The “And but so”

September 20, 2008 § 7 Comments

Now reading: Infinite Jest.

Google “and but so” and you get over 200,000 hits.  As in any Google search for something not a salable product, most of it is coincidental or indecipherable junk.  Of the first 100 hits, the vast majority of comprehensible sites are instructions for using conjunctions, and reviews of, excerpts from, and parodies of David Foster Wallace.

On the basic, sentence-by-sentence level, it’s kind of his trademark — what he’s known for.  And I think it’s most prevalent in IJ, although it pops up everywhere.  Most writers don’t have any sort of grammatical or syntactical trademark, simply because their goal is writing transparent prose.  This was not DFW’s goal, although I think he comes closest to writing transparently in this book.  (Of course, it was not Hemingway’s goal either, whatever he might have thought about it.  There are all kinds of self-conscious writing.)

DFW was obsessed with grammar, usage, sentence structure.  It was more or less second nature to him.  A lot of those pages I mentioned above dismiss “and but so” as a tic, an annoyance, or an affectation.  But I think, given his level of attention to and control of the building blocks of his work, that it behooves us to think about it when he chooses heterodoxy.  Why “and but so”? And, although I probably won’t get into it too much, why “like,” which he also uses selectively?

FIrst of all, it’s important to note that it is “and but so,” not “and, but, so.”  It’s not bifurcated in meaning, as in something like “And, but so many of us can go to the pool.”  It is a kind of unit, and perhaps in time it’ll become “andbutso,” like “insofar.”  DFW breaks it up (“but so,” “and so but,” etc.), with meaning sometimes importantly varying (see p. 77 of my 1996 Little, Brown first paperback, Kate Gompert explaining her condition — another absolutely great and heartbreaking section: ‘”And so,’ she said, ‘but then I quit.'”), but I think that it mostly indicates exactly what it should indicate: the sentence or clause it introduces is, or could be, or seems to be (probably most often the second or third) an extension of, potential contradiction of, and logical conclusion to the preceding.

Now, it’s used in dialogue, in internal monologue or ventriloquized thought, and in narrative exposition (these last two being extremely tricky to separate and define, in IJ).  I suspect, therefore, that DFW heard it in actual usage and did not simply concoct it one day in grad school as a writerly trademark, which seems to be how some of his detractors view it.  I suspect this because DFW was one of our great writers of voice and dialogue, an unjustly overlooked aspect of his work.  I’m talking about verisimilitude, not content, here.  He got phrasing, pacing, tone, and the translation of all of that into typographic symbol just right, when he wanted to, which is almost all of the time in this book.  And he would not use “and but so” in dialogue if he hadn’t heard it.  And I think he’s right; if you listen, I think you’ll hear it more than you think.

Like “like,” the verisimilitude is part of the point.  DFW’s passion for rhetoric wouldn’t allow him to write exclusively prescriptively, and we’ve already had sections of transcribed dialect and jargon.  But he also uses these words because they’re useful, and they do things efficiently that his language could not otherwise do.  (In the case of “like,” there may be a degree of having heard roughly three trillion times from older, prescriptive people how disgusting and pointless and apocalyptic its usage is for the language, and thumbing his nose at that by showing how it is used and useful, as a placeholder while thought takes place or attempts to transform itself into spoken word, or, in “they’re like,” as a casual substitute for “they thought/said/indicated,” or as a carrier of tone, although that tone is typically dismissal, condescension, or indifference, which, granted, were mostly the things DFW was fighting against in his writing.)  By and large, “and but so” is a moment of internal conflict.  It reveals confusion.  It’s a false start of language.  People aren’t quite sure what they mean, and what they meant, but they are obliged to explain.  Using it in a belletristic novel points out how difficult it is for one to know even one’s own motivations and tendencies, much less those of another, much less those of an entire cast of characters (or, in a more day-to-day sense, a whole family, a whole class of students, a whole office). Like a lot of DFW’s writing, “and but so” reveals the anxiety of being human with other humans.  It’s hard to explain something important to yourself or to someone else, hard to get it right, and for all the words he used DFW was always pointing out how the words were not quite right, or not quite enough.


Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

§ 7 Responses to The “And but so”

  • Mathias says:

    Thank you for this analysis, I luckily stumbled upon it through Google. Esp. as a non-native english speaker intricacies like this in IJ are hard to get a grasp on without a little help.

  • […] The Ambiguities explores the phrase well: […]

  • RB says:

    Terrific analysis and insight. I thoroughly enjoyed this.

  • Lewis Hyde says:

    Examples from “Up, Simba,” the essay on the John McCain campaign. Point is these conjunctions indicate paradox: they introduce sentences that could have gone either of two ways.

    On McCain asking for devotion beyond self-interest: “…When he says the line in speeches now you can feel like maybe it’s not just more candidate bullshit, that with this guy it’s maybe the truth. Or maybe both the truth and bullshit—the man does want your vote, after all. ¶ But so that moment in the Hoa Lo office in ’68—right before John McCain refused, with all his basic primal human self-interest howling at him—that moment is hard to blow off.” [Consider the Lobster 166, McCain’s Promise 20]

    As if to say:

    “The man does want your vote, so that moment is hard to blow off”: That is, he’s using his heroic moment as a device to get your vote. Or:

    “The man does want your vote, but that moment is hard to blow off”: That is, his heroic moment is distinct from his current purpose and thus gives us reason to believe he isn’t always self-interested.

    “…If…you’ve started fearing your own cynicism almost as much as you fear your own credulity…, you may find your thoughts returning again and again to a certain dark and box-sized cell in a certain Hilton half a world and three careers away, to torture…and a certain Young Voter named McCain’s refusal to violate a Code…. In your mind, that Hoa Lo box becomes sort of a special dressing room with a star on the door, the private place behind the stage where one images ‘the real John McCain’ still lives. And but now the paradox here is that this box that makes McCain ‘real’ is, by definition, locked. Impenetrable.” [Consider the Lobster 233-34; McCain’s Promise 123]

    As if to say:

    “McCain’s refusal to violate a Code makes him a star and we should believe in him; he’s a hero.” Or:

    “McCain’s refusal to violate a Code makes him a star but we should doubt him; he’s a great actor.”

  • grace says:

    thank youuuuu!!!!!

  • redirect notice says:

    Enjoyed this. I feel a strange tension every time I see “and but so,” or “and then but so,” “and so now,” etc. As if the narration realizes it has arrived at a critical juncture. We hear people start lectures or conversations with “So.” The “and” to me always seems indicative of incompleteness of thought. We have to mentally give space-time to each word, reading “and then but so.” The critical juncture is that a conclusion is being analyzed. Just another paradoxical “ism” of language and speech and everything.

  • Wilson Moyer says:

    Excellent analysis of a brilliant writer’s style. I’m on my second listen through the audio book version of IJ and it’s really striking how seamless the dialogue is. It feels like someone reading from a partially improvised screenplay. And the concluding with the stuff about “anxiety about being human with other humans,” that was really something–a humanist outlook that I think The Man Himself would have appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading The “And but so” at The Ambiguities.


%d bloggers like this: