Active Reading Assignment on David Foster Wallaces

Commencement Speech
I. Acknowledging the Cliche
David Foster Wallace begins his commencement address, ironically, in a rather cliche way. He recounts
some parable story involving two younger fish and an older fish, later the younger fish asks What the
hell is water? He then goes goes to add on to another cliche noting the value of a college education, but
he promises, that unlike other commencement speeches, he will be different.
Of course, I myself am critical of David Foster Wallaces promises, much like Kenyons graduating class.
Will the next nine pages be a sore to read at 1:02 AM? Will he happen to surprise me like many of the
other ARAs I happened to complete? I truly hope it is the latter as DFW has made some rather lofty
claims that his speech will not be like any other cliche graduation speech. However, is it not a cliche to
acknowledge that one may be a cliche?
II. An Atheist and Christian Walk Into A Bar
Yet again, DFW recounts another anecdote, this time about an Atheist and a religious fellow. Serving as
the basis for the rest of his speech, DFWs bar story is rather clever. In this story, he mentions how the
Atheist does not believe in God as he has never been touched by the ultimate G O D. In fact, one time
when he was stranded in a snowstorm, he got on his knees, and prayed to be rescued. The religious man
says to the Atheist, Well you are here. Why dont you believe in god? The Atheist responds that two
Eskimos appeared and rescued him. Now the moral of the story is not to give one side more weight or
correctness, it is to notice the blind certainty of both parties.
At first, I gave way to the religious guy. Continuing to read DFW speech, I realized that there is another
way to look at the situation, and that is that everyone contains a blind certainty. Surely, one can argue
that the Eskimos are a sign from G O D that he exists, but one can just as easily argue otherwise. What is
noteworthy is the blind certainty of both sides; neither side will ever consider the other side UNLESS
possibly, one may have the value of a liberal arts degree, which brings DFW to his next point.
III. Me, Me, Me.
DFW introduces the idea that everyone considers themselves the center of the universe and that every
subsequent choice revolves around an interest that is to our liking- DFW is writing to propose that this is
our default setting that steals the ability to empathise z and see situations outside of ourselves. He tells
the story of the adult trip to the supermarket, and how he can pick apart all the small details or how he can
attempt to empathize with others. DFW is not the only individual at the supermarket; there are others in
his shoes.
Here is the part that surprised me; DFW drops a truth bomb on me. I must admit; I actively seek out
situations that are tailored to my best situations. Sure, if the opportunity ever arises that I must consider
someone elses needs, I, for the most part, will put their needs before me, but I still am biased to seek out
situations that only benefit me. Self-important? Sure some may so, but I am not the only one according to

DFW. He suggests that everyone acts like this; that everyone has a default setting to be arrogant and
have certainties.
IV. The Real Truth
DFW states that the real freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well adjusted and
consciously deciding what has meaning and what doesnt. He states the whole trick to this thing called
life is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness. While the alternative is to be unconscious, have
the default setting always on.
As cheesy as it may sound, DFWs cliche, much like every cliche, has some evident truth to it. One can
wander through life only considering themselves. In fact, many will do so. The effect may be extremely
evident (bachelor, narcissistic) or almost miniscule (caring mother wanting the week to end). Regardless,
the thought of self will always be there unless one challenges it to consider entities other than itself.