Perhaps I should put a disclaimer, I’m not recommending suicide, certainly not as method to help your writing career. I bought the book because I found “A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again” amongst a few lists of the most humorous written works^1.
Now, it’s possible that it was put on those lists because others were swayed in some part by his committing suicide^2. But, as far as I can tell, his committing suicide did not cause me to buy his book. My knowledge of the author was merely I’d heard there was some guy who wrote some book called Infinite Jest that was Long, Weird, and Good (but Only if You Are into That Sort of Thing). There are quite a few books like that, a few choice Joyce, a pinch of Pynchon, a forkful of Faulkner, etc. And from personal experience, I’d actually like their less esoteric stuff, not the LWaGbOiYAiTSoT^3 ones people actually take an audible inhale before mentioning just the title.^4
So, I thought, since this is not his well-known LWaGbOiYAiTSoT (I’d use the shorter version of the acronym, but I introduce that in a footnote–DFW might force you to read the footnotes to follow, but I’ll be more gracious^5) but another work that looks more accessible I’d buy it. Thus, suicide, as far as I could tell, did not make me buy the book and start reading.
After I started reading it, it did however add a special texture that I liked. I wouldn’t call it crunchy, more chewy. Chewy in that chewy way when something isn’t normally chewy, but it’s not unpleasantly chewy, unless you have strong feelings about how that dish must taste and be prepared. It, like I mention in this video, gave the cynicism in the face of, he admitted, the breathtaking beauty of nature presented to him (for free, because he was on assignment to write an article) a sort of verisimilitude I liked. I could trust him, he wasn’t just kvetching for shtick. I believed it really did feel dismal and make him sad. Or, rather, acutely feel his sadness that was already there within him, and probably always there his entire shortish life.^6
If you don’t read the sixth footnote, basically, I think the sadness was probably there for probably all the years he can remember^7. I think also, though, it wasn’t so strong as to make its desire to end the attached life completely unstoppable. I think situations could have changed it, the situations I mentioned involving not be isolated, maybe even achieving some success/validation. I think mostly the isolation, he admits to being an agrophobe in that article, and there are lots of other hints to a life of self-cloister.
And, let’s say, these situations had occurred for him after he wrote this. He was saved from the brink. This work would still be the same work, just without this context. I think I can strip this context and think, yeah, I’d still like the work, I would still enjoy it. Further, even if it were to be slightly less interesting, there would be opportunity for more, and who knows, maybe his best work was not yet written.
FOOTNOTES ^1 It was well-known enough to get, I believe, an entire Simpsons' episode made about it, which I have never seen as it is a double-digit season*, and those are not worth wading through for shimmers of glory past. Shimmers thatrarely last the entire episode. *For those that don’t know, seasons 1-9 were considered the best, specifically 3-5, sporadically some of 7-9 were really good (or really bad)^a. 10 started strong,with a great episode about NYC, but I think it was three episodes in that there was one of the worst. episodes. ever. (CBG-voice) involving Lisa. I confirmed that it really had jumped the shark by watching one or two others, and a few more by being unfortunately struck in rooms with it playing. It was pretty clear, Fonzy had definitely sailed past that shark tank and was decending fast. ^a Coincidentally, I feel this sporadically really good or bad happened with Seinfeld too, during those last few seasons. Probably some episodes written by really good writers, some were, well.. I believe right before this period is when Larry David left. I think this is also why people were so eager to see the final episode, written entirely by him. I think it wasn’t horrible, but would have been a bit like the Beatles not completely breaking up, just John leaving, and the next few albums being kind of Wings-ish but with more George and George (which would have been awesome in a way; not trying to short-shrift Ringo, but back then he had little creative influence in direction) and that being the new Beatles and then they said, ok, now let’s end it, but first let’s bring back John to cap it off. But instead of Paul and John getting together in the booth (yes, I’m making a loose parallel with Jerry and David), Paul says, John you do whatever you are doing now, and we’ll put under the brand. And then their last album turns out to be The Beatles - Double Fantasy. I think that sums up the feeling of the final episode of Seinfeld. ^2 or they were inspired to read it, before they put it on the list, by hearing about him because of his suicide… Or by being suggested to read the book by someone who read it because of his suicide… Etc. But of course this could not go into infinite recursion. Because all these degrees of separation would end up at David Foster Wallace himself, and then it is impossible to seperate the man from the final act. But, it is possible that some of these degrees of separation would actually loop back onto themselves, some extremely convoluted version of person A got recommended by B who got recommended by person C who was told of the suicide by person A. This in fact may have created some kind of feedback that did make for an enhancer in the buying part. ^3 I'm not sure if one is supposed to include the normally non-capitalized letters (for prepositions and conjunctions and whatnot) when making ridiculously long acronyms. Or even how to handle it. LWGOYATST? Start by capitalizing indiscriminately? Long, Weird, And Good (But Only If You Are Into That Sort Of Thing? I think actually varying the capitalization is best, especially for the final alphabet soup, because it gives hints along the way when trying to decode it. It just smacks a bit of wannabe leet-speak. ***xXxHaCkErZrUlEzLuLz****, etc. *The last asterisk was indeed for a footnote-footnote, so I could tell you the other six asterisks are not. ^4 I think Pynhon wrote Mason/Dixon, right? I kind of feel it wasn't. But I also read The Crying of Lot 49, and it was okay. But I didn't notice the disparity between LGWi (the shorter form of the acronym) of Mason/Dixon and more easily digestible Crying. Mason/Dixon goes way off the rails in some later chapters, but they are quarantined within those chapters at least. Crying didn't do it for me much more. However, with Joyce everything I’ve read that's not Portrait of the Artist* is not, to me at least, as good. And the more off the rails it goes the more I dislike it, and I’m pretty damn sure I’d hate Finnegan’s Wake. I’ll read it if imprisoned with nothing else to read, but until then, I can’t really say. But I tried to read Ulysses, and after the umpteenth classical allusion, but before I got infinitesimally deep within the book, I gave up. I don’t think I’ll need imprisonment to try it again though, maybe just a semi-serious illness requiring a trip to a cabin in the woods with a smallish library and a lack of internet connectivity. As for Faulkner, my favorite was Absalom, Absalom, and the Sound and the Fury, well, I never got a chance to enjoy because it was thrust on me in high school***** and forced upon me. *Coincidentally also Simpsons related, but having seen Portrait of the Bart Is, I can pretty much assure you that they just wanted a clever title and the parallels pretty much end there. **So was Portrait, though, and it survived, or maybe I read that before high school, when I actually had time to read the books later thrusted. ***I’m writing this on my phone, and it has no cross^a for the proper, next-increment sequentially, footnote notation. ^a Or double-cross obviously. ^5 This time. ^6 I realize this seems like I’m suggesting depression in him as being completely congenital, and seeing as I can’t possibly know what his childhood was like, de facto, congenital in all people. I am not in this camp. I do feel though that people who do have depression that is not situational (to an appropriate degree) are likely to get that way from effects very early on. Either in the genes, or in the first three years or so, when the brain is really maleable and must decide if this world is a hostile one where it must stay on constant alert or a friendly one. If it feels it is hostile and chaotic, then it will build the pathways it needs to keep one in basically constant fight-or-flight mode, which then means a lifetime of anxiety and depression. Of course, there's more to it, doing a lot of handwaving, but if I were forced to make a guess I’d say he had the sufficient cocktail pre-zygote and then the necessary environment the first three years to sculpt the brain that would eventually kill him. But I could be wrong. Nor do I think it would have been irreversible death sentence if true. Because, again, I mention situation as being important to a degree. Enough positive situation can, I think, save people who are predisposed from the first couple years to dance near the brink. Those so disposed as to make a running jump, I don’t know, but I suspect he was a brink dancer. ^7 And if you did read it, well, I guess I’ve told you it again. I’ll take this footnote moment though to say that even though some form of “it” was always there, it is likely that when he was younger, he didn't have the self awareness that it was depression/anxiety, or it manifested differently.