Today I was discussing some of DFW's word choice with a fellow DFW enthusiast. The particular word choice we were discussing was Wallace's use of the word "diddling" in several instances when describing various forms of sexual abuse. For instance the term "daughter diddling" was used to describe the sexual abuse of some of the daughters of former alcoholics (pardon the lack of a page number). Wallace's word choice bothered me a little bit, but also confused me. It bothered me because it made me feel as though the issue of sexual abuse, especially of children, was being treated as though it were kind of inconsequential and almost amusing. I mean the word diddling just sounds funny. I definitely does not seem congruent with words like "rape" or "incest", which immediately bring to mind all kinds of terrible thoughts and imagery.
So why would Wallace use that word? Ingra Shellenberg, the DFW enthusiast I was speaking with, said that in an unconscious effort never to think poorly of Wallace she has assumed that the word "diddling" was chosen deliberately to provide a stark contrast with the gravity of the issue of sexual abuse, by using an inconguously pegorative word.
I thought of this issue even more looking at the section on Randy Lenz p. 538-548. In this section Lenz's sadisitic animal torture is laid out for the reader with a lack of any kind of judgment. The narrator just tells us the facts, what Lenz kills, how he watches it die, how he hides his penchant for animal torture. There is nothing emotionally charged about this passage, except the emotional interpretation that the facts lends themselves to. And again I thought how could Wallace just put this animal torture out there, just describe it point blank, and then move on like its no big deal. Like, oh and 10 page side note, one way to deal with addiction is to watch cats suffocate in plastic bags you capture them in.
Wallace was known as a really empathic, caring and morally concerned person. So what are these passages trying to tell the reader? How do we make sense of them in the context of what Wallace wanted to reader to get out of the book?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have similar feelings as you about Wallace's word choice in this case. When I first encountered his use of the word diddle in reference to sexual abuse I admittedly laughed, but it was much more of a scoff than an amused chuckle. I also agree with your DFW enthusiast in that I believe there is a sound reason for his use of seemingly insensitive language. I think the incongruity hypothesis is a good one. At the same time, I fear that pejorative expressions like this can be dangerous even when used in jest, because they may unwittingly validate insensitivity to serious issues and furthermore run the risk of desensitizing the audience to hurtful attitudes.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of a class I took recently in which we discussed self-derogatory stereotyping in Chicano film. I argued in a paper that despite the progressive intentions of the in-group's portrayal of stereotypical images and pejorative language, the tactic tends to fail in that it nonetheless incites a humorous reaction and continues to perpetuate negative portrayals through mere exposure. Especially in the case of popular movies, pejorative images, regardless of intention, are easily misinterpreted as a validation of precisely the same abuse they hope to reverse. In Wallace's case there may be less of a risk of this misinterpretation because his audience presumably differs from the demographic watching Born in East L.A. in their active criticism, but one may still question the appropriateness. What about the attack on irony from "E Unibus Pluram"? That is, say what you mean to say rather than saying the opposite of what you mean to say just for entertainment and effect.
I haven't got to that part yet but I would too be disturbed if the word "diddling" is casually used to described something terrible you mentioned in your post. I wasn't too sure of its definition so I looked it up and one of its definition is to have intercourse. Maybe I am going off-topic but I am assuming Wallace wanted to write about that topic in a way that it wouldn't be taken seriously? It is only a fictional book unless some of the things he wrote in there rings some truth to reality. There are a lot of issues that are mentioned through out the book about drug-use, incest, and etc.
ReplyDeleteI'll be the only one who likes this word choice. I found it much sharper, much more unrelenting in its treatment of the diddler that the rest of you. The reason is exactly because "to diddle" carries this frivolous air to it. Rather than seeing that as the author's position on the activity, or used just for a contrasting effect, what if that frivolousness were taken to be descriptive of the act itself?
ReplyDeleteThink about it in relation to the candy discussion from the other post. At issue is an inability to look past immediate pleasures, even though we might know they are bad for us.
This is why I think DFW is being unrelenting in his persecution of the diddlers, because the use of that word is lumping them with the people who watch too much TV or eat too much candy.
Diddling isn't primarily about power, it isn't about mommy issues, it isn't violent, it isn't even really about sex, although all those are involved. Instead, at the fore with the use of the word diddle, is just what you all sensed. Its just playing around, idol meddling, and that is what is so horribly piercing about it.
Using diddle, I think, is DFW identifying stakes in the phenomenon he's observing. Watch too much TV, have too much candy, mess around with your daughter. Symptoms of the infinite quest for jest and that's horrifying.
I agree with twel. When I first read "diddle" used to describe the scenes I was pretty horrified but instantly it made sense in context of the book.
ReplyDelete