tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post115642841693050687..comments2023-10-21T07:44:20.549-04:00Comments on The Existence Machine: In Defense of DFWRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-8063276997772505982007-03-04T18:41:00.000-05:002007-03-04T18:41:00.000-05:00If I had to guess, I would indeed think that he mi...If I had to guess, I would indeed think that he might agree. I have to think his fiction is more important to him than his non-fiction.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean by "Assume you're excluding his short fiction, which is excellent". If you mean you assume I'm "excluding" his (excellent) short fiction from the category of things I don't care about, then, yes, you're right.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-1741332040279520282007-03-04T18:29:00.000-05:002007-03-04T18:29:00.000-05:00"One looks upon the strange irony of Wallace touri...<EM>"One looks upon the strange irony of Wallace touring the country for a book while ignoring virtually all interviews and wonders if Wallace is only putting out these books or accepting these gigs to keep a little extra cash coming in. You do what you have to do, I guess. But living at the whims of Bonnie Nadell (or anyone) seems a bit puerile for a man of 44."</EM><BR/><BR/><EM>"But more importantly, I think this post reveals a lot more about Ed Champion than it does about David Foster Wallace."</EM> <BR/><BR/>Yes, probably so.<BR/><BR/><EM>"I'm not going to discuss his essays, because mostly I don't care--they're generally amusing works-for-hire and little more."</EM><BR/><BR/>Assume that you're excluding his short fiction, which is excellent, but then I suppose SFTINDA suggests in its very title (a certain ambivalence) that he might agree?Matt Christiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336678358977647388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-1156462906693006962006-08-24T19:41:00.000-04:002006-08-24T19:41:00.000-04:00Ed, I think I know what you mean about your tastes...Ed, I think I know what you mean about your tastes often being in collision with each other. I feel the same way sometimes. In any event, I am not suggesting that you don't have, for lack of a better word, eclectic tastes, or that you don't read widely. That much is clear from your blog. What I <I>am</I> saying is that expecting Wallace to conform to your ideas of what he ought to be doing with his writing limits your ability to judge what he <I>is</I> doing with it. <BR/><BR/>I did not say that I found <I>Oblivion</I> "representative of a major variation in DFW's repertoire". My point is that to seek variation in the manner you appear to be seeking it in his work is fruitless. He might spend his entire writing life working at the same set of problems. I am saying that this should be ok, that many great writers have done exactly that. I am saying that <I>Infinite Jest</I> and <I>Brief Interviews</I> and <I>Oblivion</I> are part of the same project. <BR/><BR/>When you say "This is not to suggest that straight style or intellectual writing doesn't have its place or can't be appreciated" I get the sense that, even though you read and enjoy plenty of fiction that fits that description, in the end you don't think it's quite as good or as important as fiction that tries to do more, as for example you perceive in Powers' recent work. This conception is partly what I am finding limiting. It may well be true that "DFW would be a stronger writer if he let down his guard and explore emotions the way Powers has in his last few books", I can't say. I merely read the books when they appear, if they appear, and decide what I think of them then. But maybe DFW admitting that he'd tried his hand at a "sentimental novel" and scrapped it is him saying that finally it's not what he does well. Here you might say that he should be writing against his strengths, but would you not agree that a writer should <I>not</I> be forcing himself to write that which he does not feel? That which is false?<BR/><BR/>As for <I>Oblivion</I> itself, well there are a few stories I'd point to. In my earlier post, which I linked to above, I cited "Mister Squishy", and I provided a relevant quotation for your perusal, if you're interested. Also, "Good Old Neon" was an amazing act of empathy. "The Soul is not a Smithy"; "Oblivion" itself... But, see, the thing about emotional impact is that if the reader doesn't feel it, then they don't feel it, right? So for me to argue that these stories are not cold, that they have great emotional impact, doesn't mean much. It seems clear to me that Wallace <I>does</I> "give a damn about [his] subject matter"--his "subject matter" being, I think, the exploration of language-worlds and thought processes. I think it's clear he gives a damn because he explores the nuances of this stuff in great (I would say, loving) detail, and he does it, quite often, brilliantly. I don't know what you mean by a book "grip[ping] you by your lapels", it doesn't seem to tell me anything.<BR/><BR/>One thing I would draw your attention to in Scraps' comment was the point about your generalizing from your personal response to a provocative post proclaiming Wallace "washed up". If you'd written something like "man, I just read that Federer article, and DFW really seems to be phoning it in lately.... I found <I>Oblivion</I> cold and dense and I think...etc" then the post probably wouldn't have rankled as much. But you know full well that not only have others you like and even admire praised his recent fiction, including <I>Oblivion</I>, but many have been responding quite favorably to the Federer essay itself (I haven't read it), not to mention the <I>Lobster</I> book. I am not at all trying to say that you're not entitled to your opinion, or that you don't have the right to rant about something on your own blog, but I think he's right in describing your "of course you agree with me" and "pointing at the emperor" approaches. They are not conducive, normally, to good literary discussion. You might say that obviously your post <I>did</I> elicit a discussion, but I still think the condescension was unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-1156446557689807952006-08-24T15:09:00.000-04:002006-08-24T15:09:00.000-04:00Richard: Thanks for the detailed and constructive...Richard: Thanks for the detailed and constructive response, and for the correction. I will respond (hopefully) at some future point about the apparent inconsistencies you perceive. I assure you that my tastes aren't nearly as limited as you impute, and they are often in collision with each other. <BR/><BR/>I'm curious what stories in "Oblivion" you found strong or representative of a major variation in DFW's repertoire. (Both of us have made the mistake of clinging to generalizations, rather than citing specifics.) I am, as you point out, a great fan of expansive fiction. But if a book doesn't give a damn about its subject matter, if it doesn't grip you by the lapels, then it seems to me a waste of an author's talent. That is what I mean by "the human condition." Faulkner's "human heart in conflict with itself." <BR/><BR/>This is not to suggest that straight style or intellectual writing doesn't have its place or can't be appreciated. But I think DFW would be a stronger writer if he let down his guard and explore emotions the way Powers has in his last few books. I welcome nuance as well as style. And of course this is about me expressing my opinions, just as your responsive post here is about you expressing yours. And I think we agree a lot more than we disagree.<BR/><BR/>As for Scraps, I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who uses the phrase "vociferously opposed to Islam." :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-1156440374732690252006-08-24T13:26:00.000-04:002006-08-24T13:26:00.000-04:00This is awful writing, equal parts attitude, clich...This is awful writing, equal parts attitude, cliche, and rhetorical bullying without a shred of critical insight. If Wallace needs a takedown, this isn't it.<BR/><BR/>Champion slips from "I" to "one" and back to "I". He might as well have used the pompous objective voice throughout, since he's fond of the of-course-you-agree-with-me approach ("time to confess the cold hard truth"). On the other hand, the subjective voice is a better fit for the bravely-pointing-at-the-naked-emperor approach ("nobody wants to say this", "even if it is DFW here, it simply must be said"). His condescension, at least, is consistent, albeit unsupported by anything worth expressing outside a dorm room.<BR/><BR/>His prose is spackled with stock phrase thought-substitutes ("some small hope", "tear him a new one", "phoning it in", "banging the same drum", "over the course", "for my money", "cardinal sin" (the last four in the same sentence!), etc. When he tries to speak in his own words, the results aren't better ("joyless timbre").<BR/><BR/>He doesn't know exactly what he's saying ("for the most part, all fixated"), so he inserts vague modifiers at every opportunity ("all very fascinating", "certainly amusing", "almost desperate", "a bit puerile", "symbolic in some sense", "truly the best"). He shows no evidence of listening to himself from one sentence ("any subject at all") to the next ("any real feeling at all").<BR/><BR/>I've learned something about Mr Champion's inarticulate emotional reactions to Wallace -- if I were to speculate Champion-fashion about his Wallace-maunderings, I'd guess that he's motivated by mere irritation that others continue to like and praise work Champion dislikes -- but nothing (at all) about Wallace's recent writing. Which, unfortunately, is (about) (par for the course) for internet bookchat.Scrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17482867072396893124noreply@blogger.com