Talk:David Foster Wallace

Older discussion

Does anyone else think it's a bit weird that this is really just a stub and then there's a link to "Hysterical Realism" which implies an editorial criticism of Wallace's work?

Can't anyone find any bio info on this guy? Google's got nothing. This is urgent, come on. Did he go through a tennis academy?

There should be relatively complete biographical information at The Howling Fantods, which is linked at the bottom of the article. On a less practical note, sombody should clean up this article a little--both the rant about irony and the comparison to Mailer seem, while not wholly uninteresting, less than absolutely agreed upon by the majority of his readers. Mailer? Really? To say his "entire career can be summarized as a very ambitious and multifaceted attempt to transcend the very prevalent contemporary mode of irony" might be overstating the matter a bit, or at least wandering a little far into the world of opinion. Also, the prose could use a little cleaning up if anyone gets around to it--it just seems a bit clunky and overheated as it stands right now. I made a few very minor changes and I might make some more if anyone else agrees its necessary. 71.136.36.164 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Ryan

NPOV Dispute

This article reads more like a personal review of the author and his work than as an encyclopedia article. It is filled with weasel words and substantiated only by other book reviews and performance evaluations given by the subject's students. Statements such as "Wallace has written some extremely interesting fiction that combines frequent passages of bravura brilliance" and "In a period that boasts many fine young American novelists...somehow Wallace has always stood apart" are neither NPOV nor verifiably accurate. Even referring to certain publications as "high-brow" is an arguably biased POV.

Additionally, the article needs substantial cleanup for organization and more accessible language, but I withheld the {{wikify}} template until the NPOV has been resolved. Animated Cascade ^talk 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I second your motion to edit.

I had Wallace as a professor at ISU. Though he very rarely shared any personal information, he did say that he'd studied Mathematics (hence his non-fiction work on the notion of infinity) in college. At the time he'd considered it his life's passion. He'd said something about having a change of heart and sinking into a pretty profound depression (at one point he might have even been institutionalized).

With regard to the tennis academy: No, I don't believe he ever attended one; however, he was a regionally-ranked junior tennis player as a youngster.

In regard to Wallace's biography: there is plenty to be found about DFW. He grew up in Illinois, the son of a philosophy professor and, as has been mentioned, a regionally-ranked junior tennis player. No tennis academy, but he did play for at least a year at Amherst College in Massachusetts, before finding that academics and intellectual pursuit interested him more. He was considered something of a philosophy prodigy at Amherst, but more on the mathematical end of philosophy rather than classical or epistemological philosophy. He did take time off from Amherst due to stress of whatever sort, at which point he became interested in writing fiction.

I believe his father taught at the University of Illinois.

Reliable biographical information on DFW can be found in "Understanding David Foster Wallace" (the first chapter of which can be viewed via Amazon.com's "Look inside this book"-feature.

[Q.] What is the "mathematical end of philosophy"?

A. Logic.

I guess no one wants to add this information?

Does anyone have the time or inclination to work on the Wallace page? It certainly needs a lot of work (particularly, biographical information needs to be added).

a little work

Wow, this needs lots of work. I combed through quickly and did some NPOV; much more is needed, as is more reference to actual reviews of DFW in the press and academia. We need to focus on reporting what critics have said about DFW.

Re: philosophy/math. DFW did grad work in Harvard's dept of philosophy, not mathematics.

Sdedeo (tips) 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wallace has ever written a review for the New York Review of Books. I checked their archives and came up with zilcho, although he's certainly referenced in plenty of articles. He's written for the New York Times Sunday Book Review. At least one article, on a biography of Borges, for sure.71.139.105.200 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the biography needs some major citations needed. Drug use Allegations? Wiki needs to beware of Slander so bad. Thechosenone021 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Help on DFW writing quirk?

I'm reading Consider the Lobster. I get most of DFW's writing quirks, but I am at a loss with his begining comments with "N.B." Anyone have a clue what N.B. is supposed to stand for? I've considered "notable because", but that doesn't seem quite right. Any help would be appreciated. - Bert 171.159.64.10 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. I'm not familiar with DFW's personal bio, but it does seem like allegations of serious drug use should be supported if included.

It's short for "nota bene". And I agree with you about the allegations needing support. I've added a "citation needed" tag to the article. dbtfz^talk 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! 171.159.64.10 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From an old NY Times Sunday magazine article circa 1996:

"But Wallace was tormented and miserable. Was he really brilliant, as some people told him? Or was he a fake, as he sometimes felt? By this point he was drinking heavily, taking drugs and sleeping around, self-destructive behavior that he figured was consistent with the life style that a cool, serious writer was supposed to have. Wallace is intentionally vague on this period of his life, and what he divulges sometimes contradicts the recollections of friends. He says he never formally entered a recovery program; Alice Turner says he did. He mentions a single suicide scare and subsequent stay in a psychiatric ward; friends allude to more than one."--[1]

Charlie Rose interview:

"DFW: I did -- I did some recreational drugs. I didn't have the -- I didn't have the stomach to drink very much and I didn't have the nervous system to do anything very hard. Yeah, I did some drugs. I didn't do as many drugs as most of the people I know my age. What it turned out was I just don't have the nervous system to handle it. That wasn't the problem. The problem was I started out, I think, wanting to be a writer and wanting to get some attention and I got it really quick and --"

--[2]

There are other, similarly vauge allusions to drug use, but nothing very concrete. He hasn't conducted as many interviews since 2000, so its all a little out of date. Honestly, I don't think its that important to any article on him, except that it would pertain to the themes in Infinite Jest...----Staple 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. It wouldn't be bad idea to incorporate this material into the article, if anyone feels like doing it. dbtfz^talk 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the best course would be to either leave it as it stands as "unconfirmed" or just remove it entirely, since really, its a distraction from what makes him noteworthy--that is to say, his writing. I think the drug allegation are primarily the result of journalists playing up a small incident in his life for the sake of good copy.--Staple 06:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Even if true, it's not that significant. (I mean, how many writers haven't abused drugs at some point?) I removed the dubious sentence from the article. If anyone feels the need to re-insert this information, please discuss it here first. dbtfz^talk 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bio

Some mention should probably be made that Wallace is now married and has a stepson. He has mentioned this at several recent talks, but I don't have anything like a reliable source to cite (or the name of the wife). Any help on that? (For what it's worth, I don't think the drug history is notable.)--Mattbucher 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bio is completely erroneous. How does a man earn a PhD and begin teaching at UIUC in the year he was born? Can we get some fact-checking on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.196.32 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are the dates for David Foster Wallace's father, James. Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Photograph?

This page would be even better if we could find a good image of Wallace. Would someone be interested in this project? Wowbobwow12 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Is there a point to including the first one: General > 'Fan website'? There is next to nothing at that extremely poor (and presumably abondoned -- last update 8/1/2000) site.

Great point. It also doesn't display in Firefox (for me...); I don't know about other browsers. I took it out. Miss Dark 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What do we think about adding this one (Shipping Out)?: http://phenotypical.com/content/literature/David_Foster_Wallace-Shipping_Out.html

Tyranny of the English Dept.

Of all writers, Wallace personifies the tyranny of the English Dept., the idea that someone should be forced to machete his way through page after page of obfuscated horseshit. I just have to remark that whoever wrote "focuses on individuals' continued longing for earnest unselfconscious experience and communication in a deeply self-conscious, cynical, media-saturated society" needs to get laid. Griot 05:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not even close to the worst. I mean he's so far from the worst. I personally love the man but thats opinion. But lets face it, others personify the english dept more. And not even non main stream un-publishable shit. The Sound and the Fury is more unreadable than I.J. Wallace's myraid short stories and essays are downright tame. Meanwhile, i'm not sure what in the article we are talking about, if we are at all. If not, cool whatever.Thechosenone021 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you more. How wonderful to read voices of agreement in the vast eternity. What about plot, theme, character? In a world of limited time, I think that Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Homer, and others can fill more than a lifetime of reading. Even third rate writers like Dickens at least write real novels, with something to say about being human, love, betrayal, jealousy, guilt, forgiveness, and other meaningful ideas. 66.108.105.21 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

DFW should be understood under the philosophical context of Tractatus Philosophocus, On Being and Time, etc. and the modernist/post-modernist heritage of Barthelme (Viz.,'The Ballon'), Brautigan, Barth, and Pynchon. The role of mathematics and erudite O.E.D/Standard English, his SNOOTitude, (derivations of your 'obfuscation') only contribute to his modus operandi of E Unibus Pluram. The only downfall I see fit is his use of narrow-American humor seen oft in his 'Academic' writings and Infinite Jest; I especially find his casual use of third-world countries (those he knows nothing about) as modifiers in his otherwise extensive enfilades of dependent clauses, racist and self-congratulatory, whether intended or not; though this is no longer the case post-Infinte Jest. I fail to see how the authors you mentioned assume any major kind of significance in his novel.--Patagonianfish 11:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well....none of you guys should probably take up lit-crit as a full time profession. James Wood you ain't. Staple 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Lit crit? Profession? 71.139.34.78 (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

influences

I took Tom Robbins out of the sidebar listing of DFW's influences. If somebody can come up with a quote supporting his reinclusion, then go for it, but I think its a stretch. By the way, does anyone else think that his latter work is starting to look a little bit like Thomas Bernhard's? The long, unparagraphed monologues, the bathos.....anyway....I'll enjoy seeing where he goes with it. Sorry for the digression.Staple 07:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms

This Wiki article is the site of two new words: dis–lineate and un–self–conscious.Lestrade 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Both fixed. --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Counterfeit art

In his What is Art?, Tolstoy presented a typical poem of his time and asked the following questions about it: Who went out? Who came in? Who is talking? Who died? Tolstoy wrote that "Recently, not only have vagueness, mysteriousness, obscurity and inaccessibility to the masses been considered a merit and a condition of artistic works, but so, too, have imprecision, indefiniteness and ineloquence." (Chapter X) The characteristics that he noted over a century ago have now become completely widespread throughout art. Wallace is just another example of a writer who thinks that he must be unclear and complicated. Art as puzzle had been taken to the extreme by Joyce, but almost every writer of the past century and into the present century accepts the maxim that a writer must write complicated, unclear riddles and enigmas.Lestrade 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Up On The Soap Box

Well, we all certainly do love to make pronouncements about art and life don't we? The problem with Tolstoy is that he can't help but tell you exactly what to think--about his characters, about morality, about the grand sweep of history--you're always on firm ground. He's a bit of a bully, really. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but I think another century of being told how to interpret every single narrative event would have been stultifying. And anyway, I would argue that "complexity" is only one tactic among many in the modernist repertoire. Kafka, Beckett, Borges, and Hemingway (all as influential as Joyce) weren't particularly "complex" writers, although they might have been "allusive" or "ambiguous". Their prose tends towards simplicity (sometimes radically so, as in the case of Beckett). You always know who's opening the door, who's firing the gun, even if--maybe--you don't know why they're doing it.Staple (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Methodist

Wallace is a member at and attends a Methodist church. That should probably be worked into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Death

DFW dead by apparent suicide, but this remains unconfirmed (and one hopes remains so). Anyone watchlisting this page should be on the alert for anonymous IP edits reporting his death -- especially if it turns out to be a false report. WWB (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times is reporting Wallace's suicide in this bylined story. —Whoville (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry my skepticism was misplaced. Terrible news. That's all I can say. WWB (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's pretty clear now his death is not a hoax (and was probable suicide) - there are now two separate places talking about his death: Biography and Death. IMHO, it'd be better to have one or the other, rather than duplicate info. --moof (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was also on the front page of Slashdot[3], so be prepared for some possible vandalism.76.85.144.126 (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Death is now confirmed suicide by hanging, also made the front page of digg. Agreed with the above poster to beware of anonymous vandalism Mannymix (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A new photograph for the Infobox

Hi, I went here first Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and put a photograph up for cropping. I think it is a better one of DFW, and the photograph currently used can be used in the biography as an action shot.

• 
  forthcoming photograph crop, to be used in Infobox I think. He is smiling in this one.
• 
  current photograph, use description I added.

Right? DFW tragedy (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The fan picture is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article on Wallace. 842U (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the picture with the fans should not be in the article unless the fans are cropped out. SethTisue (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I settled it. pabouk cropped the image... though the previous image was a charming one, although you're right that the fans don't really belong in it. If they were interviewing DFW then maybe.DFW tragedy (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think it's approiate to have "DFW tragedy" as your nickname? It makes me suspect (like all fan-based name) that your edits will violate NPOV. As an IP, please consider getting a username change. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the username is kind of inappropriate. I would suggest changing it or starting a new account. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry.DFW tragedy (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The date when he got his PhD must be wrong, if he was born in 1962: James received his Ph.D from Cornell in 1963. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.59.186 (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

James is the father. David was born in 1962. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't his death covered?

Why is his death not covered? Incomplete article. 88.110.230.40 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's right there. It has been in the article since it happened. 842U (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Wallace write this? Is it part of a larger text?

A contact at Amherst told me Wallace wrote this for a class? Does anyone have any information on whether this is in fact the case or not?

I cannot readily describe what I have seen save by referring back to what I have seen, or rather overheard and read before, for am blind. I am not one of those who have been blind since birth, mine is the result of self-inflicted injury, yes injury, not willful mutilation, but self-injury all the same. This injury was inflicted gradually, and was never noticeable nor perceived until the very end, that is until it had become irreversible and self-perpetuating, no longer requiring of me any action and thus removing from me even the title of actor in my own destruction. Yes, destruction. I insist on the application of this dramatic, even epic-evoking word in describing my condition not with the aim of achieving the theatrical, but rather in pursuit of the confessional. For I mean to tell all who would deign to glance upon these pages the many truths that injury, loss, and pain have made known to me, but also the injury, loss, and pain that knowledge of certain truths has given me; agony and sorrow, and what the French call chagrin, these are the universal and eternal coins by which these truths, these pieces of truth, circulate. Truth and pain for me have become equivalent and inseparable, yet not identical. Before becoming blind I had felt pain, and of course understood to differentiate between different types of pain: the pain of falling and scraping my knees, the pain of sickness, the pain of jealousy, the pain of attachment, of intimidation and humiliation, the pain of shame and self-loathing, the pain of obsession, the pain of pleasures. Yet, I only began to understand the complexity and intricacy, or rather the omnipresent quality of pain when I became blind, for from then on pain became for me a way of thinking, and I found it to be a quite necessary way of thinking if I was ever to face the truth of my own spiritually moribund condition. Pleasure, which I blindly pursued before as an escape from pain and which gradually become for me an obsession and hence a source of previously unimaginable forms of pain, has ironically compelled me to seek new sources of light and to be ever wary of new pits of darkness. And though whichever way I turn, I can expect only pain, the forms of pain offered to me are qualitatively as different as night is from day; I confirm to myself everyday that I choose the pain of truth, which once discovered is supremely difficult to keep, and exists in constant yet tenuous opposition to the pain of falsity or deception, which regardless of how hard one labors to avoid is peerlessly adept at convincing one of its pretended innocence and naturalness, it seduces one into believing that it is at the essence of life by deceiving one into equating life with pleasure, i.e. with the avoidance of pain, when in truth its pursuit quickly becomes a perpetual but unconsummated intercourse with death, wherein the soul experiences in ever growing degrees the torments of its own recurring death. --Gerard Coromine (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal section

It appears that readers are having trouble (?) discerning that DFW is not his father James. It appears that readers can't find (?) info they are looking for on DFW's death. Hence the PERSONAL section has been structured more obtusely to highlight the information. 842U (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)