Transcript Is David Foster Wallace…?

David Foster Wallace. Literist?
A PowerPoint Presentation Produced Exclusively By
Ryan Bowen, A Student in attendance of Sir Peter of
White’s English 12 Class.
(Period 3, 2005)
*Literist: noun; one who writes literature
Here He is, The Master Himself
• Wallace was born in 1962. Since that time, he has written novels, short
stories, and other literary works. Some of which include: Infinite Jest (A
novel), Oblivion (stories), Brief Interviews With Hideous Men (stories), The
Broom of The System (A novel), and A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never do
Again (essays and arguments).
• The two most recognized works by Wallace are Infinite Jest and Oblivion.
• Infinite Jest, a 1,079 page novel, is
said to be his greatest work of
literature thus far.
• Oblivion, a collection of 8 short
stories, has some of the rawest
views of self-consciousness and
life in literature today.
My Position
The stories of David Foster Wallace’s that I have read contain some of
the best imagery, mood, and intensity that I have encountered in my
experience as a not-quite avid reader. I am simply defending the fact
that I believe David Foster Wallace writes literature, and that it will
endure. The truths of the heart as described by Faulkner in his sham of
a story “The Bear” and his acceptance speech are absolutely ridiculous,
but they are nonetheless part of this project. Therefore, I will attempt to
defend Wallace as a man who uses the truths of the heart in his
literature as well. There is no doubt in my mind that he writes
literature that will endure. His ideas reach deep into humanity and
uncover truths about society that will forever remain a part of life
(truths that may indeed be of the heart). “Another Pioneer” alone
touched a fact of life and evolution that has been a truth since the
existence of the first humans in whatever form they may have taken. It
tells the story of technological advancement, and the advancement of a
society. However, it touches a darker side of life: the bane of society;
the downfall of new traditions and ideals. If that won’t endure, then I
don’t know what will. But I will come out victorious in this duel of
infinite strength. I will win. With a magician of Post-modernistic
literature on my side, I can’t lose. Consider my sword unsheathed, for
this battle will reign fire down upon the earth in a fiery rage.
Oh, Is That So?
Yes, as a Matter of Fact. It is
So.
William Faulkner’s Definition
In order to determine whether or not David Foster Wallace is a writer
of literature, we will first need to define what exactly that entails.
According to Billy Faulkner’s Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, he
believed at the time that:
“there [was] only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the
young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human
heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only
that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat. He must learn them
again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and,
teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for
anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking
which any story is ephemeral and doomed — love and honor and pity and
pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse.
He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of
value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion.
His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the
heart but of the glands.”
One can then assume that what Faulkner means is that without true-tolife struggles that touch the heart, writing really has no value morally
or otherwise.
So, How Does Wallace Compare?
In respect to “Another Pioneer,” it is simple to say that Wallace writes from the
heart. The ideas that he touches upon in this story go as far back as humanity.
They are truths and patterns that have gone on throughout the history of time.
His writing is indeed of the heart, and not of the “glands.” The very fact that he
uses such large vocabulary and a discombobulated form, however, would sort
of make one think that he was just writing to be a pain in the ass. But, when you
really read his work, you can understand how his style benefits the whole. Not
only does his writing come from the heart, it contains truths of said heart as
well. At the end of “Another Pioneer” the child that the tribe revolves around
changes. The villagers could no longer stand it and decided to leave the village,
their farms, and everything they had earned from the boy’s knowledge behind.
“When the child failed to starve or leave the dais but merely continued to sit atop it. That at
some point the entire community simply gave up and abandoned the village and their tilled
fields and centrally heated shelters and chose to strike off in masse into the rain forest and
to return to hunting and gathering and sleeping beneath trees and fending off the
predacious indigenous jaguars as best they could, such was their fear of what they decided
the child had grown to become.”
Displayed here are 3 of the truths of the heart. The villagers show courage to
leave behind their lives, the sacrifice all of their technology and farms in order to
be safe, and they are proud of themselves and are not willing to allow a boy to
destroy the village. If that isn’t literature, then I don’t know what is. What I do
know though, is that Faulkner sure as hell would have thought it was literature.
Now How ‘Bout Them Other
People
During my research I was able to locate several
reviews and analyses of Wallace’s work. The people
that I have chosen to either assist in my defense or
use as a contrasting argument are: Sven Birkerts, Dan
Cryer, Brian Howe, Jacob Levich, and an anonymous
person from the Hudson Review. The most common
topic for discussion with these people is Infinite Jest.
However, there are some that talk about Oblivion as
well. These fellows have assisted me in my decision
as to whether or not Wallace writes literature. Soon
you will behold the glory of such things, but first…
A quick interlude for your entertainment.
Special Thanks To:
…and don’t forget the Jolly Men!
And Now Back To The Show
Insert Sven Birkerts Here[]
I like the way Sven puts it: “Whatever aesthetics we espouse, we are all
closet traditionalists in our expectations – and these must be shelved.
Wallace rebuts the prime-time formula. Think Beckett, think Pynchon,
think Gaddis. Think.” He helps make the point that although Wallace
writes in a somewhat confusing way, he makes you—as the reader—
actually think when you peruse his stuff. I feel as though people who
claim Wallace’s work to be rubbish simply can’t stand the fact that his
literature is thought provoking and encourages you to consider more
than just the storyline while reading. I find it hard to handle when folks
say that he writes out of the norm. “To say that [his writing] does not
obey traditional norms is to miss the point. Wallace’s narrative
structure should be seen instead as a response to an altered cultural
sensibility.” Wallace simply follows his heart when writing rather than
producing a product to be sold at the highest price to make the most
money as possible. Sure, he is a mainstream author right now, but I
think his stories are honest and originate from his soul. The final point
that I would like to make with the help of Sven here, is that Wallace has
a knack for weaving dense, complicated webs of intertwined storylines
and complex ideas. Sven believes that “not only does he share with
both a mordantly black view of modern and late-modern experience,
but he also has a penchant for weaving long braids from enticingly
antiphonal plots.” It’s easy to say that weaving such “braids” takes a
certain amount of skill and effort. The same amount of skill and effort it
Howe could Brian Be So Cruel?
Yet another fellow who believes that Wallace is a strong author of
literary caliber is Brian Howe. Howe seemed to have enjoyed the raw
humanity in Oblivion because he couldn’t say anything bad about it.
Howe specifically mentions “Incarnations of Burned Children,” which
I find to be a heart wrenching story. The story itself is a measly 3 pages
in totality, but Wallace uses such vibrant imagery that 3 pages is plenty
to get the point across. This is another reason that I believe Wallace to
write literature. His imagery and mood are like that of a poet. In this
story a child dumps a pot of boiling water on itself and the parents
frantically attempt to sooth the pain, but are ultimately unable to save
the child. Scarred for life, the child lives on seemingly without a soul.
Wallace touches on something deep and meaningful here: the idea of a
human living without a soul. An empty body doomed to walk the
earth with no point for living. As Howe puts it, “More than any
modern fiction writer that I am aware of, Wallace is directly and
skillfully engaged with what much fiction has forgotten it should strive
to palpate – what Saul Bellow called ‘the mystery of being.’” Howe
helps illustrate the point that Wallace thinks outside the box and
doesn’t follow the mold used by the majority of authors today. Such
originality is a great characteristic of literature.
Dan Cryer, What a Baby
Dan Cryer, in reference to Wallace’s novel, Infinite Jest, says that “This
book teems with so much life and death, so much hilarity and pain, so
much gusto in the face of despair that one cheers for the future of our
literature.” First of all, he used the none too familiar term “literature”
(in your face suckas). Secondly, he talks about life and death, and other
truths (of the heart?). From this simple 2½ line quote it is obvious that
Wallace is a literary chieftain. Another thing that Cryer mentions is that
Wallace uses a carefully selected choice of words to complete his
masterpieces. Cryer explains that “Wallace is not merely showing off.
Nor is he squandering words, using two or three where a well-chosen
one would do. He is fighting, fiercely and usually successfully, to
capture the ineffable with the only weapon at our disposal, language.”
Thank you for that Mr. Cryer. I agree wholeheartedly. Not only does
Wallace write with an outstandingly large vocabulary, but he uses it to
add meaning to his words. Like i someday hope to be, Wallace is a
master of language. Cryer is correct. Wallace uses language as a
weapon ; a weapon to battle his way into the very lap of literary
prowess.
Go to Levitz Jacob Levich
Now, Jake here, though not in favor of Wallace’s Infinite Jest,
helps me to make the point that I am working toward. There
are two separate times that Levich refers to Wallace in the same
sentence that he mentions “literature.” I’m not Sherlock, but I
can definitely figure this one out. Jake said that Infinite Jest was
“one gigantic case of literary coitus interruptus.” I notice that he
says Wallace interrupts literature. What a surprise. Not to be
pushy, but again Jake says that Wallace is literarily inclined in a
manner of speaking: “For Wallace, whose private shame is
presumably outweighed by literary celebrity and the promise of
big bucks…” I don’t feel as though I need to say more. It’s quite
simple when you really think about it. I am not here to criticize
a book Wallace wrote. I am simply here to prove that he writes
literature. Whether of his own free will or not, Jacob Levich
offers his assistance to my side of this epic struggle against the
thundering gods of anti-literaturedom.
Anonymity Can Cause Heartbreak
In a certain anonymously written publication produced by The
Hudson Review, it was said that “the despair of [Wallace’s]
epistemologies turns his fiction into unmanifested commentary.”
Personally, I disagree with that statement. When I first read “Another
Pioneer” (my first work by Wallace) I was dragged into the story by the
way his lanky sentences flow across the pages. I was amazed by the
vocabulary, and also by the way that he divided the narrative into
sections and interrupted with commentary. It seemed to me as though
such interruptions allowed me a break from the arduous task of
reading the story (by the way, I readily accept arduous challenges;
especially ones that I enjoy). Hudson also said that “In Oblivion,
Wallace has written a desperately sad book about the limits of human
knowledge, but because the method is essentially negative, essentially
concerned with what lies outside it, its felt impact is entirely projective
and intellectual.” Again, from a personal perspective, I don’t mind
reading something that forces me to think. I enjoy things that challenge
my intellect. And coincidentally, I feel sorry for the schmo who felt the
need to whine about how hard it was for him/her to read the book. In
my opinion, Wallace’s techniques only add to the overall literary air of
his writing.
Straight From the Bowels of
“Burned Children”
In the shortest of all the 8 stories in Oblivion, “Incarnations of Burned Children,”
Wallace manages to use some of the most vivid imagery that I have ever read.
When reading the story I felt as though the environment was almost tangible.
To me, this is a significant point in writing literature. In any good work of
literature, it is important for the reader to feel like part of the story. Also, if the
author is able to touch upon a truth of the heart or two, it is simply and added
bonus. Here is an example from this particular story:
“…the Daddy had taken the scene in whole, the overturned pot on the floortile before the
stove and the burner’s blue jet and the floor’s pool of water still steaming as its many arms
extended, the toddler in his baggy diaper standing rigid with steam coming off his hair and
his chest and shoulders scarlet and his eyes rolled up and mouth open very wide and
seeming somehow separate from the sounds that issued, the Mommy down on one knee
with the dishrag dabbing pointlessly at him and matching the screams with cries of her
own, hysterical so she was almost frozen.”
In that description, Wallace gives a 360 degree perspective of the unfolding
situation. And in addition to the exemplary visual description, Wallace touches
on a truth of the heart. In this story, the truth is not flat out said, but instead
must be understood by the reader. When I read this, I felt pity for the child who
had gotten burned. And by the end I felt even more. In all honesty, this story is
amazing because it tells of a truth of the heart without actually saying it. The
fact that Wallace is able to make the reader feel like that is literary genius.
A Few Mass Sweet Quotes
• Sven Birkerts: “…the emergent figure of Gately – wounded,
desperate, but able to find and give love – allows ‘Infinite Jest’
to work as a postmodern saga of damnation and salvation.”
• Dan Cryer in response to Infinite Jest: “This huge volume will
prop open even a castle’s gates.”
• Jacob Levich in response to Infinite Jest: “What we get is one
gigantic case of literary coitus interruptus.”
Bibliography
• Birkerts, Sven. Infinite Jest: Reviews, Articles, and Miscellany. Feb.
1996. The Atlantic Monthly.
http://smallbytes.net/~bobkat/jest1a.html.
• Cryer, Dan. Infinite Jest: Reviews, Articles, and Miscellany. 12 Feb.
1996. Newsday. http://www.smallbytes.net/~bobkat/newsday.html.
• Faulkner, William. “Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech.” Dec 10, 1950.
• Howe, Brian. Infinite Jest: Reviews, Articles, and Miscellany. 2005.
About.com.
http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/shortfiction/fr/oblivion_2.htm
• Hudson Review. “The Negative Style of David Foster Wallace.” ProQuest
Information and Learning Company. Winter 2005.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4021/is_200501/ai_n9468954.
• Levich, Jacob. Infinite Jest: Reviews, Articles, and Miscellany. 1996. TV
Guide Entertainment.
http://www.smallbytes.net/~bobkat/levish.html.
• Wallace, David Foster. Oblivion. Little, Brown and Company. New York.
2004.
• http://www.smallbytes.net/~bobkat/jesterlist.html (tons of
interviews, reviews, etc.)