The
work published after a great writer's death often disappoints. Consider
Hemingway's True at First Light, or Nabokov's notecards for The Original of Laura, or the work Elizabeth Bishop declined to publish
during her lifetime, which fills much of a recent volume of her collected poetry. These books are unformed and unsatisfying; they
speak of a need alien to the person who wrote them: a publisher's need for
revenue; an audience's hunger for more by a beloved writer. Reasonable readers
may suspect that David Foster Wallace's unfinished novel The Pale King will fall into this category. We don't know how
close Wallace was to finishing his book when he committed suicide, in
September, 2008: was he halfway done, or had it already assumed a more or less
finished shape? But The Pale King is
not a rough draft or a collection of disjecta
membra; it is not, like Dickens's The
Mystery of Edwin Drood, a half-finished cliffhanger. Thanks to the extraordinary
efforts of Wallace's editor, Michael Pietsch, The Pale King is as complete a novel as it needs to be. At times I
found myself thinking it was the best thing David Foster Wallace had ever
written.
As
those readers who have awaited its publication already know, The Pale King is about the Internal Revenue Service. More
specifically, it is about certain events which seem likely to take place at the
IRS's Regional Examination Center (REC) in Peoria, Illinois: the implementation
of a change in the way personal income tax forms are reviewed. I am not
revealing anything important about the novel when I tell you that these events
do not, in fact, take place, or at least they haven't happened yet by the time the
story stops. It's about as unpromising a subject for a novel as anyone has ever
thought of, but that's the point: The
Pale King is about boredom, the way Wallace's 1996 novel Infinite Jest was about entertainment.
In
fact, The Pale King is almost
completely unboring. Like Infinite Jest,
it is written in discrete sections, from multiple points of view; but where the
earlier novel was a three-stranded narrative braid, the new one is a collection
of fragments which whirl around a central mystery, or void. Narrators appear
and vanish; conversations take place between unnamed interlocutors. And yet the
reader rarely feels lost, in part because Wallace is such a good contextualizer
of esoterica (I couldn't vet a Form 1040 after reading The Pale King, but I do imagine that I learned something about the
inner workings of the IRS), and in part because there isn't much pressure to
assemble the pieces into a whole. Wallace wrote that he wanted this book to
have a "tornadic feeling," and it does: what the novel offers is not
a Pynchonian conspiracy (even if it wanders into that territory from time to
time) or a Proustian closed circle, but an untotalizable collection of lives,
which, like most people's lives, have only the vaguest of plots. Their only
certainties are death and—sorry—taxes. If Wallace had worked on it for ten more
years, The Pale King would probably
be longer, but I'm not sure it would be any more complete, and I'm not sure I
would want it to be. If the restructuring of the Peoria REC were narrated, for
example, and not left as an exercise for the reader, it would (like the "Assassins
des Fauteuils Rollents" subplot in Infinite
Jest) become actually boring.
One
of the recurrent narrators in The Pale
King is a certain "David Wallace," whose purported memoir this
book is. The conceit could be cloying, but Wallace handles it with a frank
humor which (mostly) disarms its narcissistic irony. "Consider that in
2003, the average author's advance for a memoir was almost 2.5 times that paid
for a work of fiction," Wallace (or "Wallace") writes. "The
simple truth is that I, like so many other Americans, have suffered reverses in
the volatile economy of the last few years...." It makes sense to talk
about money in a novel about taxes, but the more striking grace of this section
is that it is free from the staging of obsessive doubt that regularly paralyzed
Wallace's short fiction. In its place is something weirdly like authority.
Elsewhere in "Wallace's" preface (shifted into the body of the book
for obscure, spurious legal reasons), he makes claims about the importance of
his material with apparently little irony, or maybe none at all:
Fact:
The birth agonies of the New IRS led to one of the great and terrible PR
discoveries in modern democracy, which is that if sensitive issues of
governance can be made sufficiently dull and arcane, there will be no need for
officials to hide or dissemble because no one not directly involved will pay
enough attention to cause trouble. No one will pay attention because no one
will be interested, because, more or less a priori, of these issues' monumental
dullness.
The
idea may not be original, but it is compelling. In a world which is populated
by prefabricated forms for social and personal expression, maybe power belongs
not to the celebrity with a million friends, or followers, but to the engineer
writing specifications for the next generation of code. Maybe, pace Pynchon,
real power is not secret so much as it is boring.
For
the most part, though, the characters in The
Pale King don't care about power. They're lackeys, cogs; they just want to
survive the tedium. If there's anything at the heart of the story's tornado, it
is the question of how to go on living. One IRS examiner, witness to horrific
events as a child, keeps herself going by means of cruel, unfunny practical
jokes; another falls back on her beauty; a third sees ghosts. The longest and
best section of the novel, which tells the story of how one IRS examiner found
his calling, culminates with an end-of-the-semester lecture given by a substitute
teacher in the Advanced Tax class at DePaul University. The lecture is "an
hortation," an encouragement (a form at which Wallace excels: among his
posthumously published works is This is
Water, a commencement address). The speech goes on for
pages, but its point is this: "Enduring tedium over real time in a
confined space is what real courage is. Such endurance is, at it happens, the
distillate of what is, today, in this world neither you nor I have made,
heroism."
It's
hard not to think of Wallace himself here. Enduring tedium over real time in an
enclosed space is what writers do, and no one was better at it than David
Foster Wallace, whose focus on every minute feature of his imagined world, from
the clinking pulleys on a gas-station flagpole to the rubber thimbles on the
IRS examiners' fingertips, was unequalled by any contemporary American writer,
living or dead, with the possible exception of William Gaddis. Wallace's
suicide in no way detracts from his heroism in this regard. His death is an awful
fact, but it is also like the endings of his novels, all of which break off in
medias res: an incompleteness which makes what is there all the more vivid, and
valued.
Please sign in to add a comment on this article.