, we’ve never considered him a writer with a particularly notable “style.” We also got one Stephen King and one (fist-pump!) Kurt Vonnegut. Seven out of ten times, though, we received a David Foster Wallace.
It says something about influence: We’ve read Infinite Jest and a few of DFW’s essays, but we cannot claim to be a true student of his work. On the other hand, we are fluent in both Vonnegut and King, yet their influence seems considerably less pervasive. We suspect the algorithm draws its conclusions based on things like sentence-length and vocabulary: We note that the entry for which we received our Stephen King diagnosis was the shortest piece we submitted.
We thrill to the fact that we can call ourselves ten percent Vonnegut. We have read virtually everything the man ever wrote, and we could only wish to have more of his ability; the fact that we have achieved such a small portion of his mastery testifies, we think, to the excruciating difficulty of trying to craft Vonnegut-esque sentences: deceptively simple and near impossible to imitate.
As for David Foster Wallace, he employed a long, rambling, digressive style, and a sesquipedalian vocabulary. DFW might have employed a word like ‘Vonnegut-esque’; Kurt Vonnegut would not. As we said earlier, we have no complaints about being compared to David Foster Wallace--a slight concern with suicidal tendencies, but no complaints. We will, however, continue to strive for Vonnegut.
Despite the title. this is neither a review nor a critique of the late, great DFW. Rather, the title reflects the conclusions of SCIENCE!
Today, the Solipsist visited a website called “I Write Like.” We, of course, would have preferred a site named “We Write Like,” but perhaps we can chalk that up to our Foster-Wallachian stylistic affectations. On this site, one cuts and pastes selections of one’s prose into an algorithmic window, where it will undergo stylistic analysis. The program performs its tabulations and, before you can say “deconstructionism,” lets the visitor know which master stylist his writing most resembles--or whether he writes like Dan Brown. The Solipsist takes a certain pride in reporting that his style most resembles that of the aforementioned DFW.
Lest you dismiss this as a fluke, we point out that we had ten different Solipsistic musings analyzed. We got one Arthur C. Clarke--which surprised us, as (A) we haven’t read much of his work and (B) with all due respect to Mr. Clarke, we’ve never considered him a writer with a particularly notable “style.” We also got one Stephen King and one (fist-pump!) Kurt Vonnegut. Seven out of ten times, though, we received a David Foster Wallace.
It says something about influence: We’ve read Infinite Jest and a few of DFW’s essays, but we cannot claim to be a true student of his work. On the other hand, we are fluent in both Vonnegut and King, yet their influence seems considerably less pervasive. We suspect the algorithm draws its conclusions based on things like sentence-length and vocabulary: We note that the entry for which we received our Stephen King diagnosis was the shortest piece we submitted.
We thrill to the fact that we can call ourselves ten percent Vonnegut. We have read virtually everything the man ever wrote, and we could only wish to have more of his ability; the fact that we have achieved such a small portion of his mastery testifies, we think, to the excruciating difficulty of trying to craft Vonnegut-esque sentences: deceptively simple and near impossible to imitate.
As for David Foster Wallace, he employed a long, rambling, digressive style, and a sesquipedalian vocabulary. DFW might have employed a word like ‘Vonnegut-esque’; Kurt Vonnegut would not. As we said earlier, we have no complaints about being compared to David Foster Wallace--a slight concern with suicidal tendencies, but no complaints. We will, however, continue to strive for Vonnegut.
Fist bump for the 10% Vonnegut-esqueness!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I want to write like YOU!!
ReplyDelete