Consider the Lobster 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

Do lobsters feel pain? Did Franz Kafka have a funny bone? What is John Updike's deal, anyway? And what happens when adult video starlets meet their fans in person? David Foster Wallace answers these questions and more in essays that are also enthralling narrative adventures. Whether covering the three-ring circus of a vicious presidential race, plunging into the wars between dictionary writers, or confronting the World's Largest Lobster Cooker at the annual Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace projects a quality of thought that is uniquely his and a voice as powerful and distinct as any in American letters.

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：Consider the Lobster在线阅读

在线听书地址：Consider the Lobster在线收听

在线购买地址：Consider the Lobster在线购买

** Am I a good person? Deep down, do I even really want to be a good person, or do I only want to seem like a good person so that people (including myself) will approve of me? Is there a difference? How do I ever actually know whether I’m bullshitting myself, morally speaking? **

** What exactly does “faith” mean? As in “religious faith,” “faith in God,” etc. Isn’t it basically crazy to believe in something that there’s no proof of? Is there really any difference between what we call faith and some primitive tribe’s sacrificing virgins to volcanoes because they believe it’ll produce good weather? How can somebody have faith before he’s presented with sufficient reason to have faith? Or is somehow needing to have faith a sufficient reason for having faith? But then what kind of need are ...

As a practical matter, I strongly doubt whether a guy who has four small kids and makes $12,000 a year feels more empowered or less ill-used by a society that carefully refers to him as "economically disadvantaged" rather than "poor." Where I he, in fact, I'd probably find the Politically Correct English (PCE) term insulting -- not just because it's patronizing (which it is ) but because it's hypocritical and self-serving in a way that oft-patronized people tend to have really good subliminal antennae for. The basic hypocrisy about usages like "economically disadvantaged" and "differently abled" is that PCE advocates believe that beneficiaries of these terms' compassion and generosity to be poor people and people in wheelchairs, which again omits something that everyone knows but nobody ex...

Helping [most college writers] eliminate the [most persistent and damaging error] involves drumming into student writers two big injunctions: (1) Do not presume that the reader can read your mind -- anything that you want the reader to visualize or consider or conclude, you must provide; (2) Do not presume that the reader feels the same way that you do about a given experience or issue -- your argument cannot just assume as true the very things you're trying to argue for.

Because (1) and (2) seem so simple and obvious, it may surprise you to know that they are actually incredibly hard to get students to understand in such a way that the principles inform their writing. The reason for the difficulty is that, in the abstract (1) and (2) are intellectual, whereas in practice they are more th...

He and Hecuba ended up over coffee, and when H.H. finally cleared his throat and asked the cop why such an obviously decent fellow squarely on the side of the law and civic virtue was a porn fan, the detective confessed that what drew him to the films was “the faces,” i.e. the actresses’ faces, i.e. those rare moments in orgasm or accidental tenderness when the starlets dropped their stylized “fuck-me-I’m-a-nasty-girl” sneer and became, suddenly, real people. “Sometimes—and you never know when, is the thing—sometimes all of a sudden they’ll kind of reveal themselves” was the detective’s way of putting it. “Their what-do-you-call … humanness.” It turned out the LAPD detective found adult films moving, in fact far more so than most mainstream Hollywood movies, in which latter films actors—so...

It’s very easy to gloss over the PoW thing, partly because we’ve heard so much about it and partly because it’s so off the charts dramatic, like something in a movie instead of a man’s life. But it’s worth considering for a moment, because it’s what makes McCain’s “causes greater than self-interest” line easier to hear.

You probably already know what happened. In October of ‘67 McCain was himself still a Young Voter and flying his 23rd Vietnam combat mission and his A-4 Skyhawk plane got shot down over Hanoi and he had to eject, which basically means setting off an explosive charge that blows your seat out of the plane, which ejection broke both of McCain’s arms and one leg and gave him a concussion and he started falling out of the skies over Hanoi.

Try to imagine how much this would ...

But if you, like poor old Rolling Stone, have come to a point on the Trail where you've started fearing your own cynicism almost as much as you fear your own credulity and the salesmen who feed on it, you may find your thoughts returning again and again to a certain dark and box-sized cell in a certain Hilton half a world and three careers away, to the torture and fear and offer of release and a certain Young Voter named McCain's refusal to violate a Code. There were no techs' cameras in that box, no aides or consultants, no paradoxes or gray areas; nothing to sell. There was just one guy and whatever in his character sustained him. This is a huge deal. In your mind, that Hoa Lo box becomes sort of a special dressing room with a star on the door, the private place behind the stage where on...

书籍介绍

Do lobsters feel pain? Did Franz Kafka have a funny bone? What is John Updike's deal, anyway? And what happens when adult video starlets meet their fans in person? David Foster Wallace answers these questions and more in essays that are also enthralling narrative adventures. Whether covering the three-ring circus of a vicious presidential race, plunging into the wars between dictionary writers, or confronting the World's Largest Lobster Cooker at the annual Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace projects a quality of thought that is uniquely his and a voice as powerful and distinct as any in American letters.

• 作者：Lucia 发布时间：2016-08-06 12:53:53

  第一篇看了十分钟，愣是没找到点在哪。这么一个合集，算了吧

• 作者：理智个屁 发布时间：2021-04-23 09:32:10

  才看到第52页就发现叔丁基硫酸的结构式写错了……

• 作者：原应叹息 发布时间：2021-06-04 11:20:28

  所謂的現代主義文學就是明明情節很簡單，卻不給你好好講嗎？

• 作者：天平上的尘埃 发布时间：2019-03-27 14:20:44

  本书书名其实不叫《优雅的Ruby》，应该叫《编写健壮的Ruby方法》。全书的主旨就是在讲述在Ruby中如何编写方法：处理输入，处理输出，功能实现和异常处理。后两者几乎用了很短的篇幅略过。而占据了全书一半篇幅的处理输入在我看来基本上就是在为动态语言埋单。只能说也许Ruby是happy for programming？但在真实世界的项目里绝对不是happy for engineering！另外，这个定价真是宰大头

• 作者：欢愉 发布时间：2012-08-14 12:19:19

  此书中规中矩，普通阅读刊物。

• 作者：秦皇岛海怪 发布时间：2022-09-22 10:28:15

  一岁左右很喜欢

• 龙虾考

  作者：倪湛舸 发布时间：2011-04-20 01:46:09

  二零零八年九月，作家David Foster Wallace自缢身亡，雷曼兄弟银行宣告破产，我万般无奈却又英勇无畏地迈上了求职之路。

  接下来所发生的，无非是与难友们挤在学校的地下餐厅里交流职位因经费短缺而被取消的噩耗，展示措词简练无情或者用尽可能丝般润滑的糖衣包裹congratulations for having been fucked up的拒信，或是为秃子头上的跳蚤般珍贵的面试机会彼此打气。那时我的好朋友是个叫做Tom的男生，他每次伸出双臂与人拥抱都要露出腋下的破洞，那件T恤看起来就像是场持续不休并且注定失利的战场上的战利品，散发着最能打动我的气息。

  再后来，运气不算太差的我成了面试老手，这不是自我吹嘘，是自我揭短，不停地面试只意味着颠沛流离难以安定。出入东南西北的校园时难免会遇见早些年就已在业内立足的同门师兄们；某次求职演说之后，日后成为我的同事兼楷模的某师兄听了我对当代美国作家的抱怨，说：“其实David Foster Wallace不错。” 时至今日，我已经很久没有同Tom联系，但我相信，他和我们大家争先恐后想要得到的，不过是Brian师兄那样的无趣生活：用呕心沥血却无人问津的著作换来终身教职，辛勤供养家室子女外加宠物，闲暇时读读沃勒斯，笑着说，这厮死了，我们还得活下去。

  二零一一年四月十五日，沃勒斯尚未完成的遗作The Pale King在编辑的整理润色后面世。四月十五日是一年一度递交税表的最后期限，出版社的选择不可能别无深意，The Pale King正以IRS官僚体制内、小公务员的琐碎人生为主题。我承认，我好奇于那个人民群众血汗钱不翼而飞去的神秘去处，甚至胜于税吏这一形象在圣经文化中的意义、或是把官僚机制描摹成怪兽的卡夫卡传统，于是就在Kindle上下载了沃勒斯的小说。可我没有跟风读名人未竟稿的爱好，而长篇小说的马拉松式阅读也不适合我这种走马观花派，便又随手搞来了他的散文集Consider the Lobster，还有短篇小说集Oblivion。

  散文始终是我偏爱的文体。原因很简单：一，短。适合地铁/公车阅读和枕上催眠。二，以我偏狭的眼光看来，散文类似于画家的素描和美人的素颜，是功底。我选择从散文开始接触陌生作家，而写不好散文的作家则多少有投机致富的嫌疑。幸运的是，沃勒斯的散文赢得了我的信赖。怎么形容呢，他的文章写得明白事理且通晓情趣。虽然名为文学研究者，我的全副精力却都被用于炮制研究性专著和论文，看见华辞丽藻就想扯碎了看背后的利益纠结，对于大多数作家滔滔不绝的自我赞美（更确切的说，对文学神坛和自己的祭司事业的赞美）丝毫提不起兴趣。好在出生于学术家庭的作家沃勒斯对两边的游戏规则都谙熟于心，说起话来不至于让人皱眉。

  早些年我喜欢博学多识的文章，现在年纪大了，反倒更亲近于拉斯维加斯的色情大展和缅因州的龙虾美食节。沃勒斯说美国每年都有十来个猥琐男因为自宫而被送进急诊室，这些欲火烧身却无以发泄的男人只能把手伸向厨房里的刀具甚至老虎钳。何苦来呢？这世上总还是有毛片的呀！沃勒斯还煞有介事地讨论被扔进滚水的龙虾往锅外爬到底是否意味着龙虾也懂得痛苦。沃勒斯不能免俗地推崇陀思妥耶夫斯基，认为后者毫不说教的说教文学真伟大，而现代派的形式探索真他妈没劲，在美国，挖心剖腹想要感化社会的人竟然只剩下一群脑筋短路的原教旨主义者，这究竟是谁的悲哀和耻辱？我夸沃勒斯有情趣，这情趣当然不是有钱有闲人士糊在墙上的漂亮书皮，也不是愤怒青年扔出去却什么都砸不破的空酒瓶，他的情趣在于人够聪明，说话也够直接。他对厄普代克以及其年代的叛逆姿态冷嘲热讽，大大咧咧地声称厄普代克笔下几乎升华到存在主义甚至形而上意义的孤独其实只有一个根源：作者是个混账东西。我也曾摇滚青年过，现在却承认自己是懦夫，受不了这些年的头破血流和恍然大悟；我终究还是要辩解，说自己其实挺勇敢，勇于承认这些年来的经历不过是为自己和更多人的混账买单。

  最可笑的是，最早也是最经常嘲笑我“堕落”的人，是我妈。她不觉得年少轻狂是堕落，我那未老先衰的保守、逃避和虚无主义才是。可我觉得沃勒斯转述的卡夫卡的某则寓言最应该拿给我妈读。“老鼠说：哎呀，世界每天都在变小。一开始世界太大，我好害怕，于是就跑啊跑。后来远远地望见墙了，可心里刚一舒坦，高高的墙就已经把我困住，就在这角落里，我面前只有一个陷阱可以往里跳！这时，猫说：你只要转过头身呀！然后嗷的一口把老鼠吞了。”沃勒斯说这是节奏完美的笑话，我说这就是我节奏完美的人生、吾等鼠辈以身饲猫的菩萨业。

• 一只耗子的死与卡夫卡幽默在美国文学史上的失败

  作者：遇春分 发布时间：2009-06-26 10:03:39

  一开始我对大卫•福斯特•华莱士的过早离世是有些措手不及的。你只要稍微往美国当代文学史上瞄一眼，就无法忽略他在那片大陆上的光芒四射：《洛杉矶时报》曾封他为美国近20年间最具有创新力和影响力的作者之一；他最富盛名的长篇小说《无尽的嘲笑》（1996）曾经被《时代》杂志收录进1923-2006年 间最优秀小说名单。而当我坐上驶往新泽西的火车，读到他对弗兰兹•卡夫卡 （Franz Kafka 1883-1924，以下简称“卡夫卡”）一则寓言的评论时，竟然忍不住想要跳下火车给他写信。到站以后，我迫不及待地驾车奔到电脑 前，打算通过Google搜索他的邮箱地址时，发现的却只是一个由网友自发建立的纪念华莱士生平事迹的网站 。直到那一刻我才知道，华莱士自杀了。

  华莱士非常喜爱卡夫卡式的幽默。他在评论中引用了这样一则寓言：“这真可悲，我们生活的这个世界竟然每天都在变小。一开始世界大得让我有些畏惧，我只能不停的跑，直到我发现左右两边的围墙已经渐行渐远了，我才心满意足起来。可是这些围墙又以迅雷不及掩耳之势将我围堵住，而在路的尽头就摆着一只捕鼠器。'你只需要转个身就可以了'猫在我背后说，然后它一口把我吃掉了”。

  假设你要跟美国大学生讨论这则寓言中的隐喻，那简直会比登天还难。按照华莱士的说法是，解读卡夫卡是一种对文学的亵渎，因为让一个笑话变得乏味最快捷的方式就是告诉人们为什么它好笑。可惜地是，在华莱士的美国文学分析课上，他就被迫要常常扮演这个“玩忽职守”的角色。

  你知道，美国人喜欢“直白的，露骨的，毫不拐弯抹角的幽默”。而卡夫卡似乎是一个太精密，太微妙的幽默制造仪器。试想，当你说一个人“混蛋”，或者你说他的工作 跟“吃屎”无异时，卡夫卡会把他们比喻成为“在中世纪，有些人就必须得扮演一张与其身份相辅相成的嘴脸”。毫无疑问，这种卡夫卡式的幽默解析起来太费时间，也绝不符合美国人当下对现实的价值评判标准。然而，华莱士却认为，这种极大地曲解了卡夫卡写作的本身意图。事实上，卡夫卡一直都在致力于探索对现实生活的一种 准确的文学化表达，而不是我们通常理解的那种将事物幻化为虚晃的比拟法。

  卡夫卡是那样努力的想要澄清事实本身，以至于他已经无法用悲剧来说明悲剧本身。相反地，他在写作中运用了一种更贴合大众的文学技巧——将悲剧转化为带有比拟成分的喜剧。华莱士 分析道，大多数学生在理解到卡夫卡的这个技术时已经觉得满足，反而是做老师的愧疚无比。因为老师们知道，单纯能理解这个文学技巧其实根本称不上是开始理解了卡夫卡那种更深层次的对悲剧的“炼金术”。华莱士指出，卡夫卡在通过这则小耗子的寓言极力宣扬一种他背后的个人表达：未来也许充满希望，却不是为我们而设。

  这种卡夫卡式的，通过戏谑自身来制造幽默的作法，无论如何都无法被美国大众，尤其是美国的年轻人，所接受。因为长久以来，美国人秉承的是一套独特的“自我认同”体系。他们弘扬着人类应该如何 抛头颅洒热血、如何不瞻前顾后、如何不惧怕邪恶势力而最终达到生命终结，而这终结往往只是——死亡和纳税。

  在这种评价体系下，“逃避” 往往是让人嗤之以鼻的。因此，很大程度上，美国的教育者只能极力灌输给学生：“你们不是无法理解卡夫卡的幽默，是因为你们已经拥有这种幽默了”； 或者只能说服他们“不是还没有成为他们想成为的那个样子，而是他们已经身处那群人中的一员”。所谓“不识庐山真面目，只缘身在此山中”。这样传播知识的过程，事实上是在蛊惑年轻人，让他们坚信自己已经拥有了那些其 实他们还没有开始探索和捕捉的理想和理智，包括对残酷世界的不满和责难。这也就等同于在告诉他们，你们身处的这个世界已经是你们追求已久的那个样 子，而你们真正在追求的东西，其实只是回家的路罢了。

  我自始至终还是无法理解，为什么华莱士选择以如此孤独的方式撒手人寰。他丢下了对这世界的，这些混合文化和沟通障碍的，一切精妙的洞悉；他丢下了卡夫卡作品中那一点仅剩的对真实生活的幽默化反映；他也丢下了自己，那只通往回家之路上的小耗子；他同时让跟随自己的人嘎然而止，一时失去了可供敬仰的方向。我是真的很喜欢华莱士。我喜欢他对于自身以及美国人无知的坦然。很少有人，包括我自己在内，能够不带任何感情色彩地坦承“自己其实很害怕承认现实”。在美国人所追捧的娱乐作品中，大部分崇尚的是一种狭隘的，对个人责任和制约力的评价体系。仿佛人在年轻时就必须与“死亡和纳税”做至死不渝的斗争，而 逃避这种斗争绝对不可饶恕。这就好像当小耗子看到捕鼠器想立即掉头就走时，对于美国人来讲，这事儿一点也不好笑。

  幽默应当是一种放松和发泄。这就是为什么华莱士不能在文学分析课上用卡夫卡的幽默来刺激和挑衅大学生，是因为学生们已经够脆弱了——他们是美国的精英，他们时时 刻刻都需要与这个世界上一切可怕的艰难险阻做斗争。他们背负的是一麻袋的“美国梦”，他们已经不堪重负。因此，你无论如何也不能残忍到在一个来之不易的，可以让他们饮酒 作乐的星期五之夜去大谈什么丧气话——哪怕那的确是事实，比如“死亡和纳税”。

  总的来讲，华莱士认为如果美国人无法接受 “我们是无法接受事实的” 这个历史性真相，那么卡夫卡的幽默也就永远无出头之日了。很明显，在华莱士短暂的46年中，这种转变从未出现。