Perhaps it's because the parent can't distinguish between the person and the work. Show me someone who's produced remarkable output and hasn't done shitty things.

The 'hype' is about the work, not the person.

Another way of looking at it: what was DFW in a position to (plausibly) do, versus what he did, as compared to Paul Graham?

I don't follow your comment.

DFW had a girlfriend and allegedly tried to push her out of a moving car.

No accusations against pg. Except hnbad who vaguely writes "Debatable" in this thread.

It's the perspective of roughly "maximizing ones possible achievements".

Paul Graham is rich, connected, and inluential, to what degree (in percentage terms) does he use this to make the world a better place?

Gotcha. Those who are rich, connected, and influential could all seriously consider our impacts on the world.

I don't see failing to use your wealth well and trying to push someone out of a car as equivalent "shitty things."

I do. In fact, pushing someone out of a car only hurts one person. Not utilizing your resources for good hurts thousands, maybe even, millions.

Especially when "your" wealth is fairly arbitrary, and hardly democratically decided.

The "well-documented" seems to be a disgruntled ex-lover talking about a dead person who can't comment on it anymore, and then other people writing what the disgruntled ex-lover said, or is there more to it?

I'm no expert, but I think you are correct.

The "well-documented" is Karr talking about Wallace and then other people writing what Karr said. That's often the case with domestic violence.

Adrienne Miller’s memoir of her time at Esquire contains some description of DFW being a jerk, but not physically abusive.