In 2006, the late David Foster Wallace wrote a story for The New York Times called “Federer as Religious Experience”. In the piece, in the place of the traditional “nut graf” he said this:
Journalistically speaking, there is no hot news to offer you about Roger Federer. He is, at 25, the best tennis player currently alive. Maybe the best ever. Bios and profiles abound. “60 Minutes” did a feature on him just last year. Anything you want to know about Mr. Roger N.M.I. Federer — his background, his home town of Basel, Switzerland, his parents’ sane and unexploitative support of his talent, his junior tennis career, his early problems with fragility and temper, his beloved junior coach, how that coach’s accidental death in 2002 both shattered and annealed Federer and helped make him what he now is, Federer’s 39 career singles titles, his eight Grand Slams, his unusually steady and mature commitment to the girlfriend who travels with him (which on the men’s tour is rare) and handles his affairs (which on the men’s tour is unheard of), his old-school stoicism and mental toughness and good sportsmanship and evident overall decency and thoughtfulness and charitable largess — it’s all just a Google search away. Knock yourself out.
As a postmodernist, DFW is aware of what you’re aware of and he’s going to make you aware of it (and that he’s aware you’re aware). The point I’m going to make is that even if you don’t have to worry about nut grafs, you still ignore the information/ideas/opinions that are “just a Google search a way” at your peril. Search has raised the bar not only on what can be considered timely, but what can be considered novel, thorough, comprehensive, etc.
Thoughts on this?
Well … I’d argue that the big problem with search is that so often it doesn’t give you _context_. I’m not sure it’s raised the bar there.
Google is great for looking up facts about a tennis star (or reading countless blog posts about why he’s The Best Ever or vastly overrated). But it’s not so great at helping you connect the scattered dots, at helping you understand how he fits into the broader history of the sport or what–beyond mere stats–sets him apart from his peers, etc.
This reminds me of the opening lines of _The Catcher in the Rye_: “If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.”
I agree about the role of the writer/artist in making connections, but there are still a lot of people out there creating context. Some do it better than others, some have more influence and bigger audiences, but I still think my original premise holds true:
If you’re going to make something, then the Internet puts pressure on your work to raise above the level of search. Even if what you’re up against is inferior, you still have to compete, right?