I really enjoyed reading David Foster Wallace’s writing—despite the frequent use of his favorite word SNOOT. He writes with a sarcastic, superior tone (which he admits to having), making it enjoyable to read his opinions. I could see how some people would not enjoy him, but I, personally, like his dry humor. Wallace writes in a way that makes it feel like you’re having a conversation with him, like you’re listening to him talk, rather than reading an essay. His use of footnotes adds even more of his own voice and humor to his work. One of my favorite footnotes is in the beginning of his essay after his use of the phrase “historical context.” He says in his footnote, “Sorry about this phrase; I hate this phrase too… I actually tried ‘lexico-temporal backdrop’ in one of the middle drafts, which I think you’ll agree is not preferable” (623). Wallace pokes fun at himself and his love of words, explaining that his love began when he was young. Aside from entertaining footnotes, Wallace’s main topic is questioning the meaning of words and rules of grammar. He questions the definitions in the many dictionaries and wonders why we believe in them. I’ve contemplated this same thing on many occasions when I’ve had nothing else better to do. Who had the time to define all of these words, and what makes them correct? Why should we believe what they think a word means? These questions can never really be answered, and part of this is because the English language is constantly evolving. He makes an interesting point saying common words like “clever, fun, banter, and prestigious entered English as what usage authorities considered errors or egregious slang” (627). But look how these words now are in our dictionaries and are acceptable by society and English teachers everywhere. I never realized how interesting lexicology was, and how enjoyable an essay in a reading and writing could be.
No comments:
Post a Comment