"Host" by David Foster Wallace

“Host” is by far the most interesting essay that I’ve ever read. David Foster Wallace is critical, thorough, straightforward, and writes in a refreshingly authentic style that kept me engaged. In “Host,” Wallace comments on the corrupt state of the media in general and uses John Zeigler, a conservative talk radio host to convey several of his arguments. A considerable argument throughout the essay is that a bias media (talk radio in particular) that favors conservatism fails to convey a balance of both ideologies to the public. Furthermore, Wallace highlights with logical arguments the flaws of talk radio such as lack of accountability and moral responsibility. He also emphasizes how the business and profit incentive of corporate radio has diminished the original purpose of radio to fulfill social responsibility. I think that the footnote detail of Wallace’s essay provide simultaneous tone as well as strong support for his arguments that make it convincing. Another factor that made his writing so convincing is that he acknowledged the complexities of a judgment or argument. For example, in class we discussed dynamics that support that Ziegler may be a racist but how Wallace says, “…for what it’s worth, John Ziegler does not appear to be a racist as “racist” is generally understood. What he is is more like very, very insensitive…” and he goes on to discuss that it appears Ziegler is racist because of his opposition to political correctness. From the discussion in class, it seems that Wallace is trying to point out that ideally, there should be a strike of balance between political correctness and free speech. Although the combination of the text and the footnotes was initially confusing, overwhelming, and I felt like they slowed me down. But eventually, I began to realize that it was the footnotes that forced me to refocus repeatedly on what Wallace was trying to say and go back over what might be important. I wonder how what inspired him to write his essays in an innovative style.

Bartleby, The Scrivener: A Story of Wall-Street

What I find so genius about the way Melville composed Bartleby the Scrivener is that it is hard to tell whether the narrator is good or bad. The narrator is a safe man who is not a big risk taker, tries hard to conform to societal norms, and it seems that his priorities are having economic stability and maintaining an easy life. Depending on how the story is interpreted, the way the narrator treats Bartleby could be several things: impartial, sympathetic, helpful, or emotionless. Melville puts nothing in clear cut, black and white terms. I wonder about the relationship between Bartleby and the narrator. The narrator tries to connect with Bartleby but somehow he is not able to help him or maybe he does not try hard enough to reach out to him. I am not sure. I also wonder if the narrator and the other characters (Nippers and Turkey) could have helped Bartleby if they acted differently or created a more positive environment in the workplace. Or was Bartleby beyond help? Something else I found interesting is how Bartleby repeatedly says, “ I prefer not to,” whenever something is asked of him. Why doesn’t he just say, “I won’t do it?” From lines 70 to 78 the narrator seems to get frustrated with Bartleby because Bartleby makes it seem as him preferring not to do something is different from not doing something. But it’s clear from the story that when Bartleby says, “I prefer not to,” it means that he “will not” do it.