Bedrock & Paradox

I dream of a hard and brutal mysticism in which the naked self merges with a non-human world and yet somehow survives still intact, individual, separate. Paradox and bedrock.

In Memoriam: David Foster Wallace

I read Infinite Jest in 1999, before I graduated high school.  It remains the most structurally complex thing I’ve ever read.  It would seem that, over Christmas, I’ll need to finally read it again.  The world is dimmer today.

News   News   In his own words
Why does this make me so sad?  Because we still live in a society that values celebrity, even or especially posthumous celebrity, over a life lived fully, well, and in balance.  I had this conversation Friday night (with the sort of sophmoric grad student that gives philosophy a bad name); that in the history of western philosophy I cannot think of a single world-class figure since Socrates who was happily married and bore a good family.  Read history, read biography, read their work: Nietzsche was a chronically ill misogynist who could not bear to walk amongst the living; Hemingway failed long term at almost everything he did besides write; Sylvia Plath abandoned her daughter.  All of these humans, and many more, have given immensely to the world with their thoughts and souls.  Could they have given as much without stealing from those within their intimate sphere?  So often we romanticize, and say no.  That answer may be correct, but so is a human tragedy writ across the face of every moment of our lives.  One that stares at me from three inches away during some of my most treasured memories.  
Friday last I walked from the coffee shop to class and relaxed into my first grad school exam, aided, smiling by Mozart on the speakers at the right moment.  Who am I to take such joy from a man who died, only 6 and half years older than I am?
Wallace will leave much in the world, and the circumstances of his death may evolve in our minds.  But the cultural reaction, today, makes me sad.

DaveC

6 responses to “In Memoriam: David Foster Wallace”

  1. Blair Avatar
    Blair

    Reality does not have to be real…soso sad

    Reply
  2. Blair Avatar
    Blair

    on Charlie Rosehttp://www.charlierose.com/shows/1997/03/27/2/an-interview-with-david-foster-wallace

    Reply
  3. Enel Avatar
    Enel

    Great writing Dave. Great thoughts.”Because we still live in a society that values celebrity, even or especially posthumous celebrity, over a life lived fully, well, and in balance.”Too, too true.You still need to read or re-read Ecclesiastes if you haven’t as it struggles with this very truth. A very short book that puts life into perspective for me.

    Reply
  4. Phillip Avatar
    Phillip

    “Because we still live in a society that values celebrity, even or especially posthumous celebrity, over a life lived fully, well, and in balance.” …I am not sure what drove the conclusion that (a) that is the case with our society and (b) that those two values are mutually exclusive.I recognize that there is a fondness in our society (a term with gross limitations when often applied in the context “American”) for the celebrity. I am not sure if that is either bad or excludes our society’s value of the “well” lived life. Assuming we are filtering such trends through mass media, then I propose looking at examples such as George Stephanopoulos’s “This Week,” which ironically further supported the posthumous celebrity of Wallace this past Sunday. He perpetuates the “celebrity” status of individuals but does so emphasizing their well lived lives, at least through the filter of contemporaneous values. While I don’t support every aspect of the “functionalist” theories of anthropology I do believe there is often a function and benefit to both the society and individual when considering many societal institutions. In this case “celebrity worship” likely has some contemporary benefit (though that benefit is not isolated from temporal influences, i.e trend). Is it the most rational or most beneficial? Not likely, I can only assume that their other means that serve the ends in healthier and more functional ways. But that does not dismiss the potential value of the aforementioned means. That said, the process of enculturation and developing societal values is rarely completely rational (from my limited education on the subject). And even rarer does it live up to the expectations of the individual, especially ones like ourselves who exist in a specific subculture of Americana. Such institutions provide most benefit to the society not the individual. To fully expedite the desired change (like so many of us want) we must better understand the benefits of such behavior. Only then can we hope to supplant “celebrity” with something more conducive to the disenfranchised desire.

    Reply
  5. Phillip Avatar
    Phillip

    I meant to hit the edit button not publish…that last paragraph does not communicate my idea well at all.What I would prefer ending with was that we (those disenfranchised with celebrity) would benefit from a more thorough understanding of the mechanism we dislike. With such an understanding we may derive a least a better ability to interact with those who value such mechanisms (i.e. “mainstream America”). Without that awareness I doubt we will have the wherewithals to prevent further enmeshment of “celebrity” in our society or the polarizing of factions on the issue.

    Reply
  6. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    For everyone’s benefit; the commentator on All Things Considered this evening did a much better job eulogizing than me.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Dave Cancel reply