David Foster Wallace in the #MeToo Era: A Conversation with Clare Hayes-Brady (Steve Paulson, Los Angeles Review of Books)

TL;DR

The archive's fullest #MeToo-era scholarly reckoning with Wallace and gender, in Hayes-Brady's own voice a decade after his death. She holds two positions at once without softening either: Wallace was "the greatest writer of his generation," and Wallace was a misogynist and a "violent partner" whose conduct "shouldn’t be forgiven and shouldn’t be overlooked." Her central diagnosis is cultural, not just biographical — that Wallace's abuse of Mary Karr got "folded into this myth of genius", the "myth of the male genius" that lets us say "boys will be boys — or geniuses will be geniuses." She frames the recent criticism not as a #MeToo product but as an overdue, necessary backlash after a decade of near-hagiography (she dates "Wallace Studies" to Carlisle, 2009). On the litbro reputation ("lit-bro shorthand," "books that literally all white men own") she concedes the diagnosis — she was herself introduced to Wallace by exactly that guy — but argues the reputation has paradoxically opened the scholarship to women and scholars of color. On the ethics of reading badly-behaved writers she gives the line the Krug piece would later borrow — "I don't think there is a straightforward answer" — and draws a reader/critic distinction, opposing the refuse-to-teach gesture (Amy Hungerford) as counterproductive, preferring to read Wallace alongside "less heard from" writers.

Key claims

• The two-handed thesis (from the intro and throughout). Introduced as "a rock star in the world of Wallace Studies": "While acknowledging his misogyny, she also believes he’s the greatest writer of his generation. So instead of ignoring his work, she wants to engage with and interrogate it."
• Why the criticism now. Not principally #MeToo: "there was an inevitable critical backlash that was really necessary." The first post-death phase was "celebratory and the criticism was almost hagiographic", the field "clearing the critical ground". She dates the field: "the phrase “Wallace Studies” was first used, I think, by Greg Carlisle in 2009", aspirational — the idea that Wallace is "as important a writer as Woolf, as Joyce, as Eliot, as Austen".
• The Karr conduct record (recapped by the interviewer, affirmed by her). Paulson quotes Karr's tweets — "The violence #DavidFosterWallace inflicted on me as a single mom was ignored by his biographer & @NewYorker as ‘alleged’ despite my having letters in his hand", and "tried to buy a gun. kicked me. climbed up the side of my house at night. followed my son age 5 home from school." — plus D.T. Max's "threw a coffee table" / "tried to push her from a moving car", and "he even offered to buy a gun to kill her husband." Hayes-Brady calls it "a litany of seriously inappropriate and dangerous behavior", takes issue only with Karr's word "ignored" (Max's biography does include it, if in less detail), and praises Karr's bravery.
• The myth of the male genius (her central frame). The abuse "was folded into this myth of genius — you know, the behavior of a troubled genius that became part of the story"; "maybe he was given a pass because this is what tormented geniuses supposedly do." Her name for it: "This is the myth of the male genius", the cultural reflex of "Well, boys will be boys — or geniuses will be geniuses."
• Was Wallace a misogynist? (verbatim.) "Yes, is the short answer. But I don’t know anyone who’s not a misogynist, and I’m including myself. We live in a culture that teaches us from birth to devalue the achievements and desires of women." She distinguishes degrees, then: "Yes, Wallace was a misogynist and much of his work deals with misogyny", noting "how self-aware and even self-deprecating he is." On Brief Interviews with Hideous Men: "he talked specifically about the misogyny in that book — about a fear-based misogyny that he was investigating." (This restates, in 2018, the fear-not-triumph reading she gave in 2016.)
• The litbro reputation, conceded and complicated. She cites New York magazine ("Wallace […] has become lit-bro shorthand") and Deirdre Coyle in Electric Lit ("Wallace is on a list of books that literally all white men own"), does "not dispute" them, and admits "I was introduced to Wallace by a guy in my college class who fulfills precisely those criteria" — "a writer who’s very attractive to a particular group of young, earnest, smart, white men." But she argues the scholarship pushes back: "that reputation for being the lit-bro emblem has actually opened up the scholarship in some ways", with "a large number of really brilliant female scholars" and "gifted scholars of color", so that "gender in particular is something that you can’t avoid now in Wallace scholarship" (race "beginning to happen" too).
• Era-defining by non-readers. Asked if Wallace is the greatest of his generation: "Yes, I do." What makes IJ era-defining "is actually the number of people who know about it but haven’t read it" — a cultural touchstone with "its own signification without necessarily people having read it." ("You can use it as a weapon. It’s like a doorstep.")
• The ethics of reading (the borrowed line). "Should we stop reading these writers who've done horrible things?" — "It’s a valid question. I don’t think there is a straightforward answer, but I would draw a distinction between choosing as a reader and choosing as a critic. As a reader, choosing not to read a writer for any reason is absolutely valid." She opposes the critic's refuse-to-assign gesture (naming "Amy Hungerford, who’s talked about refusing to teach or assign Wallace anymore") as invisible and polarizing, and reports "young, early career female scholars of Wallace who have been strongly criticized by other feminist scholars for studying Wallace at all." Her own practice: read Wallace "in conjunction with writers who are less heard from" — she pairs him with Porochista Khakpour. The close: "The world would be quite a boring place if we only read works of art by virtuous writers", while holding that "Wallace was a violent partner and behaved in ways that are simply unacceptable and shouldn’t be forgiven and shouldn’t be overlooked"; "Possibly that’s a cop-out because I like reading his writing. I don’t know."
• Prescience sightings. She points to "the teleputer in Infinite Jest, which more or less predicted Skype and even more than that, predicted things like Snapchat and Instagram" and the filters we "use to present a face to society"; and notes the corner of the internet that "maintains that Wallace predicted Trump in Infinite Jest in the character of Johnny Gentle".

Theories & evidence

THEORY: Wallace was a misogynist — but the misogyny in his fiction is fear-based and investigated, not endorsed, and the man's conduct is distinct from the work's self-awareness

• Crux: wallace-misogyny
• Stance: advances
• Evidence:
  • [secondary] The flat answer: "Yes, is the short answer. But I don’t know anyone who’s not a misogynist, and I’m including myself. We live in a culture that teaches us from birth to devalue the achievements and desires of women." — misogyny scaled as cultural baseline, then Wallace placed on it.
  • [text] "Yes, Wallace was a misogynist and much of his work deals with misogyny" — with the self-aware/self-deprecating qualifier.
  • [author] On Brief Interviews: "he talked specifically about the misogyny in that book — about a fear-based misogyny that he was investigating" — Wallace's own account of the book's project.
  • [secondary] The conduct record affirmed (Karr's tweets and Max's biography, recapped by the interviewer): "a litany of seriously inappropriate and dangerous behavior", "Wallace was a violent partner".
  • [inference] The distinction she insists on: the work's investigated, self-aware misogyny does not excuse the man's behavior, and reading the work does not require excusing it — "I don’t know that we need to excuse the behavior in order to read the work."
• Notes: ATTESTS-adjacent but SECONDARY on the conduct facts — Hayes-Brady is a scholar affirming Karr's first-person record and Max's biography, not a witness. This restates and dates (2018, #MeToo era) the fear-not-triumph reading her 2016 Great Concavity appearance (gc-ep021) gave the theory record; the new material is the explicit yes to "was he a misogynist" (in 2016 she bracketed the biographical question, "I didn't know him") and the coupling of that yes to the male-genius diagnosis below. Counter-tension she raises herself: she universalizes misogyny ("I don’t know anyone who’s not a misogynist"), which cuts against a Wallace-specific indictment — recorded per the completeness clause.

THEORY: The male-genius myth — Wallace's abuse got excused because a "troubled genius" is culturally licensed to behave that way

• Crux: male-genius-myth (proposed — not in the theory registry)
• Stance: advances
• Evidence:
  • [secondary] The mechanism named: the abuse "was folded into this myth of genius — you know, the behavior of a troubled genius that became part of the story."
  • [inference] "maybe he was given a pass because this is what tormented geniuses supposedly do" → "This is the myth of the male genius."
  • [inference] The cultural reflex: "Well, boys will be boys — or geniuses will be geniuses" — the excuse-form the myth takes.
• Notes: Proposed coinage, in-file only. Weighed against minting: the male-genius myth is a reception/cultural-excuse frame, not a plot or interpretation crux of the novel — exactly the class the archive's Medvetz/consecration-backlash scaffolding models and keeps OUT of the theory registry, keyed to wallace-misogyny / ij-boys-book. It is recorded here as a proposed slug because it is the intellectual center of this interview and recurs across the reckoning literature. RULED at the audit: NOT minted — it is reception/cultural scaffolding of the Medvetz class and resolves as a wallace-misogyny sub-frame; this block is its record.

THEORY: The recent criticism is a necessary, overdue backlash — not a #MeToo artifact — that has matured Wallace Studies

• Crux: ij-boys-book (reception anchor; wallace-misogyny alongside)
• Stance: complicates
• Evidence:
  • [secondary] "there was an inevitable critical backlash that was really necessary" — after a "celebratory," "almost hagiographic" first decade.
  • [secondary] The litbro diagnosis conceded: "Wallace […] has become lit-bro shorthand" (New York magazine); "Wallace is on a list of books that literally all white men own" (Coyle) — "I would not dispute that", plus her own introduction "by a guy in my college class who fulfills precisely those criteria", Wallace being "very attractive to a particular group of young, earnest, smart, white men."
  • [inference] The paradox she advances: "that reputation for being the lit-bro emblem has actually opened up the scholarship in some ways" — a "large number of really brilliant female scholars" and "gifted scholars of color", so "gender in particular is something that you can’t avoid now in Wallace scholarship."
  • [secondary] The gatekeeping cost, on record: "young, early career female scholars of Wallace who have been strongly criticized by other feminist scholars for studying Wallace at all."
• Notes: Reception-side; complicates rather than rejects the boys-book charge — she grants the reputation and argues it has been generative for the scholarship rather than merely disqualifying. Keys to ij-boys-book (the reception-fight anchor, verified in the theory registry) with wallace-misogyny alongside; per the Bissell/Medvetz precedent this litbro-cycle material is reception scaffolding that stays out of the theory record.

THEORY: The ethics-of-reading question has no clean answer — but the critic's public refusal to teach a badly-behaved writer is a counterproductive gesture

• Crux: ij-boys-book (reception/critical-ethics adjacency; no plot crux)
• Stance: entertains
• Evidence:
  • [secondary] The borrowed line: "I don’t think there is a straightforward answer, but I would draw a distinction between choosing as a reader and choosing as a critic."
  • [secondary] Reader's freedom affirmed: "As a reader, choosing not to read a writer for any reason is absolutely valid."
  • [secondary] The critic-gesture opposed: "Amy Hungerford, who’s talked about refusing to teach or assign Wallace anymore" — which Hayes-Brady reads as invisible and polarizing.
  • [inference] Her alternative: read Wallace "in conjunction with writers who are less heard from" (she pairs him with Porochista Khakpour).
  • [secondary] The close: "The world would be quite a boring place if we only read works of art by virtuous writers", alongside "Wallace was a violent partner and behaved in ways that are simply unacceptable and shouldn’t be forgiven and shouldn’t be overlooked" and the self-aware "Possibly that’s a cop-out because I like reading his writing. I don’t know."
• Notes: This is critical ethics, not an IJ-interpretive crux, so it is logged against the reception anchor rather than minting a slug. It is the span the Krug WaPo note cites ("I don't think there is a straightforward answer") — this note is its primary home. Recorded here because the read-him-or-not debate is a live reception thread the archive tracks.

Sightings in passing (no blocks)

• media-prescience: "the teleputer in Infinite Jest, which more or less predicted Skype … Snapchat and Instagram" and the presentation-filter point — the standard fulfilled-prediction reading, asserted as fact; consistent with the archive's baseline, no new weight.
• gentle-electorate: the internet corner that "maintains that Wallace predicted Trump in Infinite Jest in the character of Johnny Gentle" — name-checked (she waves it off as "comic relief"); a 2018 sighting of the Gentle→Trump mapping.
• silenced-feminine: Hayes-Brady is the archive's originator of this slug (gc-ep021's granola-cruncher/Philomela argument), but she does NOT restate that reading here — this interview is reception/ethics, not the silenced-feminine textual argument. Recorded as an authorship pointer only, not a sighting of the theory itself.

Themes

Wallace and gender (misogyny as cultural baseline vs individual conduct; the fear-based misogyny of Brief Interviews); the myth of the male genius (the cultural excuse that folded abuse into legend); the litbro readership and its paradoxical opening of the scholarship; the ethics of reading badly-behaved artists (reader vs critic; the refuse-to-teach gesture); the maturation of Wallace Studies (hagiography → necessary backlash); media prescience and the Gentle/Trump discourse.

Cross-references

• gc-ep021-clare-hayes-brady — the same scholar two years earlier; the fear-not-triumph misogyny reading and the silenced-feminine argument originate there. This 2018 interview is the #MeToo-era restatement: it hardens the "was he a misogynist" answer to a flat yes and adds the male-genius frame.
• krug-wapo-dfw-fateful-correspondent — quotes this interview's "I don't think there is a straightforward answer"; this note is that span's primary home. Krug supplies first-person conduct testimony where Hayes-Brady supplies the scholarly frame.
• walden-lrb-diary-davids-presence and karr-suicides-note-annual — the first-person women's voices (memoir; elegy) behind the conduct record Hayes-Brady reckons with as a critic.
• dtmax-every-love-story — the biography whose handling of the Karr material Hayes-Brady defends against Karr's "ignored" (it is included, "not in as much detail").
• conversation-murphet-ij-at-30-uneven and kelley-whats-so-funny-about-ij — the 2026 anniversary reception poles (prosecution; normalization); this 2018 interview is the scholarly reckoning upstream of both.

Notable passages

• "I don't think there is a straightforward answer" (on whether we should stop reading such writers)
• "This is the myth of the male genius."
• "Well, boys will be boys — or geniuses will be geniuses."
• "Yes, is the short answer. But I don’t know anyone who’s not a misogynist, and I’m including myself."
• "he talked specifically about the misogyny in that book — about a fear-based misogyny that he was investigating." (on Brief Interviews)
• "I was introduced to Wallace by a guy in my college class who fulfills precisely those criteria."
• "that reputation for being the lit-bro emblem has actually opened up the scholarship in some ways."
• "The world would be quite a boring place if we only read works of art by virtuous writers."
• "Wallace was a violent partner and behaved in ways that are simply unacceptable and shouldn’t be forgiven and shouldn’t be overlooked."
• "Possibly that’s a cop-out because I like reading his writing. I don’t know."