Conversations with David Foster Wallace

Mischief: A Brief Interview with David Foster Wallace

101 Mischief: A Brief Interview with David Foster Wallace Chris Wright/1999 From Boston Phoenix, 3–10 June 1999. © 1999 by the Phoenix Media/Communications Group. Reprinted by permission. Don’t expect to find any rakishly charming Don Juans in David Foster Wallace ’s new collection of fiction, Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. More neurotic than erotic, the book delves (with some glee, we might add) into the mire of modern romance through a series of fictional Q&As. With characteristic flair, Wallace subverts the form by omitting the questions, marking their absence with a Q. We caught up with Wallace in New York, a day after he read to a packed house at the Harvard Film Archive, and found him to be tired and full-bladdered, but not at all hideous. In the spirit of his book, however, we adopted the Brief Interview format for our ten-minute discussion. Q: A: What do you mean? Q: A: Not suffering fools gladly is a euphemism for being hostile and snapping at people, and I can’t remember ever having done that. Q: A: Yes, no. The thing is, sometimes you’re concerned with Q&As being boring , so it’s tempting to make sport of people just to keep things interesting. That can be mean. I think I perhaps do that. 102 CONVERSATIONS WITH DAVID FOSTER WALLACE Q: A: I think, um, the car crash is less important than turning to your friends and seeing the expressions on their faces. And them seeing the expression on your face. I’m more a reactor than a spectator. Does that make any sense? Q: A: No, I’m glad you’re being honest. We left [Boston] at six o’clock this morning. I feel that people are asking perfectly reasonable questions and I’m just ranting. Feel free to cut out major nouns. Q: A: Between you and me, it’ll be closer to fifteen, ’cause the next guy’s not calling till 5:30. Actually fourteen, ’cause I need to piss. Q: A: I don’t think it’s really quite the same as being unable to walk down the street without girls trying to tear your shirt off. Q: A: No, the test is actually how many of them read it. Q: A: That’s very nice of you, and I applaud your discernment and all that. The stuff that I cut my teeth on, the stuff that I really like to read, struck me as being challenging but also just fun as hell. I think a lot of avant-garde stuff in the U.S. has lost touch with the fun—you know, has flown up its own butt. Q: A: Say the quote again. Q: A: Ha! Q: A: At first when people said that about Infinite Jest it hurt my feelings. All writers want everybody to love them. But, you know, for me to do what I do and have some people like it—that’s going to have to be enough. When reviewers structure entire reviews around how fatigued they were when they CHRIS WRIGHT / 1999 103 tried to slog through the book—yeah, that hurts my feelings, and I think they’re being peckerheads. Q: A: Oh no, I’m not talking about you. Q: A: Attention is not the same thing as affection. I’ve finally figured that out. Anyway, my bladder begs. Is this gonna be enough? Okay. I apologize for any incoherence. Feel free to edit it however you like. ...