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.

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).

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!

Why do you love to hate on DFW?

Suppose you prefer a text message to a letter.