Surrounded by the crass and the mediocre

Why would the death of an obscure (to most) writer matter so much to those that read him, or better, knew him on some personal level? Possibly because he saw the world like few others, and uniquely captured events and people in his writing. There are fewer and fewer like him.

We live in a world where technology has put just about everything at our fingertips, and at the same time, made it far too easy for us to turn off the parts of our brains that ought to be functioning at the highest of levels. Like the din of a crowded convention center, the incessant noise of all things internet requires that we figuratively shout to be noticed—by appealing to the superficial or pushing other people’s buttons—with hate, the latest flavor of the month, pop culture icons, or relying on shock value—none of them building on a sense of community, compassion for others, or finding value in intelligent dialogue.

David Foster Wallace was someone that I could turn to as a reader that still enjoys books that make me think, consider, and ponder.

I knew his nonfiction, rather than his fiction, and found that when he wrote about tennis, and his adventures as a regionally ranked player, as a teen, in many ways, it mirrored some of my own experiences as a baseball player. This was one personal connection and quality that helped me identify with this writer, who I never got to meet in person.

Reading Wallace made me aware that he was someone that was operating on various levels, as well as a much higher plane than I was. It was obvious that he was exceptionally gifted, even though at the time, I didn’t know he had graduated from Amherst, summa cum laude, with a dual major in philosophy and English. I later found out that he had a mathematical mind, which was obvious reading “Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley,” about his teenage experiences playing tennis in the wind tunnel known as the Midwest. This was one of the essays/arguments in A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again.

Despite his obvious intellectual gifts, and propensity to footnote, I personally found his style readable, and rarely tedious, like I find, say, Faulkner, or other literary heavyweights. Maybe that’s a lousy comparison, as Foster would have considered himself post-modern as a writer. My point is that most (not necessarily all) of his nonfiction is accessible, and I think readers would find enjoyable, albeit not the typical dumbed-down, non-intellectual visual junk food fodder that today’s readers seem to clamor for, and the shelves of the corporate bookstores are chock full of.

From the back cover of the book jacket of ASFTINDA, the NY Times Book Review blurb captures DFW’s genius well:

David Foster Wallace is a dynamic writer of extraordinary talent, one unafraid to tackle subjects large or small, ever willing to experiment, he lays his artistic self on the line with his incendiary use of language, at times seeming to rip the mundane and unusual from their moorings, then setting them down anew, freshly described.

Life goes on, and most of us, yours truly included, spends more time than we (I ) care to consider with the day-to-day mundane, firmly attached to the moorings of a world that seems to be spinning madly out of control. Even worse in my opinion, a world where writers like DFW have been devalued and pushed to the fringes.

Save your false sense of the historical, and thoughts about how our nation has always had an anti-intellectual streak, or that the “good ole’ days” weren’t so good. I’m not waxing nostalgic in my thoughts on Mr. Wallace, I’m clearly offering my own tribute to the things that were good, valuable, and even necessary about him as a writer, and according to many of the things that have been written by those who knew him, like here, as a person.

If you think that we’re living in some sort of golden age, here in the first decade of the 21st century, I’d have to say that you’re sadly mistaken and need of some intellectual stimulation. I’d suggest Wallace’s two books of essays, ASFTINDA, and ">Consider The Lobster: And Other Essays as worthwhile starting points.

American writer, David Foster Wallace, dead at 46

[update-9.17.08, 4:41 am: Once again, up before the sun. I wanted to update last night, but my internet connection was on the fritz. I found a comment at MetaFilter by Sleepy Pete I liked, especially this part.

And that is what makes it hardest to accept, Mr. Wallace, that you wrote those stories and went through hell like those that you wrote about and still made it through with their fucked up lives however they could... and you couldn't. For that I can't be pissed off at you. For this I can't be angry. I can only try to wonder what I can do for everyone I've known in that situation and try to make it better... try to make the world a place where footnotes are life and acceptance is the only way to live.

Then there's this by Ziegler. What makes haters like Ziegler keep on spewing hate? I obviously have an answer to my own rhetorical question. I hope to reread "Host" and add some of my own thoughts. I do have this for the time being; Mr. Ziegler, your take on Mr. Wallace isn't unique at all. Also, you don't know genius, because it bit you in the ass and you were too stupid to recognize it!--JB]

[update-9.16.08, 4:27 am: Up early doing some work (before my paying gig); found this article on DFW from the Baltimore Sun. The writer, Childs Walker, captures David in a way that others haven't, using sports, and his own special way of writing about it (tennis). In fact, I've been rereading "ASFTINDA" and chapter 6 on "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry...", one of my favorite chapters in the book, and one that has given me, a non-tennis player, an understanding of the sport I didn't have. I now even watch tennis, just because of that chapter.

It's early, and I'm starting to ramble, but I hope Walker's article helps others "see" David again the way we saw him prior to the news Saturday night.-JB]

[update-9.15.08, 5:23 pm: I'm going to continue to add updates to the original post as I see fit; I don't really feel like writing about any other issues, at least for a few days.

I found Bruce Weber's article in the NY Times (may require free registration) worthwhile, particularly as it had a quote from James Wallace, David's father, about his son, and some of his recent "struggles." It also had reactions from other writers who knew Wallace, including Jonathan Franzen; “He was a huge talent, our strongest rhetorical writer,” said Franzen.

Mr. Wallace (David's dad) is quoted as saying Sunday "that Mr. Wallace had been taking medication for depression for 20 years and that it had allowed his son to be productive. It was something the writer didn’t discuss, though in interviews he gave a hint of his haunting angst."

James Wallace said that last year his son had begun suffering side effects from the drugs and, at a doctor’s suggestion, had gone off the medication in June 2007. The depression returned, however, and no other treatment was successful. The elder Wallaces had seen their son in August, he said.

“He was being very heavily medicated,” he said. “He’d been in the hospital a couple of times over the summer and had undergone electro-convulsive therapy. Everything had been tried, and he just couldn’t stand it anymore.”

For me, Weber's article helps provide additional context to this tragedy.--JB]

[update-9.14.08, 7:13 am: Still having trouble getting my head around the death of DFW. Didn't know him in a personal way, but readers will understand how certain writers make you feel that special connection, which is what DFW did for me. I've found a few sites worth checking out if you were a fan, or just curious why others were. An interesting thread here, and this post at Cosmopolis is very good, as the writer apparently knew Wallace.--JB]

---------

I just got a text message from my son that David Foster Wallace committed suicide.

Wallace was one of a handful of writers that rarely failed to excite, and inspire. I wrote a fairly extensive post at Write in Maine about both Wallace and fellow writer, Jonathan Franzen, both gifted writers, equally adept writing either fiction, or non-fiction.

For me, it was Wallace's non-fiction that I was most familiar with, from two books of essays, Consider the Lobster, and A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, which happens to sit on the headboard of my bed, and its essays are regularly reread. Only a handful of other writers are in that category with me: Neil Postman being one, and another, Wendell Berry.

Wallace has an essay in Consider the Lobster, about the author's travels as a member of the McCain press contingent during his 2000 "Straight Talk Express" tour, as McCain is stumping for the Republican presidential nomination. Wallace captures the meaningless of political campaigns like few other writers I've read. He also writes about the Maine Lobster Festival, in Rockland.

There's little else for me to write on this subject other than to say it saddens and troubles me.

The Future of Newspapers

Saturdays are the one time all week when I just do some random searching on the web for news and information. I haven't been over to old online "friend" and Postman protege Jay Rosen's site for awhile. If you don't know Rosen's work, your missing out on some great takes on the current state of journalism and coverage of the media.

Rosen had a link to Ryan Sholin's blog, Invisible Inkling. He has a post on the future of newspapers that I thought was worthwhile, particularly if you are a newspaper guy, like I am.

Sholin's original post of 10 things was penned in June of 2007, and then updated this past June.

Now, if just one newspaper in Maine would take some of these suggestions to heart.

A third way of thinking about the presidency

Back in Feb. 2006, I began writing about what I affectionately called, Horserace 2008. Not necessarily original, it’s been how I’ve pegged my various presidential posts since.

From the early days of the race, when the two major party’s rosters were clogged with a combination of frontrunners, contenders, and wannabes for whom the race was more about vanity than any hope of being president (Joe Biden?), I’ve bounced back and forth between candidates, and even parties for that matter. I guess that’s what happens when you move from ideological hardliner, to more of a political pragmatist. The former will most likely call me wishy-washy, but I no longer want to employ pretzel logic to pick my president.


In January 2008, I posted an article titled, “Is Ron Paul for Real?” detailing the Ron Paul phenomenon. I wrote, “Running on a platform that seeks an immediate end to the war in Iraq (unlike other politicians, like John McCain, who indicates we might be there for another century), reestablish fiscal sanity (tied to the gold standard) and restore lost civil liberties to the American people, Paul is the true conservative. Instead, his rock-ribbed ideals find him ridiculed by the faux conservative blowhards, from Limbaugh, to O’Reilly.”

Paul brought a new focus to ideals that he has consistently championed as a Congressman from Texas, over his 20 year career in Washington. The Constitution has long been Paul’s guide. It appears that the only reason that most of his talking points were dismissed as a presidential candidate by most voters, and predictably, most of the media, is that our politics have long ago departed from passing any kind of constitutional scrutiny.

Back in January, I accurately predicted that the Republican Party, the party affiliation he ran under, would not select him as their candidate for president, although he was inordinately more qualified to wear the mantle of conservative than any other candidate in the Republican pack, including the eventual nominee, John McCain (with, or without its lipstick wearning VP).

Many of Paul’s followers, a hardy band of folks from all walks of American life, have continued to rally around their candidate even after he left the race. Anticipation ran high, as many eagerly were waiting for an important announcement from Mr.. Paul, scheduled for Wednesday. Paul was on the docket to speak at the National Press Club, and members of Paul Nation were hoping that their candidate might announce a third-party run, even though he has consistently disavowed doing so.

Rather than announce that he was in fact running, Paul instead used the opportunity to organize an event, under the umbrella of his newly formed Campaign for Liberty, urging voters to give consideration to third-party and independent candidates for president. Attending the event with Paul were Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent candidate Ralph Nader. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, who was invited and expected to attend, pulled a last minute disappearing act in order to put his own political fortunes first (like the Republican that he still is at heart), rather than support the third-party solidarity of the group.

Here are Paul’s opening remarks from Wednesday:

“The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.”

Paul is correct. The two-party choice offered every four years is symbolic at best. The issues parsed are meant to deceive voters into thinking that it matters one iota whether you pull the lever for McCain, or Obama. All voters are doing is continuing to support corporately-controlled candidates. Instead, Paul’s genius, in deciding to gather a third party coalition representing the full political spectrum, from left to right, is offer voters clear choices. None of the candidates is going to win, and it would be naïve to think that their minimally financed campaigns can compete with the corporate war chests of the Republicrats and Demicans. However, here is the most compelling point, in my opinion.

Once more, Paul’s own words:

"The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32 of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60 of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard."

If even half of those disenfranchised 60 percenters pulled the lever November 4, for either McKinney, Nader, or Baldwin (or wrote in Mr. Paul’s name), then we’d have something to talk about on election night, as the political pundits would be chattering away about this “strange phenomenon” happening. Imagine the lemmings diverging, and deciding to forego another dive off the cliff?

After listening to Paul, it makes perfect sense to me.

For those still open-minded enough to consider a third way, let me recommend a great book, from 2004, A Dime’s Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, both editors at the progressive news site, Counterpunch .

I read this argument four years ago, and still pulled the lever for a corporate politician. This time, I’m saying “hell no.”

How 'bout you?

Finding ideological agreement

Rachel Maddow is now a television personality. Not bad for someone who doesn’t even own a set.

Maddow got her start in radio answering a cattle call for on-air talent at WRNX, in Holyoke, Massachusetts (Mass-a-two-setts for you Obama-ites). She was hired on the spot to co-host the station’s premiere morning show.

From Holyoke, she moved over to Northhampton’s WRSI for two years, hosting their Big Breakfast.

Next came Air America, where I first discovered Ms. Maddow. She was partnered with former Public Enemy frontman, Chuck D, and Lizz Winstead, on the sharp, snappy Unfiltered. After this gig got cancelled, two weeks later, Maddow landed her own two-hour program, The Rachel Maddow Show, flying solo.

Maddow’s grown into her on-air personality. Smart, witty, and not afraid to go toe-to-toe with her ideological opposites, Maddow should do well on MSNBC, which seems set to be cable’s flipside of Fox.


With a triumvirate of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and now, Maddow, the cable network now is where liberals find validation.

Maddow is clear about what her role will be. From the Wall Street Journal, "Ms. Maddow does bemoan what she sees as America's rightward drift. She's already taken some shots from conservative commentators about her politics and the fact that she is gay (she's also a Rhodes scholar). Noting that Ms. Maddow will take the slot of longtime MSNBC regular Dan Abrams, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show, 'It's got to be humiliating to be replaced by someone who has more testosterone than you do.'"

This segmentation of journalism raises concerns for me. American politics seems to have become nothing more than finding voices that lend comfort to one’s choice of ideology. A case of, “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

As Rem Reider, editor at American Journalism Review notes, Maddow is a good choice for the network, but it “reinforces the trend toward separate megaphones for separate audiences.”

Just another talking head, preaching to like-minded ideologues.