> Something of the same spirit of annunciation has greeted the performance of Jason Segel, who is being talked about as an Academy Award contender for his portrayal of Wallace as a skeptical, ambitious, modest, hyper-self-conscious, depressive, and fundamentally generous figure of genius. Segel deserves acclaim for a performance that is as revelatory of the unexpected depths of this hitherto bro-centric actor as it is of Wallace’s self-effacing fascination.

Anyone else find this propose hard to follow? I ducked out after that paragraph. I'm struggling to figure out what's being said. Maybe it only makes sense to people who already know what this is all about.

I thought the very first phrase of the article described what the article is about, so the writer could reasonably assume that those continuing past the first paragraph have some background knowledge of Wallace, and some interest in the interplay between a journalist and a novelist in a high-stakes interview. That first paragraph acts like a filter in that sense.

The second paragraph that you quote struck me as basically expressing surprise that the professional actor who has previously made money in fairly formulaic entertainment films can, in fact, act rather well in a more complex role. Then the paragraph asks us to consider the role of the actor playing the journalist David Lipsky, and the rest of the OA focuses on the journalist's behaviour and motivations. I agree that the writing is a little mannered and I had to read that paragraph twice to fully grok what the point being made was.

I found the article as a whole of interest because it lead me to Lipsky's book, written years later, but based on the interview held over the five days in 1996. Lipsky's book is criticised in one of the Amazon reviews as being 'transcripts of the tapes' instead of being edited or reflected on. This immediately interested me so I've just bought a copy. I have an interest in interviews and transcripts and have read a little Wallace.

I also found out about Janet Malcolm's book about the relationship between the journalist and the interviewee which looks interesting for future reading.

Granted some previous knowledge of the novelist will help but Wallace has been mentioned here before lots of times and many here have read his novels so probably relevant to some on HN.

Finally, I have been thinking about how many interview tapes must be lurking in boxes in the cupboards of journalists, and how many projected articles have been spiked over the years. There is a home for almost any substantial work on the Web somewhere surely?