DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Nicole Seymour

Andrew Bodenrader

First Year Writing

November 1, 2012

Geoff Dyer vs. David Foster Wallace

 

While both Geoff Dyer and David Foster Wallace write in order to inform others with the truth, they differ in personality and writing style; Dyer opens himself up to culture and has a less sarcastic undertone, whereas Wallace dismisses any opposing idea by using sarcasm to get across his points. In Tales of the riverbank, Dyer encourages the reader to leave behind prejudices and fully immerse themself into the culture. In Consider the Lobster, Wallace notes the matters of the lobsters, as well as contributing his own opinion on what culture accepts. It’s evident that each writer has a different motive. Though both writers have a vast amount of discrepancies, they also share some common qualities. All things considered, each writer is distinctively unique.

 

First is the subject of culture.  Both writers have a different approach to culture. As mentioned earlier, Dyer opens himself up to culture; he decides to adapt to his surroundings instead of identifying as an “outsider” or a “tourist” rather. Instead of listening to all preconceptions about Varanasi, he packs his bags and embarks on the adventure for himself. In contrast, Wallace is more stubborn. In a way, he “opposes tradition”. He has completely made up his mind on the topic of lobster cruelty and unwilling to alter his judgments. Though differentiating in this aspect, both writers give a sense of what really occurs at these places. Despite the information normally fed to the public, they supply the public with facts from a first-person point of view.

 

Second is the subject of tone. When reading these essays, both are easily distinguishable from the other. Dyer writes with more serious tone than Wallace; not necessarily dull, but lacks the comicality of Wallace’s noticeable sarcasm. Wallace adds a certain je ne sais quoi to his writing that doesn't go unnoticed; he does not refrain from voicing his opinion in whatever manner he feels is necessary. However, it’s much easier to insert humor and sarcasm to a “ridiculous” place (as Wallace describes) than it is for a “fun” place (as Dyer describes). Nonetheless, they both use sarcasm just in separate ways.

 

Third is the subject of control. It’s evident that Wallace somewhat loses control. His feelings towards lobster preparation cloud his judgment; he is hypercritical about everything. Dyer differs in the sense that he maintains control. Instead of being critical, he admires Varanasi. Having visited it for himself, he gained a new viewpoint. He found that Varanasi was actually quite nice contrary to popular belief.

 

Fourth is the point of reference. Dyer “looks in” and familiarizes himself with the city of Varanasi. Wallace, on the other hand, “looks over”. Wallace “looks over” because he doesn't give the Maine Lobster Festival a chance from first glance. He is immune to shifting his opinion and completely shuts out all ideas competing with his. When it boils down to it, he is honestly just really passionate about his cause, but he could be a bit more open-minded like Dyer.

 

Fifth, and finally, is the aspect of transparency. When it comes to disclosing their feelings about each matter, there’s a notable difference. Dyer conceals his feelings much more than Wallace. Though, he has good reason to. When one is passionate about something, such as Wallace he becomes an “open book”. From this essay, Wallace is an open book when it comes to lobster cruelty. He doesn't bottle up any of his emotions; rather he just picks up a pencil and begins to write every sentiment that comes to mind.

 

Even though there are differences, these two actually share similarities. Both writers are very rich with their writing; the use of descriptive adjectives helps to introduce the setting of each essay. It becomes clear that Dyer presents an enjoyable place (Varanasi), whereas Wallace presents the polar opposite (Maine Lobster Festival). As mentioned earlier, they like to insert mild-to-extreme sarcasm, with Dyer being on the mild side of course. Surely, they both fight their feelings and have a habit of listing and run-ons. With each essay, it’s easy to determine that Dyer and Wallace write with a gradually more rapid movement.

 

When it comes down to it, all writers have similarities among them; but it’s no secret that they share their fair amount of differences. Each writer is unique. Dyer is more calm and collected while Wallace tends to get wrapped in the moment and lose control. Dyer leans more toward being open-minded, yet Wallace closes himself off. They supply the facts as well as provide their opinions on each matter. One never really knows the truth unless going out and finding it out for themselves; that is merely what Dyer and Wallace did. Instead of listening to others opinions, they mutually decided to set out and find the legitimacy of what they've been told. They figured a first-person point of view was the way to go.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.