Hiking off Mulholland in Studio City: Fryman Canyon Park
The Wreckoning Is Coming at You: Inside the Trainwreck Studio
Found in L.A.: Medical Marijuana Ditched in the Curb
-thumb-110x110-461780.jpg)
Simply Wrong Food: IHOP's Holiday Pancakes
-thumb-110x110-461916.jpg)
Alice Cooper, Ace Frehley @ Nokia Theater 10/28/09
Last night, while the rest of you were resting up for Hollywood's onanistic ode to itself (aka The Golden Globes), LAist was getting some culture in the form of David Foster Wallace, who read from his new collection of essays, Consider the Lobster at the Hammer Museum in Westwood.
Amid college cuties and L.A.'s limited literati, the long-maned California transplant (he teaches at Pomona College) read an essay on his September 11th experience called "The View from Mrs. Thompson's", which got a rave response from the audience, but the real fun came when D.F.W. opened the floor to questions.
A brief sampling:
Audience Member: Could you talk briefly about the role of God in your life?
D.F.W.: Could you?
[Audience member then explains his view of God to D.F.W., who was being sarcastic]
D.F.W.: Ditto.
We were eating it up. So often authors feel the need to ingratiate themselves to their audience; D.F.W. challenges his. He was asked at length about the whole James-Frey-Is-a-Big-Fat-Liar debacle and he admitted that while his connection to the book was that "his sister had heard it on audiotape", while there is room to fudge in memoirs ("Who remembers what the weather was like the day their mother died?"), there is a line and that line seems to have been croosed.
He was asked why he thought A.A. and other orginizations had not come out against A Million Little Pieces. Since this had nothing to do with him, his writing or even any books he himself has read, D.F.W. answered, obviously a little irritated by his audience's complete disinterest in their speaker's own work, that it "probably has something to do with people handling their addictions in their own ways and not fucking with that, because you don't really want to shit on your own karma."
Finally, a ladies' book club asked an actual question: "Did D.F.W. make up words for masturbation in Infinite Jest?". D.F.W. looked confused and asked for an example. Grandma replied: "Priapism", pronouncing it pree-ap-ism. Nervous chuckling by the audience was followed by D.F.W. explaining just what the word means.
Just another evening of high culture in L.A.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Holy cow, were you even at the same reading that I went to? You thought the interesting question came from Book Group Matron? Firstly, Mr. Wallace was not being sarcastic to the young man who asked him about God; he asked him an interesting follow-on question, and eventually agreed with the young man's general assessment of the salutary effects of regular churchgoing in the kindest, most inclusive manner.
And your "quote"--!! Is soooo totally not at all what the man said. He was not asked why AA had not come out against the Frey mess. He was asked what his views were re: the Frey mess, given that (a) he, Wallace, has written about AA, and (b) Frey has apparently advised people against AA. Mr. Wallace then went on to explain in some detail the difference between 'steps' and 'traditions', and how it seems to him that one had better not fuck with those because (I paraphrase) it's bad karma.
I believe that David Foster Wallace is the absolute last person who would make the remark you "quote". He is a very strong believer in AA, which is in large part about addicts getting help from fellow addicts, and most specifically not about "handling their addictions in their own ways."
I think if you paid attention, you might enjoy these things more.
Those questions sucked so much that it was all that the people in line could talk about. Although this moment doesn't eclipse last year's DFW interview with Mona Simpson at the Hammer. That seemed more like an exercise in futility
...yes....paid attention...and maybe read some of mr. wallace's work....to date, he's one of the few author's i've read that make sense of the AA philosophy in a realistic way...and therefore would be a perfect person to ask such a question to....that it in fact does have something to do with him and his work....and is not only the subject of a few of the books he's read i'm reasonably sure but had quite a bit to do with the subject matter of one of his most impressive works, infinite jest...i know it's a long book, but you should think about reading it....it might be the best book you've ever read...i thought so....
...yes....paid attention...and maybe read some of mr. wallace's work....to date, he's one of the few author's i've read that make sense of the AA philosophy in a realistic way...and therefore would be a perfect person to ask such a question to....that it in fact does have something to do with him and his work....and is not only the subject of a few of the books he's read i'm reasonably sure but had quite a bit to do with the subject matter of one of his most impressive works, infinite jest...i know it's a long book, but you should think about reading it....it might be the best book you've ever read...i thought so....
...yes....paid attention...and maybe read some of mr. wallace's work....to date, he's one of the few author's i've read that make sense of the AA philosophy in a realistic way...and therefore would be a perfect person to ask such a question to....that it in fact does have something to do with him and his work....and is not only the subject of a few of the books he's read i'm reasonably sure but had quite a bit to do with the subject matter of one of his most impressive works, infinite jest...i know it's a long book, but you should think about reading it....it might be the best book you've ever read...i thought so....
In all fairness, I've never read "Infinite Jest", just some random small stuff and "Consider the Lobster." I think Superba misheard DFW regarding the AA thing (I took notes). He was asked why AA or other addiction groups have not pounced on Frey and his response was as quoted. It's not an anti-AA remark, which I guess you think it is? He went on to explain that it's AA's philosophy not to comment on anyone's recovery process- implying (in my view) that this included Frey's own recovery process, botched as it is.
My point was, and I feel like a bonehead for failing to get it across, that DFW made it fairly clear he had never even read "A Million Little Pieces" and that he really didn't want to talk about it (again, opinion), but the audience persisted. I know if I was doing a reading and all anyone talked about was some hacck's falsified memoir, I'd be pissed. As an audience member, I was annoyed. The Book Club Matron's question wasn't all that interesting, but at least it was about D.F.W.'s writing. The repeated AA questions never addressed addiction in D.F.W.'s work- they just wanted to hear what he thought about James Frey- which after his "I never read him" comment, seemed pointless and stupid.
On the plus side, it's nice to know that DFW fans read LAist.
if i have my sources correct, the questions about frey were about what he did, not how he wrote. It's neither pointless nor stupid to ask an author, especially one whose writing has dealt at times with the writer-reader contract, and one who is a professor of literature and thus expected to have an opinion of the goings-on of peers, what he thinks about these very issues, *especially* when they're current issues. It's fair game to ask Stephen Hawking about the cloning snafu in south korea, even though you wouldn't expect hawking to have read hwang woo-suk's work -- it's an ethical issue about scientists, never mind that hawking's field is about as different as you can get from hwang's.
On the other hand, while asking an author "why do you use such big words" is technically "about his work" it's such an absurdly surface question. Especially for a writer like wallace, who obviously simply has a large vocabulary. What would the asker expect from a response? Is there any way such an answer could offer clarity or understanding into the author's process or allow the reader to take on the works in a new light? And then to give "priapism" as an example? Don't get me wrong, the asker has every right to ask her question and to have a smaller personal vocabulary than DFW. But touting that question as an example of a useful, interesting question of an author and dismissing frey-oriented questions as pointless and stupid seems backwards to me.
Maybe, but the priapism question was funnier.
...funny thing is, i thought the same thing about those words in IJ....i wouldn't have chosen priapism to ask about though...
Actually, I am the one who asked the question. That's why I felt compelled to post here (a friend forwarded me the link to your account of the evening, knowing that I had attended.)
The original question was simply: Can you comment on the Frey affair, please. He answered by suggesting that while there are different kinds of implicit contracts between reader and author, depending on the genre in question--fiction, memoir, whatever--it's possible for that contract to be betrayed. He used the phrase, 'a line has been crossed' and, though careful to note that he has not read A Million Little Pieces, he was very clear, I thought, in indicating the possibility that Frey might have crossed such a line.
Then he asked if the response was enough, was what I had been looking for; drawing me out, like he did the guy who asked about church. I said in response that my understanding was that Frey in his book warns people off of 12-step programs, and that I was interested in what he thought about that, because it's something he has written about very extensively (in Infinite Jest--your not having read this explains why you misunderstood the whole thing, I think.)
He then asked me (a little testily, I thought, which scared me to death practically) if I knew of any twelve-step group that had spoken out against Frey. I said "No", and I was like dang, you asked me why I was interested and I told you, so fleah, and now I am blushing pretty much in plaid. Felt greatly reassured by the response when it came, though, because it seemed clear that this irritation was directed largely at anyone who disrespects the twelve-step traditions regarding public disclosure, and the karmic debt due for that. Friends with me (all very conversant with Wallace and his work) thought the same.
Though Wallace's public commentary on AA is always necessarily cagey, any reader of IJ can see that he feels very, very strongly about it.
All of this seems to jive with my memory, although his first response was "Well, I have an easy out. I haven't read it." I could have sworn that someone then asked him about it again, apparantley dissatisfied with his answer. Maybe he just extemporated w/ no provocation. I don't think I ever insinuated D.F.W. was anti-AA or anything like that, just that the guy HADN'T read the book and seemed a bit peeved off that people kept asking about other people's books.
I'm not saying that asking about James Frey and 'A Million Little Pieces' was a bad question to ask, although personally I would have asked it in a way which would have directly related to him (by way of 'Infinite Jest', I guess?). Perhaps the direct connection is obvious to 'IJ' readers, but it appeared to me, after he said he never read the book, a kind of pointless hypothetical discussion.
Plus, I was cranky after the silly 'God' discussion. It just sort of hit me now that D.F.W. seems pretty uncomfortable doing these Q&A things and his rhetorical strategy may very well be to throw the awkwardness back into his audience's face, leading to extended discussions about things which he initially made clear he either knows nothing about or has no interest in discussing.
Thanks for your reply, btw. The snark should be taken to task now and then.