Danielle Ohl

ENGL297
Dec. 7, 2016
Rhetorical Analysis #2

Subversion in David Foster Wallaces This Is Water

The graduation speech genre has a few main tropes: There are grand, sweeping

metaphors, unsubstantiated promises of good fortune and feeble attempts at moral guidance. The

epideictic genre is defined by Ciceros grand style these speeches are supposed to be

inspirational and leave recent graduates with a rosy, if not romanticized vision of the future.

David Foster Wallaces This is Water speech offers none of the aforementioned comforts.

Given at Kenyon College to the graduating class of 2005, it discusses lifes tediousness

and encourages the students to try to move beyond their own internal monologues to defeat the

inevitable pull toward boredom and complacency. It is hailed as one of the greatest graduation

speeches of the modern era, if not of all time (Harnett). But that is not what makes it notable. The

speech is an exercise in subversion, as Wallace, at every turn, not only abandons the traditional

trappings of a commencement overture, but also openly mocks them. He speaks not of achieving

the fullest potential and reaching new heights, but of deliberate and difficult choices. He presents

life not as a blank canvas, waiting to be painted with a beautiful brush, but a mundane, inane

struggle we are to find meaning in if only to survive. He broaches suicide in a commencement

speech.

While operating within the norms of the epideictic genre, he employs irony to endear his

audience and overcome the risk of an unshared enthymeme. He also uses simple, conversational
style and unconventional emotional pairing to subvert the commencement speech genre while

holding on to his audience.

His choice is risky. While his speech doesnt go so far as to satire a commencement

address, he does rely heavily on irony and humor and he bank on the fact that the audience will

find his choices meaningful and not offensive. If audience members appreciate the

commencement genre and expect to feel uplifted or even praised, Wallaces speech could fall

flat. As Jane Fife notes in Peeling the Onion: Satire and Complexity of Audience Response,

even when the message is understood, audience members might still reject the method, as with

the New Yorkers Politics of Fear cover depicting President Obama and First Lady Michelle

Obama as a muslim and a Black Panther respectively (Fife, 14). The cover, while explained as

satire, drew ire even from those who understood its intent, including Obama himself (Allen).

The commencement genre has had its share of subversive tactics gone wrong as well. In

her article for Rhetoric Review, Lois Agnew recounts the case of a Rockford College

commencement speech given by New York Times foreign affairs correspondent Chris Hedges. In

his address, Hedges railed against the Iraq War and had to be escorted off stage after boos and

disparaging remarks became so loud, he couldnt be heard. Though many an op-ed declared it

was the speechs political content that got Hedges kicked off the stage, Agnew criticizes that

stance as ignorant of genre. ...Viewing the crowd's reaction to the speech merely as a reflection

of their disagreement with its political content fails to consider in depth how the parameters of an

epideictic address might be expanded to invite the constructive dialogue Pribbenow [the

president of Rockford College] advocates, she writes. She further explains that Hedges failure

does not necessarily indicate the commencement address cannot be toyed with or limited to
comfortable words as many suggested at the time. While Hedges speech attempted discourse

on political turmoil, it made no attempt to form a relationship with the audience or work within

the general framework of the epideictic genre, she writes.

Wallace, however, does. His subversion works because, unlike Hedges, Wallace

ultimately still acknowledges the audience. He manages to subvert genre while working within

its parameters. In an article on commencement addresses as genre in National Council of

Teachers of English, Suzanne Bordelon notes the genres ability to inspire reflection and change.

Wallaces speech does both, as required by this type of epideictic address, but it still ditches the

usual loftiness and grandeur of the high-style speech, seeking to move young hearts to action

(Cicero).

Instead, he levels with students. The literal point of Wallaces speech is to convince the

young listeners who have not yet learned lifes arduousness of the fact that it will be frustrating

and boring and that the only way to escape that is to choose to.The chosen topic isnt exactly fit

for most graduation speakers typical flair. Wallace has no use for the regular grand style of a

commencement address because his goal is ultimately not to inspire or even move to action, but

to plead and warn. He strips the genre of its unnecessary praise because he is asking students to

do the same with their lives. The speech, in its subversiveness, asks its audience to subvert

human tendencies.

Wallaces speech is unconventional from the start. He begins his speech with no

introduction, but a parable. It goes as follows: There are these two young fish swimming along,

and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says,
Morning, boys, how's the water? And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then

eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, What the hell is water?

In a typical commencement address, the speaker might pose as the wise, old fish trying

to impart wisdom of experience onto the younger fish. Wallace, however, flaunts genre and

assures his audience they have no need to worry about a potential didactic lesson. He informs his

audience, This is a standard employment of U.S. commencement speeches the dactic little

parable. His distaste for the stuffy, bullshitty norms of these addresses is endearing, and gives

the speech a sense of directness that others lack. Wallace follows up the parable by informing his

audience exactly what they need to understand about it, an unconventional and ironic tactic that

gives the speech relatability. He said, The immediate point of the fish story is that the most

obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk

about. He continues this pattern of ironic analysis of the speech genre followed by exposition in

the very next sentence, when he admits the stated point of the fish story is just a banal platitude

but that banal platitudes can have life or death consequences, again reinforcing that the simple,

even trite can have huge implications and consequences. He later addresses the main

requirement for graduation speeches and the single most pervasive cliche of the

commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts school teaches its students how to

think. Even when Wallace is in the thick of his speech, and attempting to tell the audience about

the necessity of compassion, he posits Please, don't worry that I'm getting ready to lecture

you These little departures from the main course of the speech serve to draw a line between

other commencement speeches and Wallaces in the minds of his listeners, as the point of his

speech is just as segregated. His deployment of this very overt irony gives the speech a personal,
almost conversational touch. Hes drawing on one enthymeme widespread distaste for the

cheesiness of most graduation addresses in order to introduce another, not yet experienced by

the group of graduates sitting in front of him: The boringness of daily life.

But it is this boringness he makes the case for, and he does it in boring language. While

Wallace is lauded as one of the best writers and thinkers of the post-modern era, hes not exactly

known for his flowery, poetic language. His speech, like his writing, is conversational and

follows an almost stream-of-consciousness type style. His sentences are long, with simple words

that convey profound meaning. He gives a rambling, round description of visiting the grocery

store after a hard day at work. He describes wandering all over the store to find necessary items,

waiting in long snaking lines, interacting unenthused cashiers, navigating bumpy parking lots

and eventually, making a grueling drive home in traffic. His sentences run on, but mimic the way

the mind works. He flits from observation to observation, the way our everyday thoughts tend to

drift. The style manages to be chatty without verging on loquacious. Its easy to follow

Wallaces story and almost be lulled by it which serves to parrot the exact kind of

complacency his speech seeks to disrupt. At one point, Wallace even pokes fun at the audience

for the internal monologue undoubtedly churning in their own heads. As I'm sure you guys

know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive it may be happening right

now, he said.

But of course, thats Wallaces point. His words serve to induce the exact sense of tedium

he wants the students to actively fight against. He chooses flat, unadorned delivery and long,

simple sentences, with none of the dramatic pauses or punchy sentences expected for such a

grand academic occasion.

 It is this that helps buoy Wallaces final tactic: Earnestness. Wallace finds a way to make

emotional appeals without using the strong, emotional language that usually accompanies

graduation addresses. Instead of drawing on traditionally pilfered feelings of nostalgia, pride and

excitement, he draws from dread. What emerges is an interesting take on Aristotles paired

emotions. Instead of using calmness to quell anger or friendship to overcome enmity

emotional pairs one might expect from these ceremonial orations he uses describes

all-encompassing tedium and dread in order to instill a sense of energy in the audience. He gives

a no-nonsense account of the terribleness of everyday life in hopes his audience will never fall

prey to the type of mindlessness he describes. ...If you really learn how to pay attention, then

you will know there are other options, he explains while revisiting his drab description of a trip

to the grocery store. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow,

consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that

made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.

This last clause is the closest Wallace ever comes to the traditional grand commencement

speech. He tempers it in his next sentence by saying, Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily

true, but his point has been made. Hes been able to arrive at meaning without using the usual

avenues. Through his ironic exposition, conversational tone and unconventional pathos, Wallace

disrupts expectations for the graduation speech, but arrives at a conclusion his audience can

nevertheless find comfort within. His point is potentially more profound than any arrived at via

grand style, as are the implication of his methods. Wallace ultimately proves what is possible

with epideictic, ceremonial rhetoric and expands the genre for further experimentation.
 Works Cited

Agnew, Lois. "The Day Belongs to the Students: Expanding Epideictic's Civic Function."

Rhetoric Review 27.2 (2008): 147-64. Web.

Allen, Mike. "Obama Slams New Yorker Portrayal." POLITICO. N.p., 13 July 2008. Web. 11

Dec. 2016.

Bordelon, Suzanne. "College Commencement Addresses as Overlooked Rhetorical Sites."

National Council of Teachers of English 61.3 (2010): 510-33. JSTOR. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Fife, Jane. "PeelingThe Onion: Satire and the Complexity of Audience Response." Rhetoric

Review 35.4 (2016): 322-34. Web.

Harnett, Emily. "How the Best Commencement Speech of All Time Was Bad for Literature."

Literary Hub. N.p., 17 May 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.