terça-feira, setembro 16, 2008

Já tenho idade para não me irritar com estas coisas

Em 2005, David Foster Wallace escreveu um artigo para a Atlantic sobre apresentadores de talk-radio. Um deles, John Ziegler, decidiu partilhar com o mundo a sua sensível e ponderada opinião sobre o suicídio. (Não procurem a gramática nos excertos seguintes; ela não foi convidada):

«Wallace spent at least two months following my every move before and during the broadcast of my show. At the time, I found him to be more than a bit eccentric, but certainly nice enough not to be bothered too much by his presence. Most interestingly, I was not at all impressed by him in any significant way. The fact that I was completely ignorant of “who” he was, I think actually gives me great credibility in this evaluation and also may give me some insight into what eventually drove Wallace to kill himself. You see, I was in no way prejudiced by his reputation as a “genius” and therefore was not blinded to the rather obvious reality that there was very little “there,” there.»
(...)
«Being dubbed a “genius” at a young age (at least by the standards of the literary world) must have been a rather daunting burden for Wallace, especially when he probably knew deep down that he didn’t have the goods to back up those kind of elevated expectations.»
(...)
«I was a bit miffed at some of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations as well as the lack of any update to the storyline in the piece, but as a conservative you pretty much expect that from someone in academia who is clearly a liberal (after all, everyone in the elite literary world knows that conservatives are not smart enough to be worthy of their ranks and would certainly never attain the lofty level of “genius”).»
(...)
«I know that it is considered bad form, or worse, to speak ill of the newly dead, but to me all bets are off when one commits suicide, especially when that person is a husband and a father (speaking of bad form, when did the news media change their rule about not reporting extensively on the suicides of marginally famous people?). I strongly believe that a large ingredient of the toxic mix that ended up forming Wallace’s self-inflicted poison was the pressure he felt of living up to the hype surrounding his writing and the guilt he must have felt for not really having the true talent to back up his formidable reputation.
While I have absolutely no evidence to backup this assertion, I also think it is quite possible that he knew that killing himself in his “prime” and before he had been totally exposed as being a mere mortal in the literary realm would cement his status as a “genius” forever. After all, don’t tortured artists often kill themselves? Heck, based on the glowing and reverential reporting on his suicide, in some circles ending his on life may actually be seen as a badge of honor.»
(...)
«I honestly do believe that, based on my rather distinctive experience with him, that his suicide was about far more than just an illness and should in no way be a cause for praise.
David Foster Wallace was an overrated writer in life. His suicide should not be used to elevate him even further beyond what he deserved, in death. »

2 comentários:

Lourenço Cordeiro disse...

«The fact that I was completely ignorant of “who” he was, I think actually gives me great credibility in this evaluation and also may give me some insight into what eventually drove Wallace to kill himself.»

Não sei se repararam:

«The fact that I was completely ignorant of “who” he was (...) may give me some insight into what eventually drove Wallace to kill himself.»

«While I have absolutely no evidence to backup this assertion (...)»

Isto sim é necrofilia.

José Mário Silva disse...

O Ziegler eleva a cretinice a uma forma de arte.