Sign in or 
Share this
Jacobs' "American Touchstone: The Idea of Order in Gerard Manley Hopkins and David Foster Wallace"
Summary and Analysis
In Timothy Jacobs’ “American Touchstone: The Idea of Order in Gerard Manley Hopkins and David Foster Wallace,” the author attempts to correlate the intent and aesthetic quality of Wallace’s Infinite Jest to the work of Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. Jacobs’ main contention is that, while separated by eras and nations, Hopkins’ methodology and ideology were a significant benchmark in the style of Wallace’s Infinite Jest. Hopkins’ ideology dealt mainly with the importance of inspiration within writing. Essentially, while competent poetry could be written with familiar themes and styles in mind, advancement, and more importantly true art, can only be created with clearly defined boundaries and a guiding ethos.
While this concept of boundaries seems questionable in the face of a massive work such as Infinite Jest, Jacobs contends that Wallace’s aesthetic rebels against the trends found in many postmodern writers: “Wallace similarly imposes on himself a mandate of aesthetic restraint in Infinite jest that diminishes his presence as author and concomitantly ‘speaks’ to the reader’s consciousness. Wallace’s artifact demonstrates his artistic ideal even as it comments on its own aesthetic limits” (221). The reader becomes more of a participant rather than a spectator. In contrast to medium such as television, the Internet, or even some postmodern literature, the reader must interact rather than sit passively and be berated with a flood of images.
Engaging the reader in conversation stands in contrast to the “irony vogue” that Wallace saw dominating modern literature. Jacobs, assembling an image of Wallace’s mindset, argues that “the muddling consequence of this irony vogue is twofold. First, fiction is increasingly unconcerned about communicating (not didactically but penetrating another’s consciousness) with the reader; and, second, because ‘irony’s singularly unuseful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks’” (217). The fault of postmodern literature is its attempt to create a mimetic parody of modern culture without offering anything that the reader does not already know. The repetition causes the genre to become stale. Jacobs argues that “today’s writers no longer participate in an aesthetic conflict of their own and, instead convey an inherited and diminished aesthetic that benefits neither writer nor reader” (219). Writers no longer have aims in the work. The goal is now simply to regurgitate the advances their ancestors have already laid. This trend has led to a cultural malaise in the field of literature.
With regard to Infinite Jest, Wallace attempts to disassemble this malaise by once again entering into a relationship with the reader. Jacobs argues that Wallace “expects the reader to become engaged with his work…[he] puts a premium on readerly exertion, which accounts for Infinite Jest’s heft” (225). Rather than merely replicate the minutiae of life and the devices of his literary forefathers for no reason, Wallace wants the reader to enter deep analysis of the thousand plus pages. In doing so, Wallace hopes that the work “bridges existential loneliness and American ‘lostness’”(216). Essentially, to make the reader feel included in a culture rather than excluded from it. It is in this aspect that Wallace echoes the aims of Hopkins.
Gerard Manley Hopkins aimed to include the reader in the process . Rather than preach at the reader, or utilize irony in the case of postmodernism, an author must engage the reader in the completion of the text. Jacobs states, “Hopkins further writes that inspired poetry must engage readers by piercing their minds…it is the reader’s responsibility to read and reread, wrestle with difficult material, and finally stamp it on the personal inscape, making it new, vibrant, and distinctive” (227). Making the text a part of the individual reader is the ultimate goal of the author. It bridges the gap between the single body and the culture around them. Wallace finds his inspiration in this. Rather than alienate the reader, as appears to be the goal in much of postmodern work, the goal is to make the reader part of the endeavor. The author offers them images they can relate to, but in a meaningful way. The irony is sidelined in the face of meaning. The author keeps in mind that “what is essential to literature’s ‘sacred’ potential is ‘art’s heart’s purpose, the agenda of consciousness behind the text’” (229). The nature of this consciousness varies for Wallace and Hopkins. However, their aims are the same: to rise above the literary stagnation of their respective times.
Overall, while Jacobs makes several good points regarding the similarities between Wallace's and Hopkin's ethos, the article ultimately seems like a stretch. The shortcoming in Jacobs' work is that there is no direct evidence that Hopkins was a guiding light for Wallace himself. Additionally, claiming that inspirational writing is something shared seems a bit hollow as quality literary commentary. While it seems apparent that both authors had a desire to make the reader an active member of the experience, that can be easily said of many different authors from many different eras. Simply juxtaposing two authors ultimately accomplishes little besides revealing Jacobs' cleverness. The reader is obviously supposed to be an active participant in Infinite Jest. The open ended nature, and the pleathora of supplemental information, makes the novel a different experience for everyone. However, this similarity to Hopkins' ideas of reader importance adds little to understanding Wallace's work. In fact, comparing Wallace to many of his contemporaries is actually the far more interesting study. Jacobs touches upon this, but merely relates it to Hopkins again. Understanding Infinite Jest as a response to postmodern literature adds far more to English studies. Wallace's work is a response to the works of his day. It seems safe to say that he would have been far more interested in responding to the the works of Pynchon and DeLillo rather than carrying on the torch laid down in works like Hopkins' "God's Grandeur" and "The Wreck of the Deutschland." If one considers Wallace as picking up where Hopkins left off, the path of English literature actually seems quite bleak. It would require us to throw away over one hundred years of literary evolution, and that seems like something that benefits no one at all.
Works Cited
In Timothy Jacobs’ “American Touchstone: The Idea of Order in Gerard Manley Hopkins and David Foster Wallace,” the author attempts to correlate the intent and aesthetic quality of Wallace’s Infinite Jest to the work of Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. Jacobs’ main contention is that, while separated by eras and nations, Hopkins’ methodology and ideology were a significant benchmark in the style of Wallace’s Infinite Jest. Hopkins’ ideology dealt mainly with the importance of inspiration within writing. Essentially, while competent poetry could be written with familiar themes and styles in mind, advancement, and more importantly true art, can only be created with clearly defined boundaries and a guiding ethos.
While this concept of boundaries seems questionable in the face of a massive work such as Infinite Jest, Jacobs contends that Wallace’s aesthetic rebels against the trends found in many postmodern writers: “Wallace similarly imposes on himself a mandate of aesthetic restraint in Infinite jest that diminishes his presence as author and concomitantly ‘speaks’ to the reader’s consciousness. Wallace’s artifact demonstrates his artistic ideal even as it comments on its own aesthetic limits” (221). The reader becomes more of a participant rather than a spectator. In contrast to medium such as television, the Internet, or even some postmodern literature, the reader must interact rather than sit passively and be berated with a flood of images.
Engaging the reader in conversation stands in contrast to the “irony vogue” that Wallace saw dominating modern literature. Jacobs, assembling an image of Wallace’s mindset, argues that “the muddling consequence of this irony vogue is twofold. First, fiction is increasingly unconcerned about communicating (not didactically but penetrating another’s consciousness) with the reader; and, second, because ‘irony’s singularly unuseful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks’” (217). The fault of postmodern literature is its attempt to create a mimetic parody of modern culture without offering anything that the reader does not already know. The repetition causes the genre to become stale. Jacobs argues that “today’s writers no longer participate in an aesthetic conflict of their own and, instead convey an inherited and diminished aesthetic that benefits neither writer nor reader” (219). Writers no longer have aims in the work. The goal is now simply to regurgitate the advances their ancestors have already laid. This trend has led to a cultural malaise in the field of literature.
With regard to Infinite Jest, Wallace attempts to disassemble this malaise by once again entering into a relationship with the reader. Jacobs argues that Wallace “expects the reader to become engaged with his work…[he] puts a premium on readerly exertion, which accounts for Infinite Jest’s heft” (225). Rather than merely replicate the minutiae of life and the devices of his literary forefathers for no reason, Wallace wants the reader to enter deep analysis of the thousand plus pages. In doing so, Wallace hopes that the work “bridges existential loneliness and American ‘lostness’”(216). Essentially, to make the reader feel included in a culture rather than excluded from it. It is in this aspect that Wallace echoes the aims of Hopkins.
Gerard Manley Hopkins aimed to include the reader in the process . Rather than preach at the reader, or utilize irony in the case of postmodernism, an author must engage the reader in the completion of the text. Jacobs states, “Hopkins further writes that inspired poetry must engage readers by piercing their minds…it is the reader’s responsibility to read and reread, wrestle with difficult material, and finally stamp it on the personal inscape, making it new, vibrant, and distinctive” (227). Making the text a part of the individual reader is the ultimate goal of the author. It bridges the gap between the single body and the culture around them. Wallace finds his inspiration in this. Rather than alienate the reader, as appears to be the goal in much of postmodern work, the goal is to make the reader part of the endeavor. The author offers them images they can relate to, but in a meaningful way. The irony is sidelined in the face of meaning. The author keeps in mind that “what is essential to literature’s ‘sacred’ potential is ‘art’s heart’s purpose, the agenda of consciousness behind the text’” (229). The nature of this consciousness varies for Wallace and Hopkins. However, their aims are the same: to rise above the literary stagnation of their respective times.
Overall, while Jacobs makes several good points regarding the similarities between Wallace's and Hopkin's ethos, the article ultimately seems like a stretch. The shortcoming in Jacobs' work is that there is no direct evidence that Hopkins was a guiding light for Wallace himself. Additionally, claiming that inspirational writing is something shared seems a bit hollow as quality literary commentary. While it seems apparent that both authors had a desire to make the reader an active member of the experience, that can be easily said of many different authors from many different eras. Simply juxtaposing two authors ultimately accomplishes little besides revealing Jacobs' cleverness. The reader is obviously supposed to be an active participant in Infinite Jest. The open ended nature, and the pleathora of supplemental information, makes the novel a different experience for everyone. However, this similarity to Hopkins' ideas of reader importance adds little to understanding Wallace's work. In fact, comparing Wallace to many of his contemporaries is actually the far more interesting study. Jacobs touches upon this, but merely relates it to Hopkins again. Understanding Infinite Jest as a response to postmodern literature adds far more to English studies. Wallace's work is a response to the works of his day. It seems safe to say that he would have been far more interested in responding to the the works of Pynchon and DeLillo rather than carrying on the torch laid down in works like Hopkins' "God's Grandeur" and "The Wreck of the Deutschland." If one considers Wallace as picking up where Hopkins left off, the path of English literature actually seems quite bleak. It would require us to throw away over one hundred years of literary evolution, and that seems like something that benefits no one at all.
Works Cited
- Jacobs, Timothy. "American Touchstone: The Idea of Order in Gerard Manley Hopkins and David Foster Wallace." Comparative Literature Studies 38.3 (2001): 215-231.
|
LCortina |
Latest page update: made by LCortina
, Aug 20 2009, 4:07 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by LCortina
9 words added 7 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
Aesthetics
Death of the Author
Gerard Manley Hopkins
Postmodernism
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCortina | Page draft. | 0 | Aug 7 2009, 12:58 AM EDT by LCortina | ||
|
Thread started: Aug 7 2009, 12:58 AM EDT
Watch
Here is a first attempt at summarizing this article. It was actually a little confusing, but I hope this sounds clearer.
|
|||||
Showing 1 of 1 threads for this page
