It goes without saying that the death of anyone is sad. Then again, maybe not, because if I didn't preface this with "it goes without saying," then I did in fact say it. So maybe it doesn't go without saying, which needs not be explained. Has this introduction gotten self-referential enough for you?
Because it should be enough for fans of David Foster Wallace, an author who I swear I'd never heard of until his death by self-hanging last week. The depths of top media outlets have, in response, spawned a bevy of praise has hit the Internet. (Remember when they talked about Steve Fossett's death, and you felt left out?)
So now I've heard of him. And you, too, can expose your brilliant works of art to the mainstream public just like David Foster Wallace. All you have to do is hang yourself in a fit of postmodern irony.
(Note: Blogcritics Magazine and it subsidiaries do not condone the hobby of wearing a noose. Please consult a doctor before attempting suicide.)
It might have been his intent. Or not. All I know is that Infinite Jest has shot up to #10 on Amazon's bestseller list as of Tuesday evening. This, of course, is the case for anyone who dies, even for people like Kurt Vonnegut, who had already lived a full life and written a full library at the time of his death. I suppose this blends Hunter S. Thompson into the gray area between being in one's prime and dying peacefully.
So where does this put a brilliant man who nobody knows about, such as — oh — me? Well, I'm probably too young to commit self-lynchery. For one, I've yet to birth an illegitimate child, who grows up to both spurn me and generate amazing writing of his own. I've also never been married, which means I have no estranged wife whose name will be the highly empathetic antagonist in my signature book.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ken Lowery
Your ignorance of a topic or person does not make that topic or person silly. But I guess your position as a former sports editor makes you qualified to... sorry, I can't finish that sentence.
Man, what silly tripe.
2 - Kathryn Hedgepeth
Dear Matt,
Please read the books.
Best regards,
Kathryn Hedgepeth
3 - Jose Morales
I'm still not sure as to the intent of this post. Is it denouncing the idea that mainstream media ignores literary figures until they pass away? Or that the average person doesn't bother with a writer's work until they are sensationalized by said media (which explains why more people are familiar with someone like Dan Brown than David Foster Wallace)? Perhaps by distastefully implying that Wallace's self-demise was little more than a marketing ploy (a repugnant thing to suggest, even in jest) Sussman means to deride the idea of suicide in general.
It must be one or more of the above, because naked jealousy would be a piss-poor reason for this article to exist.
4 - Anonymous
Beyond tasteless.
5 - SJ
I congratulate you on your stupidity that doesn't even allow you to recognize what stupidity it takes to write such an article.
David Foster Wallace was recognized nationwide as one of the most important literary authors in America. His essays, published in Harper's Magazine (I am not sure if you've heard of that important publication or not), were filled with wit and questions about contemporary American life. His fiction was funny, wry, tender, and provoking. It had an important influence on writers such as David Eggers, Jonathan Franzen, and many others of his generation as well as the one immediately following.
David Foster Wallace's death is not noteworthy for the unfortunate and sad circumstances surrounding it but because his death is a sad passing of a major intellectual. As such, Americans have lost a writer who has already contributed a great deal, but one whose youth meant he could have written many more interesting pieces if he had lived to an old age. Those who are saddened by his death, including myself, do not thrill at the sensationalistic nature of suicide, but genuinely mourn the death of one of the brightest contemporary writers in America.
6 - Tom Lynn
Matt,
I read Infinite Jest and A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again before he died. They're incredible books. I plan on reading more of his stuff, because I really like it. For you to exhibit this degree of professional jealousy (I'm assuming you fancy yourself a writer) over a great writer who was never really that famous is completely absurd. I'm not seeing a lot of media coverage over his death, so what's your point?
Get over your pride in never having read his books and read them, as Kathryn suggested. They're hilarious, sad, and brilliant. At least have an informed opinion.
Finally: You're kinda cynical. And dumb.
Tom Lynn
7 - Daniel Saez
My God...
Don't read his books. You're going to miss the point anyway...
DFW was a literary genius. A widely known author and his books were translated into many foreign languages.
You`re dumb. And obviously ignorant of the literary movement in your country.
Regards,
DS
8 - laura
This is really tasteless.
9 - Xenzi
Hello Matt,
this is the first time I`ve been on this website. I see that you are a sports expert, so you can`t be expected know anything about David Foster Wallace, which means you would be expected to write a pretty heartless, ignorant article about him, which is perfectly fine.
But why publish it?
Xenzi
10 - Alex E.
If you had never heard of him, then why write about him after he dies? That's a jerk off thing to do. This article is nothing. Reader: If you've scrolled down far enough to read this post you should leave one of your own (because obviously you care) and let's let this ignoramus have it.
11 - Joanne Huspek
Hmm... Unlike the other respondents, I found this article to be quite wry. While I have respect for Wallace's work, the irony is not lost on me.
12 - Pharmakos
Don't read much?
13 - willy
Or for those who cannot produce works of art &/or do not wish to kill themselves, piggyback on the tragic deaths of those who do.
14 - Matthew T. Sussman
Um ... no! You're all the ones who are stupid!
15 - SJ
Mr. Sussman,
You wrote an article in which you callously implied that a writer who suffered from a debilitating depression committed suicide as a marketing ploy.
Then you committed a fatal error in logic by explicitly saying that it is suicide, and other forms of death, that creates a writer's fame.
On the contrary, the death of a writer is only noted when the writer is already recognized. Obituaries in national papers are not written for obscure writers.
Your article is flawed in logic. Moreover, you failed to do even the lightest research on David Foster Wallace before using Wallace's death as a platform for your own twisted understanding of fame and what it might mean to be a writer.
I saw David Foster Wallace speak a couple of years ago. Besides his innovative writing, Wallace was also known as a writer who disliked publicity and considered consumerism of art as something to be shunned (in fact, he spoke partly on that the night I saw him). As such, anybody who is a fan of his writing had very few opportunities to see Wallace in public.
There might be readers who haven't heard of David Foster Wallace or don't know much about him and could read your article. By writing an article that does not take into account Wallace's understanding of writing, but implying the exact opposite of the way Wallace approached writing, you malign Wallace and do a disservice to the reader.
All forms of journalism, whether in print or online, should be held to a certain standard of facts. You have ignored all standards. Perhaps it is only an "opinion" piece. But even then, opinions worth considering are the ones based on facts as well as an interesting perspective.
Additionally, any writer worth his salt would know that the foundation of writing is keen observation, something sorely missing in your piece.
SJ
16 - Ivan Bellman
Wow... I was just thinking how I could not bring myself to share my personal feelings on the topic of Wallace's death or reading his work b/c it would somehow be glomming on to coattails of his room temperature corpse. How does your post benefit you or the world, except by gaining a moment of celebrity amongst his outraged fans?
You, sir, are truly sad.
~IB
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
"You wrote an article in which you callously implied that a writer who suffered from a debilitating depression committed suicide as a marketing ploy.
Then you committed a fatal error in logic by explicitly saying that it is suicide, and other forms of death, that creates a writer's fame."
I never implied the first -- only said it was possible -- and never even came close to saying the second.
Which must mean, with no errors in logic whatsoever, that you absolutely loved my article. I thank you for your support, and will continue to crank out the best I can offer!
18 - TL
I noticed that you commented back to all (Comment 14, above);
"Um ... no! You're all the ones who are stupid!"
Wow, great comeback. [Edited]
19 - km
Wow. Pathetic. This article gives brainless, ill-informed, grossly inappropriate blogging a bad name.
I wouldn't worry about becoming famous as a writer, Matt Sussman--it's safe to say it won't happen to you whether you decide to kill yourself or not.
20 - Pete
Seriously, you'd never heard of David Foster Wallace?
21 - David Hobart
Youre a writer and youve onhestly never heard of David Foster Wallace?
Doesnt matter cause youre a sportswriter? Well so was he, and a damn good one at that who didnt rely on snark and shock value to get his point across like you and all the other mini Jim Romes that litter the internet.
read this and then disprove your thesis please
22 - TL
It's laughable that you try to come off as this controversial shoot from the hip type, and yet I make a sincere inquiry as to whether or not you are retarded and the editors remove it to protect your delicate sensibilities.
I guess I shouldn't ask you again.
23 - K.B.
Why was the comment where Mr. Sussman says that the folks posting under his name before (e.g. the comment "Um ... no! You're all the ones who are stupid!") removed? Was it not true? While Sussman's article was ridiculous, he didn't really say THAT, did he? Because, the comment is still here, but the claim that it and the other two (one removed--the profane one) are still present. Who moderates this? Not Mr. Sussman, I guess?
On topic to Mr. Sussman: Just read some of his work, okay? I recommend starting with Broom of the System, even. Or the short stories in Girl with Curious Hair. Or, you could even read non-fiction in his treatise on infinity called "Everything and More."
Broom of the System was written well before he was known for anything. Same with Girl with Curious hair. Just read them, with an open mind if at all possible after all these attacks. I don't care what you think about his suicide, just read his work, for your own sake. You'll like it, I almost promise.
I am the King of Balls.
24 - Juliann Mitchell
Hi Matt,
It is quite fascinating to read your article and then see the responses which were impassioned to say the least. You know you struck about a hundred nerves with many of the commenters who were quick to point out the merits of Wallace's work. I thinks it takes courage to write a piece that people might not appreciate. Keep writing and just remember controversy sells.
25 - Alex E.
If you Matt Sussman, would like to gain a bit of notoriety, perhaps you could come over. I'd kick you in the teeth. We could film it. Put it on YouTube and we could see if you become famous. Seriously. Remove this article. It's trash and you are uninformed. Writing about people who have made a substantial contribution to American prose after their death is not analogous with writing about your losing money on a Nascar bet. The fact that you had never heard of David Foster Wallace proves your ignorance. What college did you go to? Infinite Jest is in as heavy rotation as On the Road, A Catcher in the Rye and Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. But you've probable never heard of that last book either. It's been compared to Ulysses for christsake. Remove the article.