Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Interpretation of David Foster Wallace's "Mister Squishy"


         After reading the story "Mister Squishy" by David Foster Wallace and really liking the design of it, I found myself uncertain whether certain aspects were actually there or just something I read into it. So, I looked around online for interpretations of the story, especially one given by Wallace, but I couldn't find anything too useful—and I felt that many popular summaries were doing the story a disservice by describing its marketing language as 'noise' or 'random,' since it appeared as a stream of coherent concepts in my reading. So, here's my interpretation.

         The story is about the deception, manipulation, and unwavering self-interest that underlies the operation of modern corporations, particularly those whose success is highly dependent on the public's perception of the company and its products. The story is set in a downtown skyscraper, and the structure of the story matches this setting, its layers being displayed one at a time in an upward journey that reveals the figures of each lower level to have been duped by someone above.
         At the start of the story we are shown a focus group in progress, and are introduced to its coordinator, Schmidt. Then we are shifted up a level for the first time: it is revealed that the company isn't interested in the immediate results of the focus group, but is instead using it as a component in a larger experiment involving a parallel focus group being conducted with a slight difference. In particular, the group which we are shown is given information on the the processes behind the development of the product (a chocolate snack-cake), particularly the concepts behind its marketing; the other group will not be given this information. The aspect monitored for variation between the two groups is a measure of difference between individual surveys of members within the group, and a single group survey which each group will fill out together; in other words, deviation between their private and public responses to the product—though "public response" is probably too much of a simplification: the story treats groups of people as isolable, abstract organisms, the organisms studied by statistical methods; so really, the group evaluation contains the responses of this group organism.
         Now it seems that the purpose of the focus group, rather than gathering information about consumer response to the snack-cake, is to improve the design of future focus groups. Schmidt, however, informs the reader through glimpses we are given to his thoughts during the session, that the focus groups have no material impact: rather than using the collected data to make inferences about consumer preferences, it is desirable to end with a nebulous analysis which could conclude one outcome or another based on which direction the client company is already planning on moving in: the focus groups can only confirm a decision which has already been made: a deviation on this will result in the termination of the marketing firm. And so, the focus group facilitator, Schmidt, presumes that the real purpose of this inter-focus group experiment is to generate multiple conclusions so that a desirable data set may be selected at a later date.
         Then we ascend another level. We are introduced to the perspective of a member higher up in the marketing firm—Awad, and a peer of Schmidt's who has the favor of Awad: Mounce. Awad shares with Mounce that the true purpose behind the inter-focus group study is to explore a class of marketing strategy where a depiction of the inner workings of the company is the subject of advertising material. So, Schmidt, without knowing it, is effectively delivering to the focus group a primitive form of this behind-the-product advertising, and his peer Lilley gives a similar presentation absent the behind-the-product information to another group.
         Then we ascend another level. We are introduced to the perspective of a member higher up in the marketing firm than Awad: Britton. Britton also has a mentee, who he discusses strategy with while smoking cigars: Laleman. Britton and Lalemen have a sub-surface power struggle between them, Lalemen thinking he is on an approach to surreptitiously overtaking Britton, while Britton is fully aware of Lalemen's machinations. Still, they discuss the future of demographic analysis which they anticipate will be carried out by monitoring websites rather than running focus groups. The only problem is all of the presently employed focus group coordinators. Here is shown the penultimate deception of the plot: the inter-group experiment is actually a device that will be used to demonstrate to the coordinators their own inimical influence on the focus groups, using a statistical argument which the coordinators, themselves statisticians, will be forced to accept, followed by their resignation—or, if they are so unreasonable as to protest, as evidence against any case they may form in a lawsuit regarding their termination. The argument which Britton is devising centers on the fact that humans are random components interfering with the demographic analysis process, and in order to concretely represent this fact the focus group will have a "stressor" appear who pushes the coordinator to behaving erratically.
         There is another character, nearly silent, who plays an important part in my interpretation of the story as a whole: a participant in Schmidt's group, who is referred to as "I" in the story's narration, so that we must identify this character with the narrator of the story; however, the narration is omniscient, switching between the thoughts of many people in the course of the story; so, I conclude that this character is different from the others—he is a meta character who is a character in the story, but also represents the story itself. This "I" is covered in sensors, has been given a script which he must stick closely to, and wears an "emetic prosthesis," that can be used to simulate vomiting. He is the stressor which Britton has inserted in order to effect his strategy of giving the coordinators "enough rope."
         It is important to note also that this strategy of introducing a stressor and observing the results is demonstrated several times in the story (most vividly when Britton has Awad make unwanted sexual advances toward Lilley, just to observe her character), and becomes a symbol for the concept of applying scientific methods in a callous fashion.
         Similarly, by various approaches the concept of the consumer's awareness of marketing activity is presented, the conclusion generally being that at best the consumer has a superficial sort of awareness which the marketing agencies have already easily accounted for.
         Two other facts have evolved in parallel with the story's principle structure outlined above: Schmidt is a deeply dissatisfied person (probably) interchangeable with the typical white collar worker, and Schmidt has been developing (and implementing?) a scheme for injecting a lethal poison into the snack-cakes.

         So, we are introduced to an experiment where one group of people is given the (appearance of the) marketing strategy behind a product, and a control group is not; in this experiment is a character present who will stress the group so that some outcome may be observed (using his emetic prosthesis)—and this character represents the story itself; and, the reading of the story represents a sort of experiment analogous to the inter-focus group experiment: we have just been given a generalized version of the story-behind-the-product—we have been told the story behind products. Thus another layer of deception has been revealed: the real purpose behind the experiment was to inform readers of the more complex and insidious reality behind product marketing—but, this character, who is the story, also played the role of a stimulus used to provoke a reaction which could be scientifically observed, so the story must play that role also, and the author wins the pinnacle seat on the tower of deception, and proves himself the master of calculating manipulation.
         And there's another question left fairly uncertain: did Britton know about Schmidt's development of the poison or not? If so, then the emetic prostheses is supposed to trick Schmidt into thinking that one of the members of his group is vomiting in reaction to a poisoned snack-cake. If not, then the final scene where Laleman notes a chocolate cake stain on Britton's finger, laughing internally in reply, would seem to indicate that Laleman was exulting in consideration of Britton's demise. But, we are informed in the story that the chosen poison would take 24-36 hours to take effect, so I'm inclined to go with the latter interpretation, which seems to imply that the cog-like victims of the marketing machine eventually get their revenge.
         There's also a guy scaling the wall of the building and drawing a crowd that speculates on his activities throughout the story, who in the end, while carrying a gun or gun replica, inflates his costume which bears the image of "Mister Squishy" (the logo for the snack cake company). I see this scenario as representing the reality of the interaction of marketing firms with consumers: the marketers put on a carefully designed show and the consumers are drawn to it inexorably, their awareness of their situation never reaching more than superficial levels, though many take satisfaction in their delusions of knowledge.

21 comments:

  1. Read the story late last night and found your interpretation in a subsequent web search. Thank you for this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really like this interpretation. Perhaps also the climber carrying the gun/gun-replica could be a part of the process of introducing a stressor and then observing the results? Both height and gun illustrative of power, one supposes. What disturbed me most about this story was the way that Schmidt began to see himself as Mister Squishy. I'm not sure what significance this has, if any, beyond the fairly obvious & creepy idea of becoming part of the company you work for, reduced to your role, as Schmidt comes to identify himself with the hilarious and ever-grinning figure of fun he serves, dehumanised. However I feeeeeel that this is a basic reading, and that there could be more going on there...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's been a while since your post but I wanted to comment to applaud your analysis. I just picked up Oblivion this past week having read a couple of Wallace's other books over the past couple of years. I found Mister Squishy to be very concise and reminiscent in structure to Infinite Jest - Wallace sets up the stage with characters, their various vendettas and neurosis etc., and then finishes the story before the "climax" actually occurs. He leaves a lot out there hanging in loose details that are interspersed throughout the narrative in varying degrees of secrecy and verisimilitude, but at no point does it feel unreal, even as he takes us through a quasi- anarchist cookbook.

    In my read through I didn't see it mentioned explicitly that the individual climbing the tower was a Mister Squishy, but the entire situation screamed King Kong to me.

    I was intrigued by the agent in Schmidt's group, and I was wondering if you might expand (I realize it's been a while) on how he represents the story itself, and ultimately the authors relationship to the story? The brief insertion of the first person reminded me a little of some of Kurt Vonnegut's self-involvement in the plot of his stories. Is Wallace inserting himself into the story?

    Thank you so much for your post here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Chris—sorry for my own very late reply: I didn't see that any of these comments were 'awaiting my approval,' as blogspot doesn't send emails on this by default, and I didn't think there was much chance of anyone coming across this.

      It seemed to me that the agent played two roles, one of them within the story that the other on a meta level. Within the story he is part of the experimental apparatus in an experiment designed to prove that having humans conduct the focus groups is distorting the results—though the only thing that matters is that he has sensors and the 'emetic prosthesis,' so that he provides the stimulus and records the results.

      The really weird thing is that the viewpoint the story is written from is omniscient 3rd person, 95% of the time. The only exception is when the agent described above is speaking, then the story switches to first person. There's no transition or anything though, the story just cycles viewpoints like at other times, except that for this guy it switches to first person. If you accept that the only locus for an omniscient narrator in a finite story is the story itself—a bit of a stretch strictly speaking, but the notion of identifying god with existence itself is surprisingly common and I'm confident Wallace knew it well—and the agent is 'I' in the omniscient narration, then the agent is the story itself as well as a character in it.

      If that's the case, maybe the story also plays the role of being a stimulus in a designed experiment—but the creator of the story, hence the designer of the experiment, is Wallace himself.

      Thanks for reading, and thanks for the comment—I appreciate it.

      Delete
  4. I found this helpful. Thank you for posting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I found this helpful (having just finished Squishy for the second time tonight).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great analysis. Just finished this short and thought it was very cool, though I was a bit confused with the first-person insertion into an otherwise omniscient third person story. Thanks for taking the time to write this!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a very good analysis of a v complex story - you opened it up for me and confirmed some interpretational hunches I had, although the story still remains fairly mysterious to me to be honest. In fact I feel a bit like Wallace fell over the cliff edge with these stories, alla Joyce with finnegan's wake... Whilst just about readable, they are so difficult that I think he may have lost the fun bit he often talked about, making the lit. fun enough that the reader wants to do the work.
    Or maybe I'm not smart enough! Honestly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might have just not been in quite the right mood for it, also ;) When I was reading this I was in a rare, energetic, committed mood. If I'd have read it at most any other time, I doubt I'd have put the necessary work into it—and the result of putting as much work into it as I did remains questionable of course. Glad ya liked it, though!

      Delete
  8. Thanks. I'm pretty new to DFW. I just finished Infinite Jest, and struggled through it. But I kind of got used to the way he writes and kind of like it now. I think your analysis is spot on. The layers was a concept I didn't think about until I read your review. The joke's always on the reader with DFW

    ReplyDelete
  9. What if the climber has to open fire on female group leaders group in order to commit the felony that gets Mr. Squishy locked up on the packaging AND to cause a further stressor for the woman since she got out of the awkward sexual advances situation with such deplomacy a different path had to be taken? Maybe I'm being to literal...

    ReplyDelete
  10. What about an interpretation where Schmidt is the DFW and the sales pitch is the story and the behind the scenes sneak peek marketing technique as metafictional deconstructionism and DFW and Schmidt share the same concern that he's not making a difference at all because everyone thinks he's trying to sell them something - and the conclusion of the story is DFW's worst fear realised - that all his idealism and effort is in vain and his craft will be eventually rendered obsolete by some nefarious and expedient corporate plot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The tender ruthlessness with which DFW treated Schmidt and the fact that Schmidt is the only character we ever get to know in any real depth despite the presence of a first person narrator, I think, supports this particular interpretation. This leads me to wonder how one would interpret the fact that Schmidt had this secret lab and plan to inject toxins into the snacks being tested. From my understanding, there was no indication that Schmidt's plans ever made it to the execution stage (but I might be wrong). Maybe they're a metaphor for DFW's abandoned attempts at militant/radical idealism? It reminds me of the last scene in an episode of the show, Black Mirror, which tackles similar themes but in the context of the entertainment industry.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your reply! I had no idea anyone replied, much less read this comment.
      I never thought to factor in the lethal injection into the analogy to be honest... but here goes: DFW talked a lot about fiction's power to be 'redemptive' and 'nourishing', and if Schmidt's motivation for wanting to poison his product was disillusionment in the craft of marketing and market research, then if we read 'marketing' as 'fiction or metafiction' then the urge to destroy is perhaps the nihilistic part of the human psyche which DFW explored in BIWHM, the idea that 'if it turns out that nothing really matters, then let's watch it all burn.' If my fiction isn't really reaching people, if it's all a performance for performance sake, then maybe the way to make a real difference is to poison it, is to make its normally indiscernible effects visceral, undeniable, brutal, even lethal. I think DFW carried a lot of darkness [see: the depressed person] but always strove to keep his stories pure in that they often described the darkness in horrifying detail but never aimed to inject the reader with it. His stories aimed to make you more aware, and his very best stories offered a way out [good old neon, brief interviews #6] They wanted to tell the whole honest ugly truth.

      Maybe Schmidt's plans to poison the felonies were DFW's way of countenancing/confessing? that a great schemer has only himself to contend with and answer to when deciding what end all his cunning and pretence and manipulative virtuosity should serve. Just my two cents.

      (I've heard of Black Mirror, looks like i'll have to check it out!)

      Delete
  11. I really enjoyed your dissection of the story and also enjoyed reading the comments above. I'm a big DFW fan but only just got around to reading Oblivion, and Mr Squishy in particular blew me away - complexity, layering etc. I love the way the test subjects feel they're so knowledgeable and world-weary and top-of-the-food-chain when they're really right at the bottom. Then again DFW was never on the side of the jaded and the smug.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for the insightful review! A lot of thoughts and connections in there that I had missed. By the way, did anyone else have to smile at the map = terrain thing, so epicly treated in Infinite Jest? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just listened to the story on audible. I'm a driver so I listened while distracted, and but so I read the assassin as Schmidt. I'm on a phone at work so I'll be brief and again I wasn't able to keep up with everything as I said. Wasn't it Schmidt who mentions the aspirin poisoning, after yelling about not being able to make a difference in the world. Can't even ask the woman out, and finds out from a friend that he's working to prove that his job is obsolete. To me it seemed he was the assassin all along. As a way of making a mark on the world the only way he was able.
    Again I'm on a phone and at work so please forgive me not expanding. You're analysis was what I used to put the characters into focus, but I always just assumed the killer was Schmidt. And then when we find out that he knows about his termination by his own hand it seemed to cement it for me. The climber was another element he incorporated and we are left with the job of imagining how it all went down. Poor impotent Schmidt, in the end, made a difference in the only way he was capable. A possible reason for the first person is that now Schmidt has developed a personality, a will.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So great to read everybody's different take on the story!
    I think the guy climbing the wall is more plot based than you mention - he is ANOTHER stressor that Wallace uses (after the narrative ends). He either shoots up Schmidt's or Lilley's group (in tight schedule, like the turtle-necked meta-UAF) to disrupt the TFG, but unknown to the company Schmidt has actually broken enough to go on a serial killing spree and poison his TFG in a last ditch effort to 'make a difference' by attaching a *real* meaning to the 'Felonies!' - like the Mister Squishy shooting from the scyscraper.
    The parallel Wallace draws here is between the functioning business execs and the broken Schmidt, who, whilst their cases are completely different, both decide to commit murder.

    ReplyDelete