Technical Editing Reading Reflection David Foster Wallace "Tense Present"

1. What was your initial response to the text? Think about how it resonated in the body. What sensations did you experience?


My initial response to the text was of shock and intrigue. At first, I did not want to believe the accusations he was making about the dictionary and the way we accept definitions of words. I almost felt kind of stupid because I naively trusted the sources who wrote the dictionary and told me what to believe about a word. It also made me question myself and the overwhelming, immediate trust I give to authors. In terms of body sensation, it made me feel like I needed to get up and do something. It made my back straighten and my brain buzz with questions and the need to explore other texts and societal norms I trusted without question. It was an invigorating sensation that really made me aware of the texts surrounding me.


2. How do you usually respond to challenging texts that seem to defy convention?


My initial response to challenging texts that seem to defy convention is to at first, be hesitant. I always want to trust myself over a new source’s opinion because I have believed one way for so long. Yet, I make myself stay open to other possibilities as they unfold to allow new perspectives to enhance my view or actually show me a difference. That is the way I approached DFW “Tense Present.” I was not actually aware of all the conventions he was going to defy, as I went into the reading blind, so at first it did catch me off guard. But then I read and listened and tried to decipher what I could about his view versus mine and realized that there are more features to writing than I had originally believed.


3. To what extent is Wallace defying convention? Amplifying convention? What are some of the effects of his style?


Wallace is defying convention by making us question norms we thought we knew. He begins with the most trusted word source in society: the dictionary, and makes the reader wonder why they immediately trusted that source without anything real to back it up. From a young age, teachers, parents, and peers have told us that if we have a question about a word, our first stop should be the dictionary. Yet now DFW is asking us why we trust that as our first place of resource instead of the society around us which is constantly changing and evolving with language. In terms of amplifying convention, he goes back and forth between having a meaningful sentence versus a grammatically correct one. He amplifies that “there exists a Universal Grammar beneath and common to all languages” which while most know to be true, it’s important to be reminded. When people talk orally, they do not need to use every correct grammatical rule to be understood, yet when it comes to written discussion, grammar can be everything and can change the intention immediately. This is clear through the effects of his style. He travels in-between a clear, academic voice to an informal friend, bluntly telling you how it is. These two styles merge together to give the blunt truth he wants his reader to question and hopefully believe in the end.


4. How do you imagine Wallace’s relationship with his editors? Do some quick searches to see what you can find out about these relationships.


Without researching and just using this article to infer, I believe his relationship with his editors was difficult and they were at odds. He mentions in the footnotes how his editors will probably remove or delete parts of what he says. He is a very blunt, brutally honest writer about the topics he wants to inform people over. His editors would have to work with him to dial that back to an acceptable tone in order to not aggravate and estrange an audience while still teaching them what DFW wanted the reader to know.


When I looked it up, there was an interview with Deborah Treisman his editor of 15 years. She seems very fond of DFW mentioning that the work he would send her would have been edited and cleaned up 5 or so times before she even saw it. Then they would communicate through voicemail on corrections. DFW did not like to communicate via email and instead would use the phone. I can see DFW as having a strict view of grammar and sentence structure. I think he is a very polished writer and knows that it takes many drafts before even an editor should see it. This dedication is what made him a good writer.


5. How do you think you might manage working with a stylistically idiosyncratic writer like Wallace? Have you in the past? Are YOU an idiosyncratic writer? How can you begin to forecast working with editors who are helping you publish your work?





Personally, I don’t think I would do very well working with someone like DFW. My strong suit is NOT grammar or sentence structure so I would have to do a lot of learning, research, and practice before I even tried to edit something of his. He is also very blunt with his criticism which I appreciate as a reader, but I do not know how I would handle it as his editor. I would not call myself an idiosyncratic writer. I do like papers to look a certain way aesthetically, but I don’t have a specific style I always try to emulate. When it comes to working with editors over my work, I always try to remember that they are there to help me become a better writer and to get my writing to it’s best. It is always hard to hear when you did not do well, but I know that it has to happen in order for me to grow as a writer.