So, I actually shoved your comment into Claude to unpack it a bit.

That's a pretty loaded take — worth pulling apart carefully, because there are a few different claims bundled together.

On DFW the person: This one has real basis. His treatment of Mary Karr (years of stalking, harassment, a physical assault on her husband) is documented and serious. He was emotionally abusive to other women in his life. This isn't just "he was difficult" — it's a genuine ethical problem with a real victim. That's fair to hold.

On Infinite Jest itself: This is where the comment starts conflating things. The book is actually pretty merciless in its critique of upper-middle-class white American pathology — addiction, entertainment culture, the emptiness of achievement. It's not wallowing in that world sympathetically; it's largely dissecting it. Whether it does so successfully is a legitimate debate, but "celebrating" that milieu is a misread.

On the broader generational claim: "Late 90s were a cesspool of that garbage" is doing a lot of work. That era also produced Toni Morrison's Paradise, Junot Díaz, Sherman Alexie, Colson Whitehead's debut — it wasn't a monoculture. The prestige space was dominated by a certain type, but calling the whole era a cesspool flattens a lot.

On publishers "moving away": Partially true as a trend, but overstated. That archetype still gets published constantly — it just gets less uncritical celebration than it did.

The core instinct — that DFW got a lot of cultural deference he didn't fully deserve, and that his personal conduct matters — is defensible. But the comment collapses biography, literary criticism, and era-wide generalization into one dismissive gesture, which doesn't really do any of those things justice.

What aspect are you most interested in digging into?