These days every bestselling author writes novels about how their dad was too strict and they got bullied for bringing stinky indian food to school etc. But Karl Ove Knausgaard walked so millennial narcissists could run. This week we get absorbed in part 1 of his epic six-part autobiographical novel My Struggle, published in 2009. The big central question: what makes a book which spends five pages describing the author making a cup of coffee so good? The prose is nice but prosaic, there are few major insights, and no plot beats or narrative tension. But we (mostly) agree that it is in fact a good or even great book. On the performance art aspect to Knausgaard's project, the barriers to being truly sincere and honest, pathological self-awareness, why early memories are so often dominated by shame, nostalgia for premature ejaculation, and MORE.   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) intro (00:00:56) patient zero for the autofiction disease 00:11:40) My Struggle as performance art (00:20:20) Shame and pathological self-consciousness (00:30:38) what is it exactly that makes Knausgaard so good? (00:40:12) next book announcement WRITE US: We love to share listener feedback on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or add your own or just say hi.   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Lolita - Nabokov The Moviegoer - Walker Percy

Yeah, it's big brain time. This week we're reading 'Understand' from Ted Chiang's 2002 collection Stories of Your Life and Others. what is the ceiling on human intelligence? can we jooce it up? did Chiang inspire the whole AI doomer movement? would superintelligence beings have to annihilate each other instead of cooperating? Do we buy the orthogonality thesis? Also: introducing David Deutsch's 'universal explainer' theory of intelligence, which gives radically different answers to all of the above. Is the dumbest guy you know really capable of making novel advances in quantum physics? The answer may surprise you. On abstractions and 'chunking': how important is working memory? Should we expect our high-level explanations to converge on a theory of everything? Would super-smart people really communicate in short series of grunts? Could they hack their own autonomic nervous systems or incept a linguistic killshot? tl;dr: gestalt gestalt gestalt gestalt gestalt gestalt. gestalt gestalt? gestalt gestalt, gestalt.   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) intro and synopsis (00:05:13) Can you jooce up human intelligence 00:14:53) How would super-smart people communicate? (00:22:01) ’chunking’ abstractions towards a theory of everything (00:39:23) behavioral priming gone WILD (Greco vs Reynolds grunt battle) (00:51:23) why can’t we all just get along?? (00:55:40) reconciling David Deutsch’s ’universal explainer’ theory with IQ (01:16:42) unresolved AI safety concerns   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We love to share listener feedback on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own or just say hello.   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: My Struggle, volume 1 - Karl Ove Knausgaard Lolita - Nabokov The Moviegoer - Walker Percy    

This week we're reading three of Anton Chekhov's most beloved short stories: The Man in the Case, Gooseberries, and About Love (The Little Trilogy, 1898). We get a minor assist from George Saunders and his fantastic book A Swim in the Pond in the Rain but have no shortage of stuff to discuss. Talking big 5 personality traits, the degree to which people oppress themselves, why Rich fell out of love with the early retirement movement, whether it's OK to be happy in a world full of suffering, and if having to settle in romantic relationships is antithetical to true love. Also: Cam takes a controversial and brave stance against home-wreckers.   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) intro (00:01:54) ’The Man in the Case’ synopsis 00:07:12) Are some personality types just better than others? (00:12:52) Belyakov fumbles the bag with Varenka (00:24:07) Is everybody trapped in a case of their own making (00:34:58) Mavra and the tranquil village (00:40:15) Gooseberries synopsis (00:42:30) The pitfalls of the ’early retirement’ movement (00:52:55) theorising on happiness (01:01:57) Ivan the big fat hypocrite (01:07:23) ’About Love’ synopsis (01:11:44) Did Alyohin make the right decision? (01:22:10) Can love by analysed rationally (01:33:49) our favourite story of the trilogy (01:37:59) accessibility of chekhov   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We wanna start reading listener feedback out on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own or just say hi.   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: My Struggle, volume 1 - Karl Ove Knausgaard

Hemingway's 1929 semi-autobiographical classic tackles two big timeless themes: love and war. Two out of three of us can relate to the first one, but war feels pretty alien to us. How would the boys do if they were conscripted? What made WWI so uniquely dispiriting? What is it about this novel that so faithfully captures the experience of war? We also talk quite a bit about Hemingway's laconic characters and terse writing style. How representative is this of his broader work? What do we think of the 'iceberg method'? Why did he go with the most depressing possible ending? and MORE CHAPTERS (00:00:00) first reactions and synopsis (00:06:02) Hemingway’s understated style and the ’Iceberg method’ (00:19:10) What made WWI a uniquely dispiriting war? (00:28:35) Catherine and Henry are the same person (00:38:44) downer ending (00:46:45) A catalogue of arbitrary and meaningless death (00:57:34) Final thoughts and next book   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We wanna start reading listener feedback out on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own.    NEXT ON THE READING LIST: My Struggle, volume 1 - Karl Ove Knausgaard

Not too much plot to cover in parts 5 and 6; mostly we're hashing out our final thoughts on the book and Dostoevsky's legacy. First up is the controversial epilogue. The boys are not sure how believable Rodya's redemption is. It feels kinda cheap? Dostoevsky is not very good at character development but maybe it doesn't matter. Sonya is a perfectly implausible character who exists only as a sort of a prop for Rodya. How on earth does Dosto have a reputation for writing realistic characters? Again, it prob doesn't matter. Svidrigailov sneaks up on us as perhaps the most interesting (or at least the most underrated) character in the book. We talk about the three incredible scenes that bring his journey to an end: kidnapping Donya, the feverish hotel dream, and the dramatic exit. Finally quite a bit of discussion about whether Dostoevsky is actually any good as a thinker. Rich is not sold: the critique of utilitarianism is unfair, blind deference to tradition leaves no room for progress, and God has been pretty neatly replaced by secular humanism. Benny pushes back and adds some nuance to the problem Dosto was trying to describe, and Cam talks about how he still feels the tension between nihilism and common-sense morality. Don't miss the surprise guest appearance from Cam's manager. Is this the week he gets busted? will he live to skive off another day?? Tune in now to find out.   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) intriguing and important discussion on different translations (do NOT skip) (00:13:15) Epilogue: Raskolnikov speedruns character development (00:36:03) Sonya character analysis (00:42:21) how realistic are dostoevsky’s characters? (00:49:24) Svidrigailov meets his twisted end (01:06:46) Are dostoevsky’s philosophical ideas actually any good (01:17:26) Commonsense morality, nihilism and metaethics   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We wanna start reading listener feedback out on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own.    NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Candide — Voltaire A Farewell to Arms - Ernest Hemingway

we're just normal men. We're just innocent men! In parts 3 and 4 of Fyodor Dostoevsky's 1866 Crime and Punishment we get a lot more meat on Raskolnikov's 'extraordinary man' thesis. How does it overlap with the concept of the Übermensch in Nietzsche and Hegel? Are we too deeply steeped in Christian morality to become 'extraordinary' without destroying ourselves? We reconsider Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov, and Luzhin through this lens. Plus: cam's obligatory sibling inc*st fantasies, rich tries to give dostoyevsky writing advice, etc   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) hangry (00:02:00) the Extraordinary Man thesis (00:06:28) Nietzsche, hegel and the RETVRN to bronze age morality (00:13:35) Can you be an extraordinary man without breaking yourself? (00:23:05) Svidrigailov introduction (00:29:45) What would you do if your best friend killed someone (00:34:32) lil dick Luzhin (00:44:30) Lazarus story (the ultimate flipperoo) (00:49:00) Porfiry’s police procedural: pragmatic pressure or pure punishment? (00:59:32) could this be a shorter book (01:05:33) Listener mail: revisiting Hamlet’s soliloquy   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We wanna start reading listener feedback out on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own.    NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Crime and Punishment - parts 5 and 6 Candide — Voltaire A Farewell to Arms - Ernest Hemingway  

Cracking into the first two parts of Dostoevsky's 1866 classic Crime and Punishment. The first surprising thing is that this is a conservative/reactionary book: it mocks the fancy new ideas of the youth, the spirit of revolution, naive utilitarianism, etc. Jordan Peterson laps this shit up. But did the moral panic over materialism hold up? Does modern society in any way compare with the turmoil of Dostoevsky's Russia, or are we at the end of history? How relevant are Dostoevsky's concerns today? We argue quite a bit about that but we're more aligned on the brilliance of Dostoevsky as psychologist, and especially the character of Rodya 'mister schiz' Raskolnikov: what causes his mind to fracture so spectacularly? What motivates him to do the deed? why does Rich kinda relate to him?  plus a masterclass on freestyle rap. and much more CHAPTERS (00:00:00) opening rap (00:04:23) history class with professor chugg (00:12:13) Part 1 summary and reactions (00:23:25) what motivates Rodya ’ mister schizo’  Raskolnikov? (00:28:50) Dosto subtweets bentham and SBF (00:40:46) Part 2 summary (00:52:00) Parallels between Raskolnikov and Marmeladov (00:56:08) Rodya’s amorality (01:05:02) Arguing whether we live in tumultuous times comparable to Dosto’s era (01:14:05) Moral panic over materialism (01:21:45) Rodya’s altruism   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We wanna start reading listener feedback out on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own.    NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Crime and Punishment - parts 3 and 4, then parts 5 and 6 Candide, by Voltaire  

The beauty of this book is immeasurable, and its kindness is infinite. We all love Susanna Clarke's 2012 metaphysical thriller, which feels like a mashup of Borges/C.S. Lewis/Gone Girl.  Venture deeper into the labyrinth with us: Piranesi as amateur scientist: On indigenous knowledge, the dangers of naïve empiricism, achieving dominion over nature, and whether the Other kind of had a point. Metaphysics of the House: Are abstractions real, revisiting Plato's world of perfect forms, and whether the world is fundamentally Good. Identity and mental illness: The illusion of stable personhood over time, repressed memories as trauma response, and how a person with dementia or psychosis can maintain a consistent internal worldview.   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) meet the Beloved Child of the House (00:09:55) Piranesi as amateur scientist (00:19:48) metaphysics of the House and Plato’s theory of forms (00:38:13) C.S. Lewis allusions (00:41:21) The BIG REVEAL (spoilers) (00:46:30) The illusion of stable personhood (00:55:02) Internal consistency of dementia or psychosis patients (01:02:30) Piranesi’s escape and reintegration (01:09:11) Is the world (or the House) fundamentally Good?   SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: We wanna start reading listener feedback out on the pod, so send us a note at [email protected] to correct our bad takes or share your own.    NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Crime and Punishment - Dostoyevsky (reading in three parts over six weeks)

holy shit this was hard. Our first attempt at shakespeare and it was a doozy! Rich struggled through the original text and only had the vaguest idea what was going on. Cam watched every single movie adaptation and studied for two weeks but still got casually mogged by his girlfriend. By the time we got done with the discussion we were all actually hyped to read more shakespeare so something must have gone right. Covering such topics as: The impenetrability of Shakespearean english, whether it's better to read modern translations or the original text, our favourite lines and soliloquies, shitting on the Freudian reading, connections to David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, and Hamlet as the archetypal annoying theatre kid. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) intro (00:03:53) ye olde Shakesperean english vs modern translations (00:14:52) Cam’s film corner segment (00:18:07) Hamlet’s pathological indecisiveness (00:23:27) To be, or not to be? (00:25:34) shitting on the Freudian/oedipal reading (00:32:12) Ophelia and Gertrude’s motivations (00:34:06) protestant heaven loophole (00:42:15) favourite lines and famous quotes (00:45:05) Influence on DFW and other theatre kids (00:48:12) There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so (00:51:44) we rescue the freudian/oedipal reading! (00:53:08) what does the clusterfuck of an ending signify (00:58:07) will we engage with W. Shakespeare again in future (01:03:37) Terrence Howard penis size analysis SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: THE ADDRESS I SAID IN THE RECORDING IS WRONG! it has since been changed to [email protected]   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Piranesi - Susanna Clarke Crime and Punishment - Dostoyevsky

This one starts slow but it ends up being one of my favourite book clubs ever. Camus' last finished novel was The Fall (1956). It has a lot of personal resonance for Rich and the other boys loved it too. Loss of innocence: how much of our behaviour comes down to signalling? Is there such a thing as genuine altruism? Is it dangerous to learn about this stuff? Was David Foster Wallace's 'new sincerity' idea doomed from the outset? Escaping the double bind: Choosing which status games to play, finding solace in sports and other explicit games, why hedonism doesn't work, moving awareness away from the self and towards others, dissolving the problem of a meaningless universe. Performative castigation: Is Jean-Baptiste's judge-penitent stance actually coherent? The pitfalls of woke ideology, recursive traps of judging people, and why virtue signalling is good, actually. Religious interpretations: The biblical fall, Jean-Baptiste as antichrist, the death of God, and organised religion as laundering scheme.   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) worst opening segue competition (00:03:25) Is the pre-fall Jean-Baptiste a virtuous person? (00:07:22) Some personal reflections 00:17:10) Signalling theory and loss of innocence (00:30:19) How to cope with a bottomless pit of suffering (00:37:17) David Foster Wallace and the curse of pathological self-awareness (00:51:41) Judging the judge-penitent: has Jean-Baptiste really solved his problem? (01:02:48) Pro and anti-religious interpretations (01:14:24) Free will and (dis)continuity of personal identity (01:26:50) Strategies for escaping from the spiral of self-awareness (01:32:20) Is the idea of a meaningless universe a reductionist mistake? SEND US MAIL: [email protected]   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Hamlet - Shakespeare Piranesi - Susanna Clarke Crime and Punishment - Dostoyevsky  

Philip K. Dick is a sci-fi legend, but the boys have only ever seen the film adaptations of his work (Blade Runner, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly). Dick's 1969 classic Ubik has us divided. Benny is mad that major premises are introduced and then abandoned, internal logic is sloppy, and the twist ending is lazy writing. Rich and Cam are charmed by the imperfections and think it heightens the sense of (un)reality.  Is Ubik a metaphor for God? What are the parallels to Gnosticism, and who is the demiurge behind the false reality of half-life? Do people who experience psychotic breaks even know that it's happening? What does Plato have to do with all of this? “He felt all at once like an ineffectual moth, fluttering at the windowpane of reality, dimly seeing it from outside.”   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) intro to the world of Ubik (00:08:35) critique of PKD’s worldbuilding (00:20:10) Cold storage and half-life suspended animation 00:25:00) Why is everything decaying? entropy and platonic essences (00:34:43) Joe Chip’s search for Ubik + the battle between Jory and Ella (00:43:10) Christian parallels and PKD’s gnostic epiphany (00:58:35) Arguing whether the twist ending is lazy writing (01:06:28) Is PKD under or overrated? (01:09:54) Psychosis, psychedelics, and paranoia SEND US MAIL: [email protected]   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: The Fall - Camus Hamlet - Shakespeare Piranesi - Susanna Clarke

“As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into an enormous insect.” (who amongst us, etc) This week we're talking Kafka's 1915 novella The Metamorphosis. Rich swoons over Gregor and is deeply moved by his plight. Cam wonders whether the giant freaky bug might bear some responsibility for events. Benny starts out sorta lukewarm on the whole thing but comes around in the end. Is this story meant to be a depiction of depression? An autobiographical work about an artist becoming alienated from his philistine family? A Marxist commentary on capitalism? A subconscious Freudian incest thriller?  We fearlessly explore all of these interpretations... and if you can believe it, even more CHAPTERS (00:00:00) reinterpreting kafka thru the lens of richard dawkins tweets (00:01:50) what kinda filthy vermin are we dealing with here?? (00:06:57) arguing about what Gregor’s initial reaction means 00:15:44) part two synopsis: I didn't choose the bug life (00:19:17) Cam’s incest theory: who is the real parasite? (00:25:15) Metamorphosis as kafka's autobiographical self-therapy (00:36:30) Alienation and depression (00:44:12) genuinely upset about Gregor’s plight (00:50:48) Is kafka meant to be funny? (00:54:23) Refreshing subversion of realism (01:01:29) closing thoughts Send us mail: [email protected] NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Ubik - Philip K Dick The Fall - Camus Hamlet - Shakespeare

Wrapping up Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which we all loved. Nature vs nurture: the monster as proto-incel, to what extent do we feel sympathy for him, should Victor have made him a bride, self-loathing and recrimination, and whether hot people are actually more virtuous than ugly people. Also: why rousseau was a giant piece of shit, the monster as Byronic hero, importance of pariahs and moral entrepreneurs, pitbull discourse, etc CHAPTERS (00:00:00) just grave robber problems (00:05:20) peephole language learning montage (00:09:00) Nature vs nurture debate 00:17:00) Cam’s crank theory that hot people are more virtuous (00:24:11) Frankenstein as the original incel (00:28:40) pitbull digression (00:33:31) Ethics of making frank a bride and letting him go (00:42:20) The monster as the true Byronic hero (00:52:50) Sympathy for the devil (00:59:02) Romantic heroes as moral entrepreneurs Send us mail: [email protected] COMING UP The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka Ubik - Philip K Dick The Fall - Camus

Discussing chapters 1-10 of Mary Shelley's 1818 genre mash-up Frankenstein. On Mary Shelley's stacked genetics, the 'scenius' with Lord Byron and Percy Shelley, questions over authorship including a suspiciously accurate depiction of post-nut clarity. Forbidden knowledge: are infohazards real, taking accountability for new technology, guilt and the disgust instinct, strong parallels with AGI, arguments for and against creating new species. Can we defend a parochial concern for our own family/friends/species? Is the monster innately evil? Or a product of his environment? We love this book. hyped to hear the monster's side of the story in part 2. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) pop culture Frankenstein and namespace collision (00:04:55) synopsis (00:07:56) Initial reactions 00:11:20) Suspiciously accurate depiction of post-nut clarity (00:13:38) Mary Shelley’s elite genetics (00:16:54) Forbidden knowledge and infohazards (00:26:08) Victor as deadbeat dad (00:31:15) AGI comparison: how do we feel about creating a new species? (00:38:00) The burden of guilt (the bumblebee incident) (00:41:27) Nature vs nurture and rebelling against god (00:45:08) Back to the question of AGI and creating new species (00:55:35) Parochialism and expanding moral circles (01:03:45) Cultural legacy of this book (01:08:43) should Zuckerberg and friends try to model consequences of AI? Send us mail: [email protected] COMING UP The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka Ubik - Philip K Dick The Fall - Camus  

Wandering through Samuel Beckett's 1953 absurdist play Waiting for Godot. Did Beckett actually have an interpretation in mind, or did he deliberately write a maximally vague story that everyone could map their own interests onto? How well does the humour hold up over time? Where does Beckett rank in the canon of absurdist and existentialist writers? What proportion of reported suicides are actually autoerotic asphyxiation accidents? etc  CHAPTERS (00:00:00) gooning oneself to death (00:05:28) synopsis (nothing happens, twice) (00:07:32) Initial reactions + arguing about interpretation 00:17:16) What are we waiting for? (00:22:09) Religious, Freudian, Marxist interpretations (00:26:56) tHaT’s sOOO RANdoM!! (00:31:00) Beckett’s fame (00:35:01) Beckett vs Camus (00:38:02) The One True Interpretation

Our final session with W. Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge (chapters 5-7). Elliot Templeton as the last relic of a dying age. Was he really happy? We consider his self-worship and clout-chasing Catholicism as a counterpoint to Larry's spirituality. Rest in power queen. Sophie MacDonald attempts to climb off the wheel of suffering via more prosaic means. Did she get what she wanted? An argument over whether Isabel is a total psycho or only a minor-league bitch.  Larry's spiritual journey as a synthesis of the best parts of the Eastern tradition. Was this whole book just a delivery mechanism for Vedic philosophy? On the transmigration of souls, God as a deadbeat dad, and whether it's bad for society to encourage serenity-maxxing. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) tattoo discourse (00:02:18) The sad (?) saga of Elliott Templeton (00:16:31) The sad saga of Sophie MacDonald (00:29:25) Is this whole book just a delivery vehicle for vedic philosophy? (00:36:18) Larry’s struggle with the problem of evil (00:42:11) Oneness and universality of transcendent experience (00:47:03) Buddhism as a mind-killing philosophy (00:52:22) The boys experience with meditating

Discussing chapters 4 and 5 of W. Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge. Larry becomes aloof and reserved. Is he really bringing anything to the table besides his sexy forearms? Has he gone full woo-woo granola cruncher? Why can Kosti only talk about spirituality when he's drunk? Why aren't muses a thing these days? CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Synopsis (00:02:23) What do we think of Larry now? (00:13:54) Curing Gray’s headache (00:16:50) Christian mysticism as thinly veiled Buddhism (00:20:05) What does Kosti’s character represent? (00:28:30) Why we can take Larry more seriously than typical hippie (00:33:10) This book would hit way harder at age 18 or 20 (00:41:28) What happened to muses? (these old service sector jobs)

Cracking into the first three chapters of Maugham's 1944 spiritual odyssey. Why do we love Larry so much? Rich talks about his own years of loafing around. Is Larry's decision to take a step off the beaten path less admirable given his 'trifling' $54,000 inflation-adjusted stipend? Talking about the spergy drive to collect All the Knowledge, and how to think about which problems to work on. Is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake a noble activity, or should we actually be building stuff in the world?  CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Synopsis (00:02:18) Everyone loves Larry (00:06:26) The perils of stepping off the beaten path (00:09:30) Larry the trust fund kid (00:12:34) Pursuit of knowledge vs building stuff (00:20:00) How to choose which problems to work on? (00:26:00) Larry as mythic Siddhartha figure (00:28:00) Sex as a brief respite from 10 hours of reading (00:33:04) Maugham’s style and Herman Hesse comparison (00:37:01) Predictions for how Larry’s journey plays out

Starts with light and breezy over-sharing of our masturbatory habits, ends with a downer discussion about how we should re-contextualise Wallace's work thru the lens of the abuse allegations against him. The main stories we talk about: Brief Interview #59: Logically coherent masturbation fantasies (00:01:34) is this a universal experience, why are adolescent boys so creepy, the rare 'gooner to godhood' pathway. Brief Interview #28 (00:10:20) Does feminism create a double bind for modern women, was the sexual revolution a mistake, what's with the neo-trad movement, why everyone should have the freedom to make mistakes and explore their preferences. On His Deathbed, Holding Your Hand... (00:30:02) a paean to r/childfree? do parents sometimes secretly hate their children, why small kids are sociopaths, was the father an unreliable narrator, 'radical honesty' is a terrible idea, are lies of omission morally permissible, rich's experience of fatherhood. Church Not Made With Hands (00:52:42) dreamlike disorientation, modernist subjectivism redux, what does the title mean, ego and pride as an obstacle to healing. The Mary Karr abuse allegations (01:10:38) what are the allegations against DFW, can mental health ever absolve people of responsibility, a framework for separating art from artist, should we reanalyse DFW’s work in light of what we know about his life, to what extent is he telling on himself in this book. Brief Interview #20 and #46: The Granola Cruncher and the Viktor Frankl guy (01:27:25) are harm and traumatic events 'good' if they lead to more meaningful lives, could you weaponise this argument to justify anything, epic levels of cope never before conceived of.

This week's discussion is loosely based around the story Octet, but really we just drill down on what David Foster Wallace is trying to achieve in this collection. How much metafiction is too much metafiction, does DFW stray into self-indulgence, the leap of faith he asks from his readers, is it possible to tactically and deliberately try to be sincere (or is this another double bind), and whether Brief Interviews is really about toxic masculinity. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) The paradox of trying to come across as sincere (00:09:16) Overdosing on DFW’s schtick (00:18:05) is Wallace stylistically rangebound as a writer? (00:22:29) DFW’s take on empathising with the reader (00:25:57) Is Brief Interviews really about toxic masculinity? (00:32:49) Wittgenstein and the language problem/solipsism

Wallace's 1999 collection of short stories takes us to some uncomfortable places (and as always, is eerily prescient). In this week's discussion we talk about his 'juvenilia' coming-of-age story Forever Overhead, his famous piece The Depressed Person, and a smattering of the titular brief interviews. We kinda fucked up the format on this by trying to talk about everything. But salvaged some bits about nostalgia, the blurred lines between narcissism and depression, therapy culture, and why metafiction is played out. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) quick blather and disclaimer (00:01:55) Forever Overhead: mainlining nostalgia of late childhood (00:09:04) starting to get sick of DFW’s tics and the metafiction schtick in general (00:14:54) Brief Interview #11 (the guy who keeps leaving his gf because she is worried about him leaving her again) (00:17:52) Brief Interview #3 (the airport shaggy dog story) (00:20:40) Brief Interview #31 (how a great lover really pleases a lady) (00:26:02) The Depressed Person: sincere or a satire of self-obsessed narcissists? (00:34:14) is identifying with this character a massive self-own (00:37:30) Should everyone really go to therapy? (00:44:24) Having a cute baby as cure for depression

An anticlimactic final discussion to an anticlimactic book. We are confused and afraid. Cam is on the brink of quitting reading altogether. This discussion covers Parts 2 and 3 of To The Lighthouse. Actual book-related content starts at 11 minutes. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Normative ethics and incest cold open (00:11:00) Infectiousness of social energy (00:15:16) The Chad Carmichael vs the Virgin Tansley (00:22:16) Entropy and the passage of time (00:26:21) Lily Briscoe as Virginia Woolf (00:33:00) sidebar on which book to read next (00:34:32) On finally getting to the lighthouse (00:42:22) What's the significance of Lily's painting? (00:43:48) Final thoughts on why this book gave us trouble

Rich waxes lyrical about the dinner party scene. Do men have impaired theory of mind, or are they just assholes? On the invisible mastery of social reality, and capturing subjective experience in literature. It goes well enough that the boys decide to actually read the rest of the book. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) pre-roll jibber jabber (00:12:55) a man monologues on the male tendency to monologue (00:17:35) bogged down by poetic prose (00:22:33) Women as facilitators of social interactions (00:32:02) Do women have better theory of mind, or are men just assholes? (00:42:12) Mastery over social reality is invisible (00:48:34) Subject-object distinction (00:51:50) Where to from here (00:55:27) Further thoughts on value of subjective experience in writing (01:02:06) Are we gonna actually finish the book

A fragmented jumble of multiple shifting perspectives, punctuated by abrupt jumps between topics and timelines, infused with the frustration of trying to express intensely-felt experiences within the bounds of mere words. (oh and we also talked about a Virginia Woolf book)   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) - we are NOT going to the lighthouse (00:11:16) - Rich makes the case for persevering (00:14:16) - Cam pleads preference for plain prose (00:17:51) - Ideas that can only be conveyed through fiction (00:25:21) - Synopsis of part 1: The Window (00:27:30) - Autobiographical elements from Woolf's life (00:29:40) - What ideas would a modern Bloomsbury group explore? (00:32:15) - C.P. Snow's The Two Cultures: literature as status game (00:40:40) - Bryan Boyd lens on the importance of stories for advancing knowledge (00:44:33) - exquisite peer pressuring Cam into continuing with the book

These days the 'multiverse' idea is standard marvel slop. But if we read this story in 1941 it would have blown our tiny little minds. how tf did Borges sit at the cutting edge of philosophy and physics without doing the classic info-dump spergy thing? We read one of our favourite stories in search of Clues (actual plot-related analysis starts around the 1 hour mark)   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) synopsis and throat clearing (00:06:43) Borges the troll (death of the author redux) (00:16:23) How this mf had so many original ideas (00:22:12) Cho Chang discourse (00:30:30) Conceptual analysis of being cool (00:42:20) History of the multiverse (00:52:23) ambiguity of the Liddell Hart intro (01:01:22) Fatalism and free will (01:18:53) What motivates Yu Tsun? (01:25:05) maze strategy chat (01:31:20) When we first encountered the multiverse (01:34:00) Does multiverse imply all possible things happen? (01:49:25) Real hypertext has never been tried

Our critical consensus on John William's sleeper bestseller Stoner: There is almost no plot The main character doesn't get the girl, or really succeed at anything Gigantic violation of 'show don't tell', starting on literally page one WE FUCKING LOVE THIS BOOK could it be...a perfect novel? we try figure out why we relate so hard to Mr William Stoner, the great shining exemplar of principled mediocrity. CHAPTERS 00:00:00 - the perfect novel 00:06:23 - synopsis 00:10:20 - why each of us loved this book 00:17:02 - Mediocrity as the modal outcome 00:22:26 - Is Stoner a good stoic or too passive? 00:33:24 - Edith and toxic femininity 00:42:36 - Subverting the hero/saviour trope 00:48:00 - The Lomax/Walker feud 00:58:30 - Academia as an asylum for misfits 01:03:00 - Lust and learning with Katherine Driscoll 01:07:30 - Dying with dignity 01:10:32 - Where does this stand in the canon? 01:17:18 - Ignoring ’show don’t tell’, plain sincere prose 01:20:40 - assorted culture war stuff 01:28:35 - choosing next book

closing out the last section of the book with death, entropy, and thwarted ambitions: Why David Deutsch wouldn't approve of Houellebecg True artists impose their vision upon the world Sacred values and euthanasia Should kanye get back on his meds Not sure why the audio cuts off abruptly at the end but it does feel appropriate CHAPTERS (00:00:00) Third act murder mystery wtf (00:08:03) Yearning for some bygone era (00:13:49) Deutschian critique of MH’s pessimism (00:20:38) Euthanasia and sacred values (00:30:52) What does Houllebecq’s death signify? (00:39:44) Final thoughts on map vs territory (00:48:23) being open to criticism vs imposing a singular artistic vision upon the world