Skip to content

David Foster Wallace is completely to blame for all that sucks on the internet (but not entirely)

August 26, 2011

A really interesting piece was published online by the New York Times the other day about the literary legacy of David Foster Wallace. I’ve never actually read anything by David Foster Wallace. He’s one of those authors, along with Mark Danielewski, that I’ve always felt that I’d need to be in a certain mood to appriciate; but it’s a mood in which I’ve never found myself.

The author of the piece, Maud Newton, makes the case that Wallace’s particular style of writing is responsible, at least in part, for the tendency of writers on the internet to be decidedly non-committal about all manner of arguments they attempt to make:

Wallace’s slangy approachability was part of his appeal, and these quirks are more than compensated for by his roving intelligence and the tireless force of his writing. The trouble is that his style is also, as Dyer says, “catching, highly infectious.” And if, even from Wallace, the aw-shucks, I-could-be-wrong-here, I’m-just-a-supersincere-regular-guy-who-happens-to-have-written-a-book-on-infinity approach grates, it is vastly more exasperating in the hands of lesser thinkers. In the Internet era, Wallace’s moves have been adopted and further slackerized by a legion of opinion-mongers who not only lack his quick mind but seem not to have mastered the idea that to make an argument, you must, amid all the tap-dancing and hedging, actually lodge an argument.

I kind of agree with her (see what I did there?), although it would be disingenuous of me to heft the lion share of the blame for all this on Wallace considering I’m often equally as guilty of this inclination towards non-argument in my own writing and I’ve never read a word of Wallace’s work. One could point out, of course, that I’ve likely been influenced by Wallace even without having read him, simply due to the fact that so many writers that I’ve been influenced by have read him. It’s a fair point, and I won’t dispute it.

However, the nature of language – even when beautiful and compelling – is imperfection. It is literally impossible to take our entire thought process on a given issue and perfectly translate it into words. There really isn’t a way to capture every particular thought or feeling we have and distill it down into what we say or write without omitting at least some of the less important parts. We can’t even tell a story about our day unless we remove details like I got out of bed and set my right foot on the floor first and then my left foot, and then I stood up and began to walk, and then blah, blah, blah, etc.

All language is necessarily editorial. We try our best to express the complex positions we hold in our thoughts using simplified words that are generally not up to the task. It’s like trying to funnel a heard of cats through one particular toll booth on the highway when all the rest are open as well – or maybe it’s nothing like that. And besides, when it comes down to it, even well constructed and succinctly delivered arguments can turn out to be totally wrong. They often are.

While David Foster Wallace has taken a large part in giving a generation of writers permission to write compellingly weak arguments, it is the weakness of language itself that is to blame in the end. All we can do to remedy this is to read as many of the imperfect things that are out there as we can, and then try to figure out which ones are the best of them.

Hmmm…. maybe it’s time I read some David Foster Wallace after all.

Enhanced by Zemanta
5 Comments leave one →
  1. August 26, 2011 4:57 pm

    Now, you’ve made me want to read him too!


  2. September 8, 2012 2:05 pm

    You are an idiot. Take your unfinished novel and throw it in the garbage.


    • September 8, 2012 8:09 pm

      Um… Thanks for the advice?

      I’ll admit that I’m an idiot sometimes, though I have to say that I’m unsure why you chose this of all posts to call me out on it. I thought it was actually kind of interesting. To each their own, I suppose. As to my unfinished novel, it’s been in and out of the garbage more than once. It’s out now, and I think I’ll keep it there. I appreciate you taking the time to tell me your thoughts though. It’s not everyday I see such passion on the blog.


  3. September 13, 2013 12:57 pm

    “While David Foster Wallace has taken a large part in giving a generation of writers permission to write compellingly weak arguments, it is the weakness of language itself that is to blame in the end.”

    Yes, that must be it! It’s not that DFW and his imitators are shitty, lazy writers puffed up by their own narcissism. No, it’s LANGUAGE ITSELF that’s the problem. Too bad Joseph Conrad and Muriel Spark and Raymond Chandler didn’t have this amazing insight.


    • September 13, 2013 10:56 pm

      “…when it comes down to it, even well constructed and succinctly delivered arguments can turn out to be totally wrong. They often are.”

      – From the previous paragraph.

      It’s also the case that the argument itself may not actually be particularly well constructed or succinctly delivered. No one’s perfect, and that’s the point. If written language could perfectly covey thoughts and ideas, there wouldn’t be discussions about interpretation at all. We don’t say 2 + 2 “seems to be” 4. It just is. But we often say that it “seems” an author is suggesting ‘this’ or I believe what they meant is ‘that.’ This is the imperfection of language that I’m attempting to illustrate. It seems I didn’t do a good enough job… Thanks for the comment though.


Let me know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: