Eggers must be destroyed!

As various folks are noting, Dave Eggers may have disliked Infinite Jest initially, and in the new introduction, he likes it.  (The Rake wants Eggers to be forthcoming about his change of mind, assuming that's what it is - a change of mind, and not trying to be a cool kid.) 

I have some concerns.

1. Who among us has not changed their mind about a book, reading it years later?
2. Is the author of an introduction required by any sort of standard to own up to previous feelings about a book? 
3. Would you think less of me if I told you that I once very nearly left on a cross-country road trip in hopes of somehow reproducing the experience of On The Road, but that I now find the book somewhat unpleasant?
4. Would you agree that criticisms of John Kerry for "waffling" are in large part spin - that having a nuanced opinion can sometimes be subverted by a soundbite culture and used to an opponent's advantage?  (Note: I wish John Kerry would go away, but nonetheless.)
5. And lastly - most importantly - if this intro were written by nearly anyone other than Eggers, if someone other than Eggers had said one thing once and then another thing, ten years later - would anyone be making hay about it?

I have great respect for the lit-blog folks linked to above, as well as others who have engaged in Eggers Smackdown - but I fail to understand why so much attention is paid to finding the Achilles Heel.  I'm not anti-snark, but aren't there better targets?  Can anyone explain?

Comments

[Dorothy W.]

Excellent questions -- I think you are right that if it weren't Eggers, people wouldn't be making a big deal out of it. Personally, I'd like to keep the right to change my mind!

[Brandon]

Those are good questions. I think everyone has done some sort of flip-flop. I can't think of any books off the top of my head that I've changed my mind about; if I enjoy something the first time around, I'm more receptive to re-reading it. I read "The Great Gatsby" for the first time this year and I was left wondering why people praise it so much. It could be that I just wasn't in the mood for it, but maybe I'll re-read it when I'm older and appreciate it more. As for Eggers changing his mind--well, there's nothing wrong with that. Ten years is a long time and people change. Ten years ago, I thought Stephen King and Michael Crichton were the height of literary achievement. But that was when I was fifteen, and while I still enjoy those authors, I don't think as highly of them as I once did.

[Maud]

I've definitely changed my mind about books. There's no crime in that.

I was surprised, though, after skimming Eggers' glowing introduction to "Infinite Jest," to see the prior review unearthed by the Rake.

I've read Wallace's short fiction, and have at least an abstract admiration for the technical proficiency of it, but I didn't get very far with the novel on two tries and have not recently been tempted to try again.

I'd like to know more about Eggers' change of heart for at least two reasons: I admired the first 3/4 of his memoir, which was clearly influenced by Wallace; and I would be more likely to pick up "Infinite Jest" again if I read a convincing argument that Wallace's work resonates more fully over time or on second reading.

[Matthew Tiffany]

Maud: I agree, and I think you've raised a genuine criticism of the introduction. Hearing about what lead Eggers from one point of view, ten years ago, to an apparently completely opposite view - that would be interesting, and given the challenging nature of the book, might convince even more folks (like yourself) to give it another go.

I think, though, that if he had attempted that sort of personal approach to the introduction, that he would have been roasted for writing more about himself and his literary tastes than about "Infinite Jest" - even if that wasn't his intention.

[Lincoln]

I agree with everything Matthew has said here. I'd also add that the main thing that stuck out to me is that this was not only a really old review, but a review written long before Eggers was any kind of important figure in the literary scene. The review is totally obscure and googling I couldn't find any other evidence of it... which isn't to say I think it is false, but just to piont out that it isn't anything anyone has read (before now) or remembers and Eggers using a lot of time refuting his own old obscure review would be a pretty odd thing to do in a forward.

[Truth will out]

I don't think it was "Rake" that unearthed the previous review. It was wallace-l, a mailing list devoted to DFW. Did this Rake guy mention that? Some years ago, some selfless soul went into library, copied and then transcribed the old review and emailed it to the list (it's not online or in electronical archive).