I was recently asked some questions in regards to what I
have put forth in my discussion of radical literalism that I think might help
to push the conversation forward.
I was asked, “How does radical literalism operate to be constructive?”
and “What is the difference between postmodern metanarrative and inner
metanarrative?” and “What does it mean to say that, ‘we can not escape
irony’?” These are important
questions, but I am not sure that I have an easy answer for each
individually. What I can and will
do is to have a larger conversation that I hope will address the general nature
of these questions and hopefully provide answers that are if not succinct then
at least not overly ambiguous.
I have already covered some of the ways in which I think
radical literalism operates, but I suppose that I haven’t talked specifically
how I think that it offers something constructive.
Since this entire venture is predicated on the work of David
Foster Wallace, I think it best to turn again to his writing. The first feature of radical literalism
is the ‘single entendre’, the expression of sentiment without irony (or
postmodern irony at least) and with sincere intent. In a word: honesty.
For starters let us take a look at Wallace’s article (later
bookified) titled: “McCain’s Promise.”[1] In the very beginning of the book (I
should say that for anybody looking to cross reference what I write here with
what Wallace has written that I will be drawing from and citing from the book
version of the original article which was written for Rolling Stone) Wallace
has what he calls the “Optional Preface” (3). The very title is radically literal in that he is attempting
to honestly and without duplicity tell the reader that the introduction is
optional, that while it has information, it is not integral to the
understanding of the article in any way.
So, radical literalism is an attempt at all times to be honest. The preface itself is riddled with this
same brand of honest dialogues. He
says of the article that it is, “just meant to be the truth as one person saw
it” (4). He understands that the
word ‘truth’ is loaded, or that it can only convey so much and that non-fiction
can only be truth as filtered through perception – in this case Wallace’s.
Another facet of Wallace’s writing that I see really getting
at the idea of honesty are his asides in footnote form. These footnotes are often moments where
he is taking great pains to provide a level of honesty to and for his readers
as well as his subjects. In the
Optional Preface he includes one of these footnotes dedicated to the Rolling
Stone editor letting readers know that while the editing process was tough, the
editor was fair under some pretty tough constrictions (6). We can see through this footnote that
Wallace is concerned with honesty, the whole picture of events, the reader’s
understanding of those events, and the people involved with those events.
He operates in almost the exact same way in his introduction
to the 2007 The Best American Essays anthology
of which he was the guest editor.
The first line of the introduction reads, “I think it’s unlikely that
anyone is reading this as an introduction. Most of the people I know treat Best American anthologies
like Whitman Samplers. They skip
around, pick and choose…The editor’s intro is last, if at all” (xii). We see the same attention to the
reader, to audience. He is
attempting to identify the audience as well as identify with the audience. Also, he again has a footnote dedicated
to the series editor, Robert Atwan, which attempts to provide an honest
depiction of the overall process of deciding what to include in the anthology
and just how much of that choice is up to the guest editor. Wallace is going through pains to give
equal and fair representation to all involved. So, I would say that honesty is part of radical literalism
and specifically honesty in the form of inner metanarrative that operates to
expose rather than ironically contradict one’s self. Also, I think that honesty can be seen as constructive.
Honesty can be constructive in criticism for instance. Criticism often involves brands of
honesty that can operate to bolster an argument or strengthen a piece of
writing, even if the criticism looks to disassemble what the creator has
created. So when I talk of honesty
and radical literalism’s brand of single entendre honesty, it is this that I am
getting at – honesty as constructive language that looks to add to content,
meaning, or purpose to a given message or work.
*
As for the question of how we are to escape irony, or
whether that is possible, I am not sure how to proceed. I think that it is safe to suggest that
Wallace suggests that irony is “tyranny” in “E Unibus Pluram”, but what does
this mean exactly to radical literalism?
When I say that we ‘can not escape irony’, something I put forth in my
November post: D.F.W. and Radical Literalism, what I am really getting at is
the ways in which the media operates.
We are surrounded by television, the televisual, movies, advertisements
of all kinds and the list goes on.
It is this we cannot escape.
But I don’t want to sound fatalistic, which is why I provided a sort of
Hebdigian reading of Wallace’s “E Unibus Pluram”, because I think that the
individual can find space for revolt from hegemony in that we can simply mean
what we say on a one-to-one basis.
In our inner lives there is room for honesty, for the treatment of
emotions, ideas, and conceptual thought as authentic and it is here that postmodern
irony has run its course.
[1] There is a
double irony here with the name in that it could mean that McCain is making a
promise or that he has promise, which makes me wonder if Wallace provided the
title of the article himself, or if the editors, as is usually the case,
provided that for him. Following the title is the statement: “Aboard the
Straight Talk Express With John McCain and a Whole Bunch of Actual Reporters,
Thinking About Hope.” This sounds
much more “Wallacey” in that he is basically telling his possible readers that
this article is not written by a reporter and that instead it is written by
D.F.W., a well known and respected fiction and essay writer and that the ways
in which he goes about writing are vastly different from the standard
reporters. Also, I should mention
that there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that Wallace is aboard the
“Straight Talk Express” in that is what Wallace is known for and politicians
are not. At any rate, not all
irony is postmodern and deconstructive, and not all irony is dodgeable. Maybe I
will talk about that at some point, but I will leave it for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment