He took his own life in a cathartic fashion last week. And now I've heard of him.
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?…
Article comments
26 - SJ
Mr. Sussman,
Just because you feel comfortable writing about a topic without having read the necessary sources first doesn't mean that other people do likewise.
You write:
"I never implied the first -- only said it was possible --"
Do you know the definition of imply? You wrote in your article:
"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.It might have been his intent. Or not."
Your disingenuous "Or not" does not undo your intentional misreading of David Foster Wallace's final act. Of course you meant to suggest that his suicide was a ploy for attention as that is the hook on which your article hangs.
While you are understandably inclined to be defensive about the negative comments to your article, you should consider that you wrote a rash article without research and without empathy for a fellow human being who committed suicide after two decades of depression.
On the one hand, I feel inclined to defend David Foster Wallace as a great writer. Yet, I need not defend Wallace at all as his writing speaks for itself. Anyone who has read Wallace would recognize its value and contribution to literature.
On the other hand, I find your article a shallow and substanceless attempt to be a contrarian without any regard for the end of a human life. Your article attempted to devalue David Foster Wallace and his contributions; in the end, you've shown your inability to understand the value of human life and empathy.
Those who called you cynical labeled you correctly. If you wish to write something of value, perhaps you should consider valuing something and someone besides yourself.
There are many great writers, living and dead. If you continue to think that any writer unknown to you cannot be great, you confine yourself to your own ignorance. You might want to consider whether you want genuine intellectual growth. Or not.
SJ
27 - handyguy
Why write this? Really low. The thesis itself is pretty lame, and the title just demonstrates an almost complete lack of empathy or taste. You are capable of better, Matt. For shame, man.
28 - Pete Jr
"The man might be twisted enough to appreciate that effect."
No, he likely would have been bored by your repugnance.
29 - Edwin G. Walls
DFW was very well-regarded before his death and justifiably well-regarded after. To suggest that his suicide is a marketing tool suggests that you have very little knowledge of DFW and his work, and perhaps should have withheld criticism until learning a little more.
30 - Edwin G. Walls
I would also like to add that a writer who does not really know who DFW is (or was) is like a physicist not really knowing who Einstein was. It is kind of a self-admission of ignorance of one's vocation. But even worse, the article is simply tasteless, insensitive, unnecessary and irrelevant.
31 - Patricia Gauss
Someday when (if) you grow up (and you have a LONG way to go), you will be ashamed you ever wrote and published such an article. You are ignorant, uninformed, and immature.
32 - Lisa Solod Warren
Matt,
I can't imagine why you would write a piece like this.....
Wallace was a brilliant writer, known to quite a few readers, both serious and not. A man with a wife and family.
He certainly didn't kill himself to increase his popularily.
Publishing this makes blogcritics look really really bad.
It's infantile and really dumb. What on earth were you thinking?
33 - Paul
Ugly and shameful.
34 - sad man
I'd love to write something that would convey how strangely emblematic your piece is with regard to DFW and his writing. He struggled with honesty, celebrity, irony, and cynicism. You provide a dissertation worth of material in your headline alone.
I guess it's the difference between writing to pay the bills and writing because it's in your blood. Good luck with your career and if you get the chance: check out some of DFW's sports writings. A few tennis articles, as well as a review of Tracy Austin's book. They elevate the genre. j
35 - Read the books.
Tasteless drivel. Glad you attached your own name to this piece, Matt.
36 - Chris McVetta
"Oh, angry mob, is there no problem that you cannot solve with your outrage and torches?" -- Jon Stewart
Well, I have to say, that I understand where Mr. Suss was going with this. And I also understand that there is a certain line that you never cross. There's a comedic "fine line" between making jokes abot 9/11 and The Spanish Inquisition. The first rule of comedy is this: Never joke about things that are TOO SOON.
Matt makes some clever observations, no doubt. That being said, there are still a lot of loyal readers out there who will get upset about ragging on a cherished writer (as well as a fellow human being) who, no doubt, although extremely talented ...had some deep emotional issues (and that, my friends, cannot be discounted).
It's "the Kurt Cobain rule." Take this observation for what it's worth...
37 - El Bicho
Actually, the first rule of comedy is be funny.
38 - Matthew T. Sussman
Dane Cook thought it was, "You don't have to be funny as long as you're remotely sexy and extremely loud."
39 - Alex E.
Haha, how about this for irony? Matt Suss is quoting Dane Cook of all people. The problem is Matt, this article wasn't funny. Not at all. Stick to sports [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor].
40 - Aaron Brewington
I wasn't going to post a response to this article since it is tactless, its thesis confusing, its writer [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] gives sports writers a bad name by trying to capitalize on things he is not qualified to write about, etc., but as a person who writes professionally about sports, I just couldn't stop myself from saying shut up.
Your little experiment is over, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] and you have a bunch of little angry comments here to prove that you are "somebody." Yes, as your article sort of ignorantly implies, negative attention is attention and therefore good. Toddlers know this and act out based on it. But, "it goes without saying," that wasn't his "point" and I find your assessment a sad and lonely philosophy to grab onto since it basically shows a desperation for things that are going to leave you feeling hollow in the long run.
I also don't like being implicated with the likes of sports people like you, the author of this essay, who probably never touched a ball or made the team and terribly wanted to be a "jock" for all that it represents. People forget that DFW, the guy you were writing about, was a college athlete and even wrote sports articles. Don't write anything like this again, please.
41 - Sarah
Matt,
If I was in your current position, I would have realised by this point in time that I had made a serious error in writing this article. From all the negative response to your piece of writing, it is obvious that people view your writing as not solely controversial, but laughable. There are some opinions expressed like yours, which are conveyed in such a way that even though the reader may not agree with them, they can accept that it is a good piece of writing; however the majority of readers cannot respect you in this way. You have allowed yourself to be made a fool by your own hand. I'm sixteen, and even I can recognise that you should stop arguing now, do the honourable thing and simply eat your words. If I can see this, why can’t you? Arguing for the sake of arguing is a petty thing to do.
As a writer, do you have no pride in your work? It would make me cringe to write a piece like this, after having merely read one piece by DFW. His commencement speech reached out to me, his style so easy-going, his meaning made so plain " it had me hooked from the first paragraph. I’ve read more of his work since then, and I feel that if you had read anything by this man you wouldn’t be able to write such an article. Even though you never plainly state your opinion, and organise your thoughts into 'probabilities' and 'theories', your intention is made clear and it is still highly insulting to the death of a great and highly respected author. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Insulting a man after his death in this way shows weakness and cowardice. Would you dare to write such an insensitive piece on a man of his standing in society while he was alive? Or better yet, in a national newspaper? Here lies my point: you shouldn’t write trash like this, if you know that you would never do so in the previous situations I mentioned, because as a writer you are in a position to spread your knowledge to those less informed. By writing such a sloppy piece, by lacking research and accuracy, you are spreading bullshit. As somebody studying English I’m horrified to read this sort of article. Not just because of its content, but generally by your ethic.
I don’t know, you may be one of those guys who doesn’t give a damn what people think about your writing - if you are, then tell me… what are you writing for? They say that this cut throat world can manipulate an honest man’s judgement over time, and gosh I sure hope that I don’t end up being like you. You should know how much the media can spin things the way they want. I have a friend who’s so affected by weight issues brought up in the media, and maybe that’s why I feel so strongly about the media’s responsibility to the people.
I’ve made this way too long, and other people have been far more eloquent. But I can’t believe that I spent so much time writing this to an undeserving man like you.
The sad thing is, they're probably going to cut out half of this, even though I believe that a person like you, could really use criticism like this.
42 - ST
Wow, it's almost like a scene in a David Foster Wallace piece playing out, set to rewind/ff/play at the same time.
Almost.
43 - Jesus
"Personal attacks are not allowed," it says above.
Remarkable, given the personal attack you've perpetrated here on a wonderful human being and the people who loved him.
You should instead pray that you one day possess the smallest fraction of his kindness, humility and humanity. And even with someone like you, miracles happen, and this may one day be possible.
But for you to ever have the smallest fraction of his talent and reputation? Well, keep praying...
44 - Jaideep Dave
Want To Maximize Popularity Like David Foster Wallace? Just Hang Yourself
Or, if that's too hard, you can always write, 'Want to Maximize Popularity Like David Foster Wallace?...'
Seriously, I had never heard of a cretin 'Matthew Sussman' before I read the 'Want to Maximize Popularity Like David Foster Wallace? Just Hanging Yourself' piece. But now, I know who Sussman is.
On a more serious note, get a frigging life!
45 - Joseph Ross
Real writers' works are published on paper.
46 - Jordan Richardson
Real writers' works are published on paper.
Thank god I have a printer.