News:

The Common Review ceased as a print publication with the Fall/Winter 2011 issue. However, we will be posting a series of ten new articles on this site over the next couple of months, at approximately 1-week intervals. We trust that you will find these articles interesting, provocative, and equal in quality to the high standards set by The Common Review during its ten-year run.

 

 

In this Issue

More

    Connect

    • Share

    Article

    Our Psychic Living Room

    By  Rebekah Frumkin

    Switch to single-page view

    What Wallace is often trying to say in his fiction and essays—the message, as it were, at the heart of so much outpouring of feeling—is simple: think about someone else besides yourself. Which is a message a lot of us need desperately to hear. Wallace attacked the bored stasis of the unengaged American life—the stoned sitting and staring, the herdlike consumption of pleasure-inducing drugs (which could be anything from alcohol and cocaine to shopping and television)—and sounded an unselfish call to action. As someone who fought valiantly to escape the constraints of his own troubled mind, Wallace knew the value of a good change in perspective. “You are not the only person on this earth,” he seems to be telling his readers. “You really need to understand that and try to act accordingly.” If every bored person could just wake up and stand witness to what’s happening in the world, then maybe we’d all be a little more generous with our time and resources. To appropriate the words of MimiSmartypants, Wallace wants us to do everything we can to talk ourselves out of the metafictional spiral, to stop “hiding” and start doing something.

    Soma and the American Life

    In a 1996 interview, Wallace identified Infinite Jest as a "sad" novel:

    The sadness that the book is about, and that I was going through [when I wrote it], was a real American type of sadness. I was white, upper-middle-class, obscenely well-educated, had had way more career success than I could have legitimately hoped for and was sort of adrift. A lot of my friends were the same way. Some of them were deeply into drugs, others were unbelievable workaholics. Some were going to singles bars every night. You could see it played out in 20 different ways, but it’s the same thing. . . . I get the feeling that a lot of us, privileged Americans, as we enter our early 30s, have to find a way to put away childish things and confront stuff about spirituality and values.

    That sadness—that feeling of being adrift—has a very strong presence in Infinite Jest: the students at the ETA are competitive but not entirely sure why (there is much talk about entering “The Show,” which is the world of professional competitive tennis, and whether such a fate is more desirable than just going to college or dental school). Many ETA students are frequent abusers of recreational drugs, and a rowdy and slightly insane student named Michael Pemulis makes a comfortable living selling Visine bottles of clean urine to students who need to pass drug tests. The Ennet House is full of melancholy, aimless addicts who want desperately to get clean but sometimes cannot, and therefore have a difficult time determining how or why they began abusing to begin with. The only place in the book where characters are forced to undergo the sort of maturation Wallace described—confronting “stuff about spirituality and values”—is in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The former addicts are force-fed clichés like “one day at a time” and asked to thank a higher power they may or may not believe in for granting them the courage to live a sober day. At first, this all feels like a giant lie to a lot of the addicts, but then they begin to realize that this “lie” is the only thing keeping them alive and that they should have developed this primitive telos (cheesy though it may seem) a long time ago. The Alcoholics Anonymous spiritual network is the kind of thing that frees addicts from their own minds and allows them to enter the real world.

    And there’s the rub for so many characters in Infinite Jest: medicate oneself into a waking dream or struggle through all the discomfort and pain and claim a spot in the world? Somewhere around page 896, Hal Incandenza lays down on the floor in one of the ETA subdormitories and does not move from that spot for the rest of the book. The banal details of his adolescent life fell him: “Maybe the worst part of the cognitions involved the incredible volume of food I was going to have to consume over the rest of my life. Meal after meal, plus snacks. . . . I experienced, vividly, the image of a broad cool well-lit room piled floor to ceiling with nothing but the lightly breaded chicken fillets I was going to consume over the next sixty years.” No one can rouse Hal, not even Michael Pemulis, who happens to be his best friend. Questions directed at Hal about why he has been lying on the ground for so long go unanswered, except the question “Thinking?” to which Hal responds: “The opposite. Thought-prophylaxis.” (One could think of Radiohead’s music video for “Just” as a visual analogue to this scene.)

     
    Add comment

    * - required field

    *




    CAPTCHA image for SPAM prevention
    If you can't read the word, click here.
    *
    *
    Doug, 14-01-11 17:32:
    Rebekah;

    Great job delving into DFW's fiction and addressing the oft-overlooked fact that his fiction and non-fiction tend to differ wildly.

    Like you pointed out, there is a lot of emerging material on DFW, be it commentary, professional scholarship or amatuer scholarship. I'm concerned with how much of this zeros in on his death and/or depression.

    I think Wallace's death has led to a sharper critical eye on his subject matter that dealt with depression. Our intro to Kate Gompert has been read much more closely since 2008. 'The Depressed Person' has been heavily scrutinized, as has the brilliant 'Good Old Neon.'

    I worry that some of the posthumous examinations of DFW are missing the forest from the trees. As you (and the likes of Lipsky) have pointed out, DFW's primary concern was to capture the feeling of being ALIVE today, and the firepower it takes to get to that point. He was also intensely private about his own depression, and wrote often on the horrors of solipsism. I think you combine these factors, and you have a writer who was interested in far more than dropping hints and herrings about whatever darkness may have been in his own head.

    I'm glad there's so much out there that still celebrates the humanity of his work, rather than grinding away at the factors of his death.
    gigi, 15-01-11 13:48:
    Thank you, Rebekah, you captured Wallace's humanity beautifully.
    J, 04-02-11 10:32:
    Rebekah,

    This is the first time I've commented on anything online - be it a blog, article, whatever. I've been a Wallace fan since a couple years before he died, and have friends and even family members who share my fandom. That means I get to talk about Dave quite often. And what all my conversations about Dave have come down to is perfectly distilled in your piece here. Reading this was edifying, enlightening, and ultimately gave me the feeling Dave gave all of us, which is, "I am not alone."
    Denis, 02-03-11 03:51:
    I really could find little in the work of David Foster Wallace to justify the term ‘genius’. It seems to me that his elevation to greatness reflects on the desperation of critic and others, to find a writer ‘for our times’. Though he was lauded when alive It seems that Wallace has had the ‘Kurt Cobain’ approach given to him: he died (romantically, by his own hand).

    Because Infinite Jest is a large book, doesn’t make it great. I found it entertaining and well written but I also found myself thinking that I was reading a Bret Easton Ellis novel. Ditto his short stories. As an essayist he proved his knowledge of a subject and skill to present an argument in a witty and dogmatic manner. But the history of literature is littered with such essayists; very few of whom can be seen as ‘genius’, just simply able in the work that they did.

    The speed at which critics are so apt to apply the ‘genius’ tag on work that is pretty ordinary, is not only lazy but also a sign of pessimism: they feel there really is nothing of great substance out there.

    I am aware that it is readers who first ‘discovered’ Wallace and forced academia and critics alike to look at it. However the role of academia and critics is one of leadership in suggesting particular works, they should not be taking their cue from a bunch of enthusiastic readers. Much of this article seems to simply be a rehash of views that have been posted on the internet by Wallace’s fans.
    Nicholas, 02-03-11 07:39:
    "If nothing else, this is proof that there is an online community of fervent young readers sitting shivah for their fallen king and that at least some teenagers with Internet access also read, and do so voraciously."

    I know this is a throwaway comment, but really now? "A blogger I’ll call A. N." happens to be about as well published as you are (BANR aside), and the post you quote from appeared on HTMLgiant, one of the biggest, trendiest (I use the term neutrally) litblogs around. I'd *like* to believe there are hordes of teenaged bloggers like him, but he just isn't a representative "child blogger", as you so winningly put it.

    Still more relevantly, Alec Niedenthal (who, by the way, you really should have credited--how would you feel about this essay being discussed, unlinked to, as by "A critic I'll call R.F."?) is barely younger than you are. It makes your dissociation from his reading and implicit identification with the "contingent of well-read adults. . . [who] puzzle through the text a lot more carefully" rather puzzling. Maybe there's some huge in-joke here that I'm missing, but otherwise you could probably learn a few things from DFW re: the supposedly childish matter of "the struggle to simply be in one’s own skin."

    One last thing, which I might have been kind enough to leave out if you'd shown a little more charity yourself: everything in this essay following "A lot of important-sounding people" could have been replaced by a link to Wallace's graduation address, which a search for "Wallace graduation" turns up immediately. Yes, DFW was all about empathy and connection and human decency at base. We know this--he told us so.
    Nicholas, 02-03-11 07:40:
    If nothing else, this is proof that there is an online community of fervent young readers sitting shivah for their fallen king and that at least some teenagers with Internet access also read, and do so voraciously."

    I know this is a throwaway comment, but really now? "A blogger I’ll call A. N." happens to be about as well published as you are (BANR aside), and the post you quote from appeared on HTMLgiant, one of the biggest, trendiest (I use the term neutrally) litblogs around. I'd *like* to believe there are hordes of teenaged bloggers like him, but he just isn't a representative "child blogger", as you so winningly put it.

    Still more relevantly, Alec Niedenthal (who, by the way, you really should have credited; how would you feel about this essay being discussed, unlinked to, as by "A critic I'll call R.F."?) is barely younger than you are. It makes your dissociation from his reading and implicit identification with the "contingent of well-read adults. . . [who] puzzle through the text a lot more carefully" rather puzzling. Maybe there's some huge in-joke here that I'm missing, but otherwise you could probably learn a few things from DFW re: the supposedly childish matter of "the struggle to simply be in one’s own skin."

    One last thing, which I might have been kind enough to leave out if you'd shown a little more charity yourself: everything in this essay following "A lot of important-sounding people" could have been replaced by a link to Wallace's graduation address, which a search for "Wallace graduation" turns up immediately. Yes, DFW was all about empathy and connection and human decency at base. We know this--he told us so.
    Nicholas, 02-03-11 07:59:
    (Revisiting Niedenthal's infamous letter, I see that clearly you did intend a joke of some sort. But I don't see its point.)
    Dan, 02-03-11 08:01:
    From my perspective, the inescapable centre of DFW's fiction is the desperate, screaming and/or comatose heart pounding out into our lives. One thing he did was use his characters environment to comment at length and in-depth on technology, media, consumerism and addiction - to which I feel ok with discussing (but probably disagree with) the dissent about his 'genius' as a writer. However, undisputable to me is 'literary genius' that he gifts his characters. Pain, sadness, hope, faith in life when life offers no excuse to entertain faith. The reality and humanism of his characters have moved me like no other writer.

    In DFW essay on irony, he describes what he hopes future writers will do. But, in effect, I believe he's simply describing his own work:

    "The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naïve, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels.

    Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows."
    Antonio, 02-03-11 08:08:
    Ms. Frumkin,

    Thank you. You've done me a personal service. Since his death, I have a read a number of articles about Mr. Wallace, some of them quite interesting to me. I've even, I think, read an essay by him.

    Your article has now convinced me that I do not want to read him and need not worry about that anymore.
    Dan, 02-03-11 08:23:
    Dear Antonio

    I hope your arrogance eats you alive.

    Regards
    Dan