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, issaid to be his greatest work ofliterature thus far.

• Oblivion, a collection of 8 shortstories, has some of the rawestviews of self-consciousness andlife in literature today.

My PositionThe 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 DefinitionIn 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-to-life 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 takes to create a work of literature.

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 BabyDan 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 LevichNow, 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.)