I know you purists out there are only interested in finding the true meaning behind the author's purpose via your own inquisition to the novel. However, if you're interested in some interesting fact-finding, insightful background, and simple allusions DFW kept secretly hidden, then go to google books and look up "Understanding DFW" - you can read it online. Go to the "Broom" chapter.
I love finding the back channels...I'm just sayin.
4 comments:
Actually I don't care if there even is a "true meaning," because I don't think there ever is.
And another thing: I find "secretly hidden" allusions, if they really are intentionally hidden to be such a pathetic game for the "in the know" crowd (mainly male English teachers/profs) to play in order to prove how cool/smart they are because they have some bit of trivia that someone else does not. Intellectual pissing contests. One of the main reasons I disliked Joyce/Eliot/Pound, before I just started to read them and ignore the commentary of others.
I agree - using this "trivial" knowledge for personal gain is pretext for displaying your own feigned intellect. However, I believe that when I read a story, such as this, and then I read commentary from another P.O.V. - it is up to me to decide whether the criticism/research/ad nauseum is worthwhile.
For example: At the beginning of the story Wang Dang Lang acts like a complete ass hole to Lenore and Co. Following this, I read that W.D. was an allusion to John Updike and his disillusionment toward his own ego. I'm not going to get into specific detail of what DFW uses to make reference to Updike via the novel, but I thought that this was extremely interesting b/c Wallace has, for years, been a whistleblower for Updike and his story-telling ethos. This nugget of information brought me closer to the novel and the m.o. of Wang Dang later in the novel. By knowing this, I sympathized with the encompassing characters involved with W.D. - (Rick V., Lenore, and the Antichrist) Now - am I going to go to the RFB meeting and say "well, did you know that W.D.Lang was based off of John Updike" - no, because I'm not a douche bag - at least not in my mind. However, am I going to say "I have a totally different perspective of a minor character now that I learned about his backstory" - maybe - it depends what everybody is talking about; I usually like to listen. Anyway, I know these people who flaunt their knowledge, and I hope you don't see me as one of these literary sadists.
No, of course, I don't see you that way Steve. However your example makes me think of a similar one: supposedly in "Paterson" W.C. William's long poem, every time he uses the word dog, he is making an allusion/reference to T.S.Eliot, who Williams did not like all that much. And my story, as does yours, makes me wonder if anything is really added to the poem/ story by knowing that bit of information. While the story in and of itself might be interesting, as are many of the literary back stories that surround any work of art, I still am unsure of their value as far as interpreting the text in front of me. Maybe I have too much of "new criticism" embedded in my approach to literature. Despite my struggle to throw off that limiting construct. I look forward to Sunday.
Post a Comment