Read on Twitter
On David Foster Wallace, fiction & the thoughts of an aspiring writer.
One of my favourite (almost) contemporary novelists is David Foster Wallace (d. 2008). He was an American novelist, most famous for his mammoth Infinite Jest.
Fundamentally, the aim of his oeuvre was to teach how to live the good life; he saw postmodern society as addicted, individualistic, lonely etc. and wanted to help the reader “become less alone” & write "morally passionate, passionately moral fiction” akin to Dostoevsky.
On Dostoevsky, he says: “The big thing that makes Dostoyevsky invaluable for American readers and writers is that he appears to possess degrees of passion, and conviction and engagement with deep moral issues that we, here today, cannot or do not permit ourselves.”
The key question then for him thought: was what style facilitated it in a postmodern age?
Realism, the style of Dostoevsky, was too “familiar and anaesthetic.” The choice of the other postmodernist writers & TV was irony, but that only allowed critiques.
Realism, the style of Dostoevsky, was too “familiar and anaesthetic.” The choice of the other postmodernist writers & TV was irony, but that only allowed critiques.
Irony works as a sort of pseudo-rebellion enabling criticism but no solutions & so ironically propping up the object of criticism. Hence, (& evidence of) the widespread despair.
On this he ~says, inspired by Hydre: irony is the lament of the bird who's come to love its cage.
On this he ~says, inspired by Hydre: irony is the lament of the bird who's come to love its cage.
Consider, for example, the typical college grad post-1970s: hyper-critical of state/capitalism etc., with no viable alternatives & taught we've already reached the “end of history.”
For more on this, see his fantastic essay E Unibus Pluram as well as Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism, Zizek on the desert of post ideology & Desert (anon anarchy manifesto).
Also see: https://twitter.com/Contentions/status/1352364115185053700
Also see: https://twitter.com/Contentions/status/1352364115185053700
Slight digression: This is also evident in Al Qaeda et al. Frustration (justified) coupled with fear, hopelessness (i.e. loss of tawakkul), self-hatred, rootlessness etc. resulting in vicious, barbaric, murderous action; it’s ugliness alone a testament to its falseness.
Hence, undeniably modern.
The only choice then, for DFW, was to invent his own style; hence, the [inappropriate] postmodernist descriptor. A slightly better descriptor that's increasingly being used is meta-modernism or post-post-modernism.
The only choice then, for DFW, was to invent his own style; hence, the [inappropriate] postmodernist descriptor. A slightly better descriptor that's increasingly being used is meta-modernism or post-post-modernism.
Some of the characteristics of his work included hysterical realism, switching register & copious use of footnotes; attempts to disrupt the linear narrative & remind the reader of the artificial-nature of the book.
Despite his correct analysis, laudable & necessary aim, and well-intetioned approach, I think (& based on his interviews I think he also felt it) it was ultimately unsuccessful. He’s undoubtedly one of the novelists I most admire, yet it just misses the mark.
I think the central problem is the ugliness of the style, yet (ironically) I’m not sure of a better alternative, I’m only sure that that it must be beautiful; Plato was right (Cf. ihsan).
A recent book, that I think makes it closer than any other I’ve read & that I’ve been slightly obsessing over is Minor Indignities. It's the debut novel of Trevor Merrill - a Catholic scholar (evident in the book) of Rene Girard (of mimetic theory fame).
Would love any thoughts, esp. reading recommendations.
PS. I've not yet read it but have heard great things about Joseph Bottom's The Decline of the Novel which makes a related point, namely that contemporary novels lack any "metaphysical thickness."
PS. I've not yet read it but have heard great things about Joseph Bottom's The Decline of the Novel which makes a related point, namely that contemporary novels lack any "metaphysical thickness."
