Misquotes are usually treated as nothing more than careless errors. In a journalistic context, where the truth is supposed to be end-all and be-all, this holds true. In every other context, however, I think misquotes, while inaccurate, can offer an interesting window into the mind of the misquoter.
A misquote happens when the communicator isn’t completely certain about the exact wording of the quote they have in mind, so they take their best guess. Their best guess is first and foremost based on their perception of the original speaker, as the misquoter is trying to figure out what he original speaker most likely would have said. The interesting part of this isn’t the guesswork, it’s the subjective perception the misquoter has of the original speaker, their image of the original speaker through the lens behind their eyes where they view the world.
Perhaps more interesting still is the second part of the process that produces a misquote. This involves the misquoter checking the first version of their educated guess against their perception of the quote itself.
Does this sound right?
While the first version of the misquote may be colored by a personal affinity or dislike for the speaker that isn’t particularly interesting to anyone other than the misquoter, the second version, the version the misquoter releases into the world, is colored by their perception of the message itself. This is what allows the third party, the receiver of the misquote, the opportunity to connect with the misquoter.
So that’s how they see the world… hey, that feels familiar.
DFW Misquotes Wittgenstein
For the type specimen, let’s look at David Foster Wallace’s misquote of one of Wittgenstein’s most famous assertions. In an interview with German TV, DFW was asked if humor could only come out of something sad.
When asked about “big issues” like this, it seems that novelists are expected to come up with an answer more insightful than the average halfway intelligent person could spit out on the spot.
DFW, clearly uncomfortable, eventually said “I know that Wittgenstein believed that the most serious and profound problems and questions and issues could only be discussed in the form of jokes.”
At face value, this does seem to be the sort of insightful and referential answer novelists are expected to come up with. There’s only one problem – this is very different from the quote DFW was trying to recite.
Wittgenstein’s Words
It’s worth noting that the exact quote DFW was thinking of was not a direct quote of Wittgenstein at all — it was Norman Malcom, one of the philosopher’s biographers, paraphrasing something Wittgenstein had once said off-the-cuff in a lecture. The exact quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir is: “It is worth noting that Wittgenstein once said that a serious and good philosophical work could be written that would consist entirely of jokes (without begin [sic] facetious).”
As a paraphrase, this line is intended to communicate a Wittgensteinian concept rather than pass on the great philosopher’s words verbatim. As with a misquote, a paraphrase, though intentional, is intended to accurately translate a tricky concept into an easier-to-understand format.
Perhaps Malcolm’s paraphrase was inaccurate itself. But what really matters is not what Wittgenstein actually said, or even whether Wittgenstein himself said it. The concept, the idea of a meaningful exploration of the human experience told entirely in the form of jokes, had passed into cultural discourse. It became one of Wittgenstein’s most famous quotes (even if it was only his concept) after Malcolm’s book was published.
A Peephole Into DFW’s Mind
DFW’s quote is just that — his own words, spoken as a quote of a great mind perhaps as a gesture of humility or to validate his own concept. His concept: The most serious issues (rather than a philosophical work) can only be (rather than could be) discussed (rather than written) in the form of jokes.
If you’ve read Infinite Jest, this concept will feel familiar. After all, the book endlessly discusses serious issues in the form of jokes. Furthermore, the narrative voice does seem to invite the reader into a discourse of these serious ideas, presented in a humorous way.
A Quote That Stands On Its Own Merit
So DFW badly misquoted a paraphrase of Wittgenstein that, for all we know, was misremembered by Norman Malcolm. But who gives a fuck?
The most profound issues can only be discussed in the form of jokes. That’s a concept worth chewing on, no matter how it came to be.
I’m not sure I completely buy this, but I think there’s some truth to it. My misquote might go something like this: “The most important problems of the human experience can best be discussed in the form of jokes.” You can quote (or misquote) me on that.
Final Thoughts
The “Underappreciated Books” series will resume next week with a presentation of my approach to literary criticism. I’ll try to make it a little less dry and self-absorbed than it sounds. See you then.
Leave a Reply