DFW Rewritten
Written byPosted on January 31, 2007
Filed Under Wallace, David Foster
Here is the first paragraph of David Foster Wallace’s “Good People” rewritten:
Lane A. Dean, Jr. and his girlfriend sat at a picnic table. They’d gone to different high schools but attended the same junior college. Now it was springtime and they were near a lake. The air was suffused with honeysuckle and lilacs, almost too much for them to take in. The recent storms had downed trees. One tree had collapsed near the shallows of the lake where Lane and his girlfriend were now sitting. Lane liked his girlfriend and her smell, but he was distracted by another man, whose incongruous hat reminded him of his grandfather. This stranger was still, more like a man than a picture.
DFW’s paragraph is 502 words. My revised paragraph is 107 words.
Comments
11 Responses to “DFW Rewritten”
Leave a Reply
Beyond Heaving Bosoms by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan. The famed writers behind
Alice Fantastic by Maggie Estep. This wild and highly enjoyable narrative involves two sisters (presumably, the third one was still being rented out by Chekhov), a hippie ex-junkie mother who lives with seventeen dogs, a murder, gambling, and libidinous Hollywood actresses who live in Woodstock. But this is the wonderful Maggie Estep we're talking here. And what seems at first like a quirky yarn becomes something unexpectedly moving about connectivity. What I love about Estep's work is the way that she'll juxtapose an extremely astute observation (now that you mention it, why do cab drivers always have somebody to talk with on the phone past midnight?) with an often outrageous story development.
Generosity by Richard Powers. It doesn't come out until September 29th, but Richard Powers's latest will have anyone committed to books reconsidering their literary fervor. I foresee some animosity from the vanilla critics hostile to idea-driven novels, but book bloggers, YouTube chroniclers, and MFAs would do well to plunge into this chance-taking narrative, which introduces vital questions about what the reader's relationship is with media, scientific dissection, and "creative nonfiction." Are we rats fleeing to happy cities? Or can we find the humanism within the purported plague?
Pieces for the Left Hand by J. Robert Lennon. Lennon is one of the most underrated fiction writers working today. Much as On the Night Plain proved that Lennon had a lot more in the toolbox than heartfelt (and often very funny) suburban satire, this slim but fascinating volume juxtaposes 100 small-town anecdotes -- arranged by category -- in a manner that reads, at times, like Nicholson Baker's passions for minutiae and, at other times, Stewart O'Nan's concern for psychological detail. The result is fiction that makes us wonder about whether one person's subjective view of particulars can entirely be trusted. This book never found a publisher in 2005. But thankfully, Graywolf has released it in the United States, along with Lennon's latest novel, The Castle.
Wonderful World by Javier Calvo. This wonderfully raucous volume has been completely ignored by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. But it's probably one of the most delightful reading experiences I've had this year. Calvo cavalierly mashes up multiple genres and manages to mix up familial subtext with larger-than-life, almost cartoonish characters. (Indeed, one might argue that one mobster's penis is a character of its own in this sprawling novel.). This is not an easy thing to pull off, but Calvo makes it work. And it's helped immeasurably by Mara Faye Lethem's idiom-specific translation. (
The Means of Reproduction, Michelle Goldberg This thoughtful book tackles the complicated (and little discussed) subject of reproductive rights from numerous angles, which includes a number of unpleasant but necessary ones. The upshot is that there isn't a quick fix solution for declining birth rates and fundamentalist abuses. Just about every political faction has contributed to the friction. But you'll want to read this book anyway to refamiliarize yourself with the topic, but also to understand just what's occurred during the past several decades to get us where we are today. (
Your paragraph is awful–bland, facile. DFW’s is artful.
Suppose you prefer a text message to a letter.
Excellent. Your next assignment is to pare down his lobster essay for publication in Readers Digest.
Sorry, I am missing the point. You revised a long well written paragraph into a shorter boring one?
Why do you love to hate on DFW?
SFW
Color me unsure of what the point of this exercise was as well. This loses all feeling of atmosphere, of the emotion attached to the description. I understand DFW isn’t for everyone, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t for anyone.
I’ll remain silent about the purpose of this experiment, except to say this: Who says I hate DFW?
For
Here is the first paragraph of David Foster Wallace’s “Good People” rewritten:
substitute
I re-wrote the opening of David Foster Wallace’s “Good People”:
and for
DFW’s paragraph is 502 words. My revised paragraph is 107 words.
swap in
His was 502 words; mine, 107.
…
Fun!
I’m curious — did you first read the story online or in print? The layout of the print version is (to my mind) intended to be aesthetically pleasing — three long paragraphs on page one, almost like tapestries. However, that format also points out what could be taken as the story’s major flaws.
awesome work Ed. I always think of “it’s not writing it’s typing” when I read DFW? But try doing it for the first graph of *A Farewell to Arms*
Re: Who says I hate DFW?
I wouldn’t say you hate him but you do seem to bash him from time to time. Perhaps the following seems familiar:
While it breaks my heart to say it, I think Wallace is washed up. He could very well prove me wrong. But if he has nothing playful or interesting to contribute to the world of letters, I’d much prefer it if he threw in the towel and coasted on his past achievements, rather than writing work that sometimes reads and feels as dated and inconsequential as a 1997 episode of Seinfeld.
Also you once made this (in my opinion) ridiculous claim comparing DFW to MZD:
Well, I am here to tell you that I have discovered a man who can write David Foster Wallace under the table, if indeed a comparative summation between writing and drinking can be consummated.
I liked House of Leaves but it’s cleverness does not match up against the brilliance of Infinite Jest (obviously, again, my opinion).
Whether your feelings for Mr. Wallace fall foul, fair or just plain indifferent, I cannot comment upon. But I will say that his 502 words of prose—while convincing and even beautiful, themselves—paint a “picture” that is still and lifeless. ["...more like a picture than a man."] This was probably his intent. Each reader will make of it what they will.
Your 107 words succinctly convey the essence of the scene—with one all important distinction: While the words you chose may not fit together nearly so beautifully (imho), you describe something that may convincingly be thought of as “alive.” ["...more like a man than a picture."] I’d surmise this has something to do with “the purpose of this experiment.”
The success of one approach or the other all comes down to what an individual reader values more highly: beautifully described death (inanimateness), or coarsely described life.
Of course, certain combinations of the two yield the best results.