Talk:David Foster Wallace/Archive 1

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

What do you refer to as tennis academy? Dave played varsity tennis at Urbana high school and was a tennis instructor for the summer youth league. He also was considered to be one of the best high school doubles players in the state of Illinois. SK

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  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.

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."--


 * 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 --"
 * --
 * 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)

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)

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. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  12:56, 10 October 2007 (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. &#151;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, 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.

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)

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)

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)

It's worth noting that Wikipedia discussion pages are to discuss the article itself, not the subject of the article. So if this were an article on 'window glass, for instance, you would discuss the wording or structure of the article, but you wouldn't discuss your own personal experience with difficulty replacing window glass. The article at present has a huge list of external links &mdash; and you might more likely find an answer to your question at one of the discussion forums dedicated to DFW. 842U (talk)

Emphasis on "American Ideas" piece
Is there a reason this gets a paragraph and his other non-fiction work does not? It seems the piece on John Ziegler is at least as critically acclaimed, and that piece's title is currently not even mentioned in the article. --68.56.17.70 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (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


 * Eh...--68.56.17.70 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Kim Cascone in Other Media section
Are the contributions of "micro-sound composer Kim Cascone" in the Other Media section notable? Is there any reference to this project other than the project's own website? --Gotophilk (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced, probably non-notable reference to Kim Cascone in "Other Media".--Gotophilk (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.127.98 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd do it. What needs doing? 24.69.136.143 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt you're going to get a reply to a message from four years ago. The article looked like this when the above comment was written; the article has been much improved since then.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Bryan Garner?
I haven't been able to find (outside of Wikis) any record of the radio interview "The Usage Wars" listed in the Interviews section. In particular, the archives of The Connection (www.theconnection.org) show no record of the interview. I have posted a note on the Talk page of Zement (who, it appears, added that interview in his/her 17 June 2005 edit); does anyone here know anything about this interview?


 * This has since been added: http://theconnection.wbur.org/2001/03/30/english-language-usage

--Gongfarmerzed (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Death in header
It is important information to note that Mr. Wallace is dead in the summary (header). What is the rationale for removing it? Safety Cap (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it already obvious that he's dead, as there's a death date in the first line?-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's that, and there's the use of the past tense ("DFW was an American author").--User:Wukai
 * Also, such a detail doesn't belong in the introduction (see WP:LEAD), and is well covered in the body of the article. --CliffC (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Parody mention
About this mentioning of a parody of an article by Wallace, why not? I mean, to say that the parody has nothing to do with wallace is obviously a contradiction, since the parody wouldn't exist (i.e., would never have been created) had wallace not, to get the figurative ball rolling, written the original work from which sprung the parody. Right? Anyways, so I'm sticking the parody back, if only because wallace himself, a notorious footnotizer, would maybe want it. What? 204.68.104.116 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been many parodies of Wallace's work. There is nothing so notable about this one that it should be singled out for mention.Wukai (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't say the parody has nothing to do with Wallace. I said he had nothing to do with it. Wukai (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What other parodies of Wallace's work. Can you list a few? I'd like to read them. Meantime, I have to revert this. This article isn't meant to be hagiography. Chisme (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's one in A Visit from the Goon Squad. Others can be seen at http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/dfw-parodies.html; http://www.yankeepotroast.org/daily/040609.html; and http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/parody.htm. But in any case, it is not hagiographic to omit work that is not by Wallace from a section about Wallace's work.Wukai (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, but "Howling Fantods" is a Foster fan web site, so I doubt if the parodies are worth much. I'll move a link to the parody into the footnote, in case anybody is interested. And for the record, I think this article is hagiographic. I'd like to see more criticism of the author, and if I get the time, I'm going to put some in here. Chisme (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The footnote works. I took the article title out of the main text since none of the other articles' titles are given there.Wukai (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (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)


 * Interesting question though, about his influences. 147.203.118.40 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the characteristics you mention were originally in Kerouac, and were taken up by both Tom Robbins and Thomas Pynchon. Wallace greatly resembles Pynchon. That's probably the simplest connection I can think of.--Artimaean (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Influenced
I think it's safe to say that Wallace influenced a whole heck of a lot more people than just Neal Stephenson. Zadie Smith? Dave Eggers? Franzen? The entire output of McSweeney's? Etc. Does anyone have the energy to go find some sources for this though? I'm not feeling up to it at the moment. Wallacefan (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While there isn't a rigidly enforced policy about "influences" and "influenced" section policies, they are usually used to add connections between well-known authors, especially ones who have either known the person in question, or have specifically referred to them in their work. Franzen, Eggers, and Smith are there now, knew him and openly acknowledge him. If you want to add something more, Be Bold.
 * And McSweeny's is a publication, not a literary movement.--Artimaean (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2 lists
Technologist Aaron Swartz was working on lists of Foster's fiction and nonfiction for the Wiki when he died.

Someone should complete them. They are linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AaronSw

Much, or all of this data may already be incorporated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace_bibliography

This article contained some of Aaron's last edits. Bustter (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm already at work on completing the bibliography page. It seems that most of his list is already there, but I will double check. Mtgaffney56 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * David Foster Wallace didn't think through his suicide. He didn't know he'd cause mine, for instance. 24.69.136.143 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well...Harold Bloom had some thoughts on the subject, and he is by far at least qualified to make them, being adept in philosophy, literature, science (not to mention Thomas Pynchon and Kafka in the Original Tongues) and critical theory that the book contains. If you want to make a criticism section, feel free to implement Bloom.--Artimaean (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss " improvements to the David Foster Wallace article," not to rant about your personal feelings on Wallace, just FYI. Dzgoldman (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)dzgoldman

Quote
Some editors feel the quote "fiction's about what it is to be a fucking human being" is appropriate, while others feel the phrase " fiction is about what it is to be a human being" provides the same information. Per WP:PROFANE, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." As the use of a word that is generally considered vulgar does not appear to be important to this article and an equally suitable alternative is available, the paraphrasing should be used instead of the quote. Bahooka (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep the quote, you have to keep it verbatum. It's not a question of what or what isn't appropriate or what information is provided. It's a matter of what he said. He used the word "fucking" to emphasize how strongly he felt about it. Neither your or anyone has the authority to paraphrase his thoughts or words. So the question becomes: Is the word "fucking" vulgar? I think not judging by the number of article titles in Wikipedia with the word "fucking." For example, there's Fucking (song), Fucking Machines, The Fucking Champs, Star Fucking Hipsters, Fucking Smilers, Fucking Boyfriend, Shopping and Fucking, Fucking A, Fucking Hell, and Toodle Fucking-Oo, to name but a few uses of the word, and these examples are in titles only. Imagine how many times the word is used in article text..
 * Nope the word "fucking" remains in the David Foster Wallace article because he, the subject of the article, chose that word.Chisme (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree and feel that typical, but not all, Wikipedia readers find the word vulgar. A verbatim quote is unnecessary to get the point across and I think it should not be used per WP:PROFANE.  BTW, this is not about censorship, just removing a word many find offensive and that does not add to the article.  I will be interested in hearing from other editors on the use of this quote. Bahooka (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will start an WP:RFC to get more eyes on the article and receive more input. Bahooka (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is a quotation necessary to get the subject's point across?
Should the Themes & styles section include the quote "fiction's about what it is to be a fucking human being", or does paraphrasing the quote as "fiction is about what it is to be a human being" get across the same point without the use of language that some readers find objectionable? Bahooka (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, it's not a question of "getting the same point across." When you quote someone, you have to quote them verbatim. You can't take out some words, since, because you're not the speaker, you don't have the ability or the authority to say or know which words should come out. As to your second point about the word being objectionable, it is to some people. No question about that. But judging by its use on Wikipedia the community does not find it objectionable. It's in many articles (again, see my point above). Chisme (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A quote is a quote. You have to either quote exactly what they say, or paraphrase. There is no middle ground here. The "bad" language has no baring on the discussion. The question really should be, is the quote (including the "bad" language") really necessary in the article? I have no opinion on that.  Ditch &#8733;  03:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey
The quotation is preferable, conveying Wallace's sentiments more accurately than a paraphrase.Wukai (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A true quotation is always preferable -- not preferable, but required. No one except the speaker can know what was really meant. Chisme (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Full quotation. Wikipedia is not censored.  Like others have said, either a direct quote or paraphrase should be used, though it's possible to exclude the bad word with ellipses.  I don't see any reason to censor the quotation, however.  It's not defamation, incitement to violence, or even particularly objectionable – it's just a bit of colorful, gratuitous emphasis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No quotation. The F-bomb brings amazingly little to this party -- except titillating emphasis, and quite possibly misemphasis. If there is some vital, tremendously insightful revelation about Wallace's own appraisal of his work that his using the word 'fuck' so keenly and incisively illuminates... then possibly the editors may want to expand on that. The notion here is that this single limp sentence (quote or not) somehow represents a sort of bottom line... er, Capital T Truth... of what Wallace thought his work "meant."  To assert this sentence, with its profanity, is to assert a kind of false synthesis regarding the subject matter.  The tussle here shouldn't be whether the the f-bomb is ok in the article... it should be whether DFW's appraisal of his work should or can be be reduced to a single, flaccid sentence.  I would say not... or in this case, fuck not.    842U (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Full quotation. It's not a F-bomb -- it's only a word. Nor is this word "titillating." Again, I have to emphasize that the author choose this word. For anybody else to read into what he meant, or to choose whether to censor it, does the author a disservice. And frankly, the prudery here is a little disturbing. Chisme (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to "vote" here?842U (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I voted once under the heading "Survey" where votes are counted. Chisme (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, then maybe move your initial comment which was not a vote ("Agreed. A true quotation is always preferable -- not preferable, but required. No one except the speaker can know what was really meant.") to the threaded discussion section -- otherwise you've "voted" twice and this just becomes another discussion area. 842U (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the comments by Chisme and Wukai would be more appropriately placed under "Threaded Discussion"? Or added to comments supplementing their votes? Ender  and  Peter  04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Full quotation. What? This isn't even a discussion. Full effing quotation. No censorship. Do you really think Wikipedia's readers are more sensitive than The New Yorker's? Come now. We can judge whether or not that word was necessary, but it's a direct quote that accurately portrays his passion for the craft. Ender  and  Peter  04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Certain Quote
Hey everyone. I've got a quote here that I think is from DFW but I'm not positive. If anyone can confirm it for me and let me know what it's from it would be much appreciated! Thanks!

"In general, players take advantage of every edge that is available to them. The greatest players are those who do the best job of taking advantage of those edges. Putting too much effort into distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate advantages is actually kind of silly."

It sounds like something that wold be from "The String Theory" or "Federer as a Religious Experience" but I couldn't fin it in either. Though I could have missed it as I just quickly skimmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.129.67 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2014 (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)


 * Where is the evidence/support/reference/news article to support the above statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.90.163 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 May 2012‎ (UTC)

If you were to read Wallace's essay collection, Consider the Lobster, he references very early into one of the stories that he belonged to the Methodist church near where he lived. That should make it's way into here somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGMcR (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In the Wallace bio ("Every Love Story is a Ghost Story) D.T. Max reveals that the church group Wallace refers to was actually a 12-step group; Wallace didn't want to out their anonymity. Dzgoldman (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

influence information from the infobox
I am moving this text here from the infobox, since the "influences" and "influenced" fields no longer display. The text is very cumbersome and takes up a lot of space in the edit window, yet does not show to the reader. I am pasting it here rather than deleting in case it is helpful in writing a prose section about influences. [The preceding has been a requested clarification of a simpler preamble when I first pasted it here. I have also converted it from the prior "nowiki" version to a self-contained reflist thing.] Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) & 02:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Don DeLillo, William Gaddis, David Lynch, Cynthia Ozick, Donald Barthelme, Richard Powers, Manuel Puig, Thomas Pynchon
 * influences

John Green (Author), Neal Stephenson, Joshua Ferris, Chad Harbach, Dave Eggers, Chris Bachelder, Adam Levin, Benjamin Kunkel, Wells Tower, Zadie Smith, Erik Marcus
 * influenced

Biography sploodge
This paragraph (in Biography section) is terrible:


 * In the early 1990s, Wallace had a relationship with the poet and memoirist Mary Karr. Wallace married painter Karen L. Green on December 27, 2004.[7][8] Dogs played an important role in Wallace's life:[9] he was very close to his two dogs, Bella and Werner,[8] had spoken of opening a dog shelter,[9] and, according to Jonathan Franzen, "had a predilection for dogs who'd been abused, and [were] unlikely to find other owners who were going to be patient enough for them".[8] Wallace's younger sister, Amy Wallace Havens of Tucson, Arizona, has practiced law since 2005.

The only way I can see to fix it would be one of the below:


 * 1.) Separate unrelated sentences and make them discrete paragraphs (in some cases, one-sentence paragraphs).
 * 2.) Rewrite this part of the section, fleshing out topics: Relationships, Interests, Family (or whatever)
 * 3.) Deleting the whole thing because it's a badly engineered paragraph and substandard for an encyclopedia article

In my opinion, #1 is ugly. #2 is awesome but takes some labor and knowledge (the latter of which I can't provide). #3 is also ugly. Vote?

Sugarbat (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

'Metamodernism' and Propaganda
I find Wallace's alleged association with 'metamodernism' scholarly weak (almost intransparent), propagandistic (on the part of the 'metamodernists', who seem to be campaigning for this Deleuzian mystification on Wikipedia more so than in peer-reviewed journals; the taxonomic criteria are particularly nebulous - Wallace is as much a 'metamodernist' as were Calvino or Borges!) and - particularly in view of David's incalculable weight as cultural critic and essayist (in the objectively empathetic tradition of, say, Frank Conroy - again, nothing post/meta/modern/ist-ic about it) one made in very poor taste. I suggest immediate removal and a letter of apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.253.186 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2014 (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)

Just curious why his wife isn't mentioned by name or listed in the side bar as spouse and years married.198.163.47.9 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

New Topic
What’s the deal people? Why is everyone against new content? I cite sources, I elaborate on my quotes, I use words like banal and solipsistic, yet they are all taken away without explanation. I understand that Wallace is held in high regard, and people wish to protect the angelic image WE have created around him, but this is no sacred space no temple of wisdom: it’s Wikipedia! To say I was opinionated in my additions is irrelevant, this whole page besides the biographical information is opinionated, Wallace didn’t write it, and he certainly didn't edit it. Look at what this page looked like before he dies, then ask yourself what does and does not belong here, or who is/who is not permitted to post here. Throw out your David Foster Wallace Readers, stop listening to your stoned friend has to say about the third of IJ that he read and just read the texts form opinions and share. Wallace isn’t as complex as he seems, footnotes aren’t that special, you are not that special, and this page is not that special. We have created an aura around him that limits his accessibility and limits legitimate discussion of his themes, styles, and legacy. Grow up Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcnelson16 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I honestly have no idea what you're on about here. Wikipedia has in place various policies and guidelines that we are to follow in editing articles. Some of them govern style and some content. You violated prescriptions in each. I'm including my message to Bcnelson16's talk page discussing their edit here:
 * [F]irst, much of that same material is already covered in the first paragraph of the Themes and style section. Second, your edit is written as a personal essay. I am not going to spend any time whatsoever rewriting editors' personal essays to make them fit. Third, and most important, unlike the other points in that section your edit only used DFW and your analysis to make up the content. On Wikipedia we have a very strong preference for secondary sources who report on what primary sources state. So if you had a published source that is also a reliable source who makes those claims, then with some cleanup (to make it sound encyclopedic), the content of your edit would be appropriate for Wikipedia.
 * I believe all of this still stands. This has nothing to do with casting an aura about DFW or imagining him an angel. I have absolutely no thoughts on him and his place in history or letters. None of that crossed my mind when reading your edits. You said "To say I was opinionated in my additions is irrelevant, this whole page besides the biographical information is opinionated", the key here is that this article includes the opinions of reliable sources and to the greatest extent that this is possible it does not include the opinions of its editors. That's how Wikipedia works. Not by people adding their own opinions to articles. SQGibbon (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Costello
I suspect that the Mark Costello mentioned in the second paragraph under "Death" is not the same person as the Mark Costello to which the mention of his name is linked. I suspect that the Mark Costello who spoke at the memorial service and is the father of Wallace's goddaughter is the co-author of Signifying Rappers; I believe he was Wallace's roommate at Amherst College. Can anyone confirm his identity? Jwicklatz (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suspicion is of course correct. I'm removing the link.Wukai (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Foster Wallace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://laist.com/2011/06/17/hollywood_fringe_festival_2011_deit.php
 * Added tag to http://www.pomona.edu,/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081110113414/http://mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/7katovsky.html to http://mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/7katovsky.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Foster Wallace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217050118/http://untitledbooks.com/features/features/a-meaningful-life-by-dt-max/ to http://untitledbooks.com/features/features/a-meaningful-life-by-dt-max/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Internal link missing
In the list of eulogists for DFW, Jonathan Franzen is not internally linked.2600:1700:4D0:2640:246D:9C16:9AA6:2868 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're correct, however as per WP:DUPLINK, it is not necessary. Wikilinks to Franzen already exist twice in the article, and a third is not needed. – Broccoli &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)