David Foster Wallace's "Oblivion: Stories". It's a collection of short stories written by someone who decided that it's not literature if you can actually read it. The writer is explicitly anti-plot, which is the functional same as a doctor being anti-medicine. And he's definitely anti-reader.
Now, let me just drop in that I am far from illiterate. I'm an English graduate and currently in postgraduate study with a strong emphasis on political literature. I read heavy shit with no problem and I don't mind working a little to decipher the meaning; I love postmodernism and dense referential texts. I made it through Atlas Shrugged without the sheer evil contained within driving me to Arkham. I also believe firmly in freedom of artistic expression, but this book made me see the merits of the odd bibliocaust. Oblivion: Stories is a fraction of the length of Atlas Shrugged but feels significantly longer, and twice as pretentious. I could understand the points he was making and the themes of the text. He just made those points and explored those themes in the most deplorable ways a writer could. You will never see a book work so hard to spit in your eye.
The worst part is that the literary scene I'm in absolutely fucking loves David Foster Wallace and argue that the sheer pain he inflicts upon his readers is the 'point' and that's why he's so good. I, as you might have gathered by now, disagree. A spit in the eye is still a spit in the eye, no matter how well-aimed it is and I'm not going to thank him for spitting in my eye.
There are two reasons I can think of why people like David Foster Wallace.
1) The misconception that art must be unclear, 'difficult' or obscure in order for the points it makes to be worthy; to put it another way, art can't be clear, enjoyable or accessible. This perception leads to an envrionment where dissent is actually discouraged; if you don't like what is currently popular in the art world, the implication is because you don't get it. Like I say, Wallace's themes are obvious and the points he makes are not ones I particularly disagree with, although they're far from ground-breaking or even particularly insightful. It is not that I do not 'get' what he writes about. He just writes about it BADLY.
2) He's dead. This has a few ramifications when it comes to art and literature that you don't really see in other areas. Now that he's dead, his work is more 'valuable' in some way - think about Van Gogh's painting of sunflowers. A writer still working has a chance to screw things up and crash his career, but Wallace died. He can't crash.
As you can tell, this is something I really dislike.
All I can say is if you find yourself in a shop with David Foster Wallace on the shelves, turn around and get out as soon as you can. Run as if the very devil were behind you. Seek shelter and sanctuary and know terorr in the very depths of your soul, for you have walked in the shadows of the damned.
Then find yourself a copy of Dany Laferriere's "How To Make Love To A Negro Without Getting Tired". It is a brilliant and punchy book with a great jagged humour (as if you couldn't guess from the title) that satirises North American perspectives on inter-racial relations.