What did you think? What sentences jumped out at you? What questions stuck with you? (Starts on p. 73 of the new collection of David Foster Wallace's essays, Both Flesh and Not.)

Made me think mostly about the use of language as a way to talk around things, as DFW proposes many people does, but Kate does not in WM.

The debate of femininity is also interesting. DFW mentions that a woman can be objectified and, in Helens case, start a war by just being beautiful and desireable. Conflicts, both big and small, arises with the imposed cause of one person. This is I think a way to easy explanation, leaving out all the complexity that surrounds us.

This essay is so specific, and yet it means so much. DFW's preoccupation with language—examining it, using it, playing with it—is deeply appealing to me, and that preoccupation is in full force here. When he speaks of "ordinary day-to-day language in all its general wooliness and charm," I can't help but be actually charmed…just thinking about how funny and necessary words can be.

Has anyone actually read the book, "Wittgensteins's Mistress?"

I've been laser-focused on the extractability of various sentences in Both Flesh and Not; partly for the purposes of extraction, partly because I think DFW is acutely conscious of what he's doing. When he writes "Markson has written an erudite, breathtakingly cerebral novel whose prose is crystal & whose voice rivets & whose conclusion defies you not to cry," he's writing a blurb, plain and simple. Whether or not that blurb actually appeared on the cover of Wittgenstein's Mistress, it easily could have, and I believe DFW arranged that on purpose. But when he writes this sentence: readmill.com he's sheltering the basic truth of his words in particularities that force it to remain in context.

I read WM a few months ago, in a book club setting. Fascinating and frustrating. Half of us really liked it, but those who didn't pretty much all hated it.

Wow - I now see why so many folks I know have put Infinite Jest on the must read list yet made so little progress. This essay was hard to get through (though, as others have said, beautifully written.) I'm not sure if I want to read WM now, or want to stay as far away from it as possible.

Also, as someone who occasionally writes blurbs, I agree with Diana that the above sentence is exactly that - and am shocked that I didn't notice it when reading.

DFW says about Kate in WM, she "is shouting in to her typing paper's blankness. Her missive is a function of need, not art—a kind of long message in a bottle." And a few lines later, of himself, "I am someone who tries to write; who right now more and more seems to need to write, daily; and who hopes less that the products of that need are lucrative or even liked than simply received, read, seen." p81 These words and those following are so intense, so demanding of the reader, I find them profoundly affecting. This man is desperate to write what to him matters and have others engage with it and I love that. Kendra - IJ is a demanding read, and I think well worth the effort.

I'm with Patricia. I'm fascinated with how DFW contrasts a true writer with Kate. As a character, "Kate is not a 'writer.'" However, the reader is dependent upon her skill as a writer to tell this story, which "is a function of need, not art." The most interesting aspect of this is Markson's novel *is* a work of art (as a general remark that literature is art). DFW elaborates one what a true writer is: "most people who somehow must write must write" (81). The fact that he writes to be "seen" is quite frankly incredible - leading up to the grandest statement: "'I EXIST' is the signal that throbs under most voluntary writing - & all good writing" (83). I have to wonder though if he specifically means the author or the writing itself?

I'm struck by the contrast between Federer and this essay. The first is accessible and rewarding to almost anyone - I first read it before I knew or cared anything about tennis and was so taken that almost any interest I've shown since can be attributed to DFW. Empty Plenum on the other hand, left me with the impression that WM is so over my head that I shouldn't even bother.

WM is actually quite enjoyable, even without knowing any of the stuff DFW talks about/anything about Wittgenstein (see a friend's review on goodreads that addresses this issue: goodreads.com).

Also, keep in mind Plenum was written for a specialist journal (Journal of Contemporary Fiction, I believe?) and the Federer pieces was for the New York times. It's jarring to see them collected in the same space, I guess, but they were originally composed for different audiences.