Student Zone

It seems to me that Wallace vs. Carver is somewhat of a mismatch in that they’re not even in the same weight class. Carver is slow and to the point, while Wallace seems to skit around a point until it absolutely needs to be said. To put it another way, Carver is to Butterbean (feet and fists like 100 lb. weights) as Wallace is to Floyd Mayweather (floats like a butterfly and stings like a…gnat). But, that’s not really what I wanted to make my post about.

Wallace, in a literary sense (i.e. taking into account close reading of text and how it relates to the topics we’ve covered [modernism and modernity, postmodernism, etc.]) seems to have a good grasp on the depth of his writing. While it seems, at first reading, that Wallace’s prose is extrovertly conversational—-leaving nothing to the imagination and thus not too profound—-upon closer inspection, there are, in fact, deeper levels in his writing. In “Octet,” however, the challenge is discerning the question at hand versus the meaning of the text. In other words (or maybe not), Wallace is asking a question about the given information as if he’s not aware of what is going on, yet he’s the one that intentionally provided the information in the first place. This, admittedly, is fairly confusing to me. It’s much easier when it’s assumed that the author knows all of the pieces of his stories and how they fit in with the grand scheme, or in this case, it’s easier to assume that Wallace knows the answers to his questions before he ever creates the scenario. That said, Wallace’s stories, despite the contrasting styles mentioned above, have a similar feel to Carver’s stories. Although I can only find one instance in all of these stories of someone actually saying something (and the use of quotations), he uses the same sort of short style that Carver does: “He said…She said…” which gives the reader a sense of detachment. In the case with “Pop Quiz 4,” the two characters are “The terminal drug addict with the coat,” and “The gravely ill terminal drug addict.” There is no getting personal with these characters except for in their actions alone. Also, he doesn’t capitalize the titles of these characters either, as he does with “X” and “Y.” This gives the characters more of a sense of detachment from the reader, but at the same time allows the reader to feel as though they (i.e. the drug addicts) are in the same boat. However, despite the similarities and the lack of quantitative information, the two characters are fairly dissimilar. One is relatively healthy (note: relatively) and has a coat, while the other is not healthy and does not have warmth, meaning that one is relatively responsible, while the other is not. Or, while both are outside the walls of societal norms, thus not fitting into modernistic ideals, one is higher or more conforming than the other. The question posed at the end, “Which one lived.” (why no question mark.) obviously tells us that one survived and one did not. However, you could also look at the question this way: “Which one took advantage of life.” or “Which one enjoyed life to the fullest.” That being the case, it seems as though they both did, even though both may physically perish soon. So, is it a trick question? Maybe. It seems like all of the Quiz questions may be left open, intentionally, to interpretation. It'll take me a while to do that, though, and in the effor of saving myself much confusion, I'll elect not to. In the meantime, I’ll do my best keep my attention span locked on throughout the lengthy footnotes, and keep my English-Latin dictionary handy.

DAMN THEE, Burble Fink!

No, actually, pretty good comments, my e-fiend.

If the critic is indeed in a maze, methinks Dr. Benway is supervising the experiment.

I like Fink's comment here: "The 'Octet' series can really attest to the fact that...writing is trickery, slight of hand, and alchemy on the most hack-hack level." YUP. And it took many pages, footnotes, and neurotic unfoldings for us to get to the nut of the matter in class. Was it worth the trip?

Tired Tricks.
I may be a basketcase in hyperspace for skipping on the purpose of calling pomo a case of tired tricks. Then again that critic might be an idiot for not realizing that the only reason the scent of cheese hit his brain is because he is in the maze that those big scientists dropped him in.
The 'Octet' series can really attest to the fact that pomo acknowledges that writing is trickery, slight of hand, and alchemy on the most hack-hack level.

Carver vs. Wallace

My friends and I do this all the time. Hey, who would win? Lincoln vs. Jefferson Davis; Charles Manson vs. John Wayne Gacy; Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Sammy Davis Jr.; Seabiscuit vs. Benji; Ace of Bass vs. Color Me Badd; Ghandi vs. Jesus.
And I have been giving some intense thought to this over the last day. So much so that I've rethought the outcome. Immediately you think of this fight and merely by their physical attributes you have to go with Carver. He's solid: a big man, rather mean, intense, his stare is enough to show that he takes himself seriously, that he knows who he is and what he is capable of and that he knows what he is doing at any given moment. I of course can't speak for either of them in the ring but in a lifelong jab count, if the total punches thrown for both sides could be tallied, you have to assume Carver has the upperhand.
But then you think about David Foster Wallace. And while he is a smaller fighter, younger, and less experienced, he is scrappy. In a Darwinian sense: fight or flight, Wallace seems as if he would just take off; live to fight another day. But if you took away his ability to run and trapped him in a corner, back to the wall with no place to run you'd see the demon in that man. He is definitley a scrapper. He is faster, less predictable, much more devious and conniving. I can see him throwing many an inside elbow in a tie up situation.
You know that Carver would come to the ring with what he has, that being: professionalism and the upper hand, the heavy hit and his solid bearing. Wallace is more nervous. He isn't shaken, not yet, but he is just full of nervous energy, unfocused, off the cusp. Hes a dancer and an unpredictable opponent. He knows the rope-a-dope, switchfoot, he has an entire bag of tricks. And he knows the old man doesn't have the freedom that Wallace allows himself. Unfortunately, as free as Wallce would like to be, he is limited to what he has: his two fists and there is only so much juke he can give to Carver before Carver is just going to knock his block off. Carver has the match in the bag if he can just get Wallace to the corner and turn up the thermostat. It won't take too much to initially bring Wallace to his knees.
On the other hand Wallace can wait the old man out and reserve his footwork for the later rounds when Carver has tuckered. If he can stay away from Carver, make Carver want it, he'll eventually have the upperhand. Carver is going to be hunting Wallace down but he won't be watching Wallace the same way Wallace will be learning from Carver. And if the old man really does have only so many moves... then Wallace reinvents the myriad tired tricks.
As I said I've been giving this some thought and I had my money on Carver for the longest time... but something tells me hes too solid to win. I feel like Wallace could own him. He'd take a hell of a beating I'm not contesting that fact but what I think gives Wallace the edge is no matter how solid Carver is he has way too much sense to get up after you whip him. And Wallace just doesn't have that much sense to stay down.

Signifying Nothing is a really odd short story. It does have a beginning, middle, and end. Our narrator is looking back to an incident where he is moving out and being independent. He is nineteen years old and is packing up things, as he gets ready to leave his parents home. He recollects a memory from when he was a young kid, around 9 years old. Out of nowhere he fathers appears and he’s standing in front of the television. The father flashes his kid. He is jingling his ‘junk’ like it’s a bell. He is wagging his tally-whacker in front of his son and somehow this disturbing act displaces our narrator and this is all he can think about at the moment. He is wondering why his father would do such a thing. This incident appears to be traumatic and our narrator is craving the reason behind his action that day. He is trying to analyze and comprehend what his father was thinking after ‘dropping trou.’ In a bizarre twist of fate, he goes with his father to rent a van to move his things. He asked his father about the unpleasant incident from 10 years priors. The whole ride was awkward because his father was silent. He did not verbally respond to the narrator’s question, he gives off a look of shock and speechlessness. Our narrator is puzzled because he feels that his father thinks that he had imagined something so bizarre, believed it, and accused him of it. His father tells him that he should be embarrassed for bringing this up. Our narrator is getting this violent tendency to kill his father because he committed this deed and feels that his father is denying it. Filled up with so much resentment and anger he continues to pack up belongings and moves out. He stays out of contact with his family for over a year. He isn’t hung over the memory of what happened in the rec room, but the silent look that his father gave him when he was in the van. The situation just infuriated him and fueled his fiery anger more so. He eventually got over his ordeal because even though he remembered what had happened, his father’s memory might have been limited. He was more that willing to let it go. He finally returns to unite with his family for his sister’s special birthday dinner at an Italian restaurant. Even though his dish was already ordered, he doesn’t have much of a say because they laughed it off.
Myers does ring true because I have to read Wallace’s excerpts quit a few times just to grasp a thought. In Signifying Nothing, we are forced to look at our own perception of memory. Even though some people reminisce about the same incident, one would recognize a different aspect or action from the past. When I just glanced over at the title, I immediately thought the story will go nowhere or the end did not answer our question at all. We are taking along for this adventure but the ending is not resolved. Like in the end of the movie, Pulp Fiction, the audience did not see the inside of the suitcase and the movie ends. I enjoyed it because it does shift the reader’s expectation. They are taken along the adventure and this twisted story makes you think how well people perceive memory. We feel this intense emotion that can manifest itself into this desired violent outburst and yet it does not go anywhere. The readers also have to ‘let it go’ like the narrator. Do you think that the father is so guilty by his actions that he suppresses his explanation?

You have tickets to the big fight between Wallace and Foster, but who’s side of the ring do you sit on? Both of the writers seem to have graduated from the same school of which they developed their technique, but one of them lives in the shadow of those who came before them ( but this is unfortunately for him how the world works).
Wallace’s fighting stance is wide and strong. By using very little text the author is able to paint a picture, or fight one round, and make us see what the next seven have to offer. Wallace, on the other, starts out strong, but it is obvious that he is a younger and weaker competitor. Well let me start with quiz number to explain my point. Here we have a very short story about two junkies who barely make it through the night and the question posed at the end of the paragraph of, “Which one lived?”. Huh? I did not even think that would be the quiz but kudos for throwing me off my chair. This is the boxing style of Wallace at its newest generation. He not only keeps is short and simple, but even ASKS the reader to look into the future that he has not shown you yet and decide with the short amount of text who’s life will be spared. If Carver would have taken this on there would be a little less of an open ended question that by the way is never posed at the end of a piece. Although Wallace’s style is a little more forward in this way, I none the less enjoyed his smaller excerpts from the quiz and Signifying Nothing.
So we are into round three and the fighters are looking good and landing punches on both sides of the ring, Carver is starting to fall because he is older and has created all the moves that Wallace seems to be using. Just when you think age plays out in the match, Carver starts to make a critical mistake ( mind you in my imaginary match ). He starts to lose his wind. He is so busy with his fance foot work and showmanship that he becomes a exhausted. In pop quiz 6 and further, we can see that Carver is falling fast. He not only starts to repeat himself over and over, but then starts to realize this and gets lost himself. When he realizes this he has top start including foot notes to guide the reader. I know that he is trying to take this modern day Carver style about his work, but if you have to use a whole page of foots to explain your point you should reevaluate the words you chose in the first place.
So in the middle of round eight we see that the direct jabs of Wallace and his stamina are what are loved and admired by the crowd who cheers him into a TKO of Wallace. The crowd cheers when he finally comes to for hi valliant effort, but in the end they know the favorite. It turns out that Wallace was incorrectly entered in the heavy weight group when he was really meant to fight in the beginners match.
I think someone needs to let Carver know that you really can’t care all this to much about what other people think. If you do, please do not let the reader know your insecurities.
So do you think, and I mean away from the cameras and bull sh*&^* that Wallace really likes all the pressure that Carver has produced for him? And do you think he even credits him in his own work?

4.
Second to last paragraph from Carver’s “A Serious Talk” and one from Wallace’s “Pop Quiz 6”, which is actually the whole story, are the two, which I used to analyze. The common theme is the emotional attachment to main characters, Vera and man X.
Since the one in Carver’s story is very short, I can only say that Burt is leaving, after trying to reconcile a hurting relationship, and then hurting it again. He’s hoping he proved something. Wallace’s man Y is dealing with uncomfortable situations with his best friend (man X), who is being aggressive and mean. The writer does not reveal the cause, since that isn’t the point. He wants to stay focused on the interaction, rather than figuring out the reasons for the conflict. He’s actually rather secretive about his characters identities and personalities.
Both writers describe familiar (I think to us all) scenes of someone being upset and vulnerable. Carver’s portrayal is that of intense emotional attachment leading to destruction of a bond. Disappointment is a clear factor in this fragment, but Burt’s cloudy thoughts lead him to believe he’s being logical, even though he’s ignoring the real problem and concentrating on the importance of proving something through his action rather than the effect it had on the person he loves.

Wallace takes on a bit of a different approach, a less tragic one. His character, man Y, is self-reflective. He doesn’t let things get out of hand, which in turn drives his friend to madness. He does not show signs of being disturbed by X’s hostility. He simply internalizes it all, “nodding sort of studiously in response.”
I’m guessing Wallace intends to be more on the philosophical side, while Carver focuses significantly more on the narrative. For Wallace, it seems that the situation is there because there has to be a setting which allows him to get his point across, about the action/reaction aspect. The reader finds himself frustrated by Wallace’s vagueness about the reasons for the conflict which in and of itself may be part of Wallace’s point. Wallace says that “it is not clear whether Y is pathetic and spineless or incredibly strong and compassionate and wise.” Wallace may be saying that we have to be careful about the conclusions we draw from outward behavior. Nonetheless, both characters are persistent in pursuing their ends.
All in all, I enjoyed both writers just as much.