Books

'Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story' Is a Short Account of a Too-Short Life

David Foster Wallace was brilliant, famous, and dead before he was 50. This book is the first major biography of a complex man.


Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story: A Life of David Foster Wallace

Publisher: Viking
Length: 368 pages
Author: D.T. Max
Price: $27.95
Format: Hardcover
Publication date: 2012-08
Amazon

I first encountered the name “David Foster Wallace” when I was in high school. There was a “long book club”, a group of kids who would read exceedingly long books for extra credit. One member suggested Infinite Jest, and so I spent the next few weeks buried under Wallace’s many words.

I remember very little of the novel. I remember a tennis prodigy with a drug addiction, and a guy who runs a halfway house. There were tons of footnotes, and it surprised me how willingly I waded through all of the fine-print verbiage.

The book ended without an ending, and I’ve never had a strong desire to re-read it.

However, I did go on to read The Broom of the System and Consider the Lobster. I agree with Wallace’s own assessment of The Broom of the System—a few impressive pages that do not add up to a great book. Consider the Lobster enchanted me. It made the world seem new and exciting. It was addictive.

When Wallace died, I was both shocked and not shocked. It’s rare that a major celebrity, still young-ish, takes his own life. On the other hand, he was so odd, so mythic, that his dramatic death seemed fitting.

When D.T. Max announced his plan to write a biography of Wallace, I took note. Max had already written a mesmerizing book about a bizarre disease that makes you stay awake until you die (The Family that Couldn’t Sleep). He seemed to have a talent for choosing gripping subjects.

I read the Wallace biography hungrily, in just a few days. Here is what I learned.

Wallace had an academic father and a compulsive mother. Mom was/is a strict grammarian. Commas and periods are part of a complex and logical system, and Mom passed on her fascination to her brilliant son. Also, Wallace was never a saint. In childhood, he once became enraged with his sister and dragged her through a pile of dog shit. (One is tempted to become a psychoanalyst, here. The fact that young Wallace could treat another human being so cruelly suggests that he might one day brutally mistreat himself. And one day, he did.)

Wallace went off to Amherst, in part because the school offered him very early admission and he did not want to prolong the stressful process of interviewing. He excelled at Amherst, earning many, many A’s. He also battled severe depression. (I can’t recall Max using the term “bipolar”, but surely Wallace was manic-depressive?) …Eventually, Wallace wrote not one but two theses, one an essay on philosophy, the other The Broom of the System.

You probably know bits of the story from here. The Broom of the System established Wallace as a major literary voice. Girl with Curious Hair followed. Serious addiction problems followed that, along with a stint in a halfway house. Recovery seemed to purify his soul, and led him to his renunciation of irony. Infinite Jest appeared when Wallace was in his early 30s; it was sincere, occasionally moving, and bricklike, and it turned him into a star.

What went wrong? Well, Wallace was very sick and intensely self-absorbed. He went through long periods in which he could not write a single satisfactory word, and this made him feel useless. He was an outstanding teacher, reviewing each student manuscript three times, with three different pens… But when he could not derive pleasure from his own writing, he felt unmoored.

Having gone off his outdated drug of choice, Nardil, he floundered. Life became unendurable. You get the sense that his loved ones were bracing themselves for his near-inevitable suicide.

I won’t quote much here, because Max’s sentences are unremarkable. I will quote just a bit from a Wallace interview with Charlie Rose in March, 1997:

Wallace: Here’s why I’m embarrassed talking about (my addiction), not because—

Rose: I want to know why.

Wallace: Not because I’m personally ashamed of it, because everybody talks about it. I mean, it sounds like—

Rose: In other words, everybody—

Wallace: It sounds—

Rose: Everybody talks about it for themselves or everybody talks about you?

Wallace: No, everybody talks—it sounds like some kind of Hollywood thing to do. “Oh, he’s out of rehab and—”

Rose: No, I—

Wallace: “—back in action.”

Rose: --didn’t say anything about rehab.

I like this because it shows Wallace taling off-the-cuff. You hear his energetic, endearing voice. I would have liked to hear more from him in this biography, particularly from the famous commencement address at Kenyon College, in Ohio, in May 2005.

Granted, there were reams of words that Max had to sift through, and he seems to have the admirable goal of being the opposite of Wallace: That is, he has the goal of being succinct. But Max could have delved deeper and taken longer with this job. Exactly when was Wallace in and out of therapy, and what were his therapists like? What happened in a typical conversation between Wallace and the poet, Mary Karr? How did Wallace’s mother feel about her long period of estrangement from her son? How did the family react to his suicide? And how have critics responded to Wallace’s final unfinished tome, The Pale King? You won’t find answers to these questions in Max’s book.

On the other hand, a small helping of information is better than an empty plate. I will treasure the story of Wallaces’s tattoo: It originally said “Mary”, in honor of Mary Karr, but as Wallaces’s love faded, the tattoo faded and began to say “Marv”. Also, I like the account of Wallaces’s decision to read Alice Miller’s Drama of the Gifted Child. He was reading this because he was angry with his mother. Still, ever his mother’s son, he corrected Miller’s grammar: When Miller used “effect”, Wallace penciled a corrective “affect” into the margin.

You certainly won’t be bored when you read Max’s book. But you’ll wish it were longer.

The experience is like a brief visit with a smart friend from high school. You’ll wish your friend had hung around much longer than he did.

6

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image