It's a floor wax and a dessert topping! (UPDATED!)

Was Dave E----- against Infinite Jest before he was for it?  Selections from DE's 1996 review of IJ:

[Infinite Jest] is more about David Foster Wallace than anything else. It's an extravagantly self-indulgent novel, and, page-by-page, it's often difficult to navigate. Sentences run as long as 800 words. Paragraph breaks are rare. Aside from being incredibly verbose, Wallace has an exhausting penchant for jargon, nicknames and obscure references, particularly about things highly technical, medical or drug-related.

When people talk, they "interface." When they think hard, they "wrack their RAM." Things like tennis matches and math problems are described in excruciating detail. He has a fussy way with his adjectives and adverbs, while some -- such as "ghastly," which is used much too often -- have that disingenous [sic] feel that renders the narrative around them impotent.

Besides frequently losing itself in superfluous and wildly tangential flights of lexical diarrhea, the book suffers under the sheer burden of its incredible length. (That includes the 96 pages of only sporadically worthwhile endnotes, including one that clocks in at 17 pages.) At almost 1,100 pages, it feels more like 3,000.

Like, say, Rising Up and Rising Down?  Anyway, fair enough.  I'm sensing a "but":

Still, if you can come to terms with his dense and labored style, the rewards are often tremendous. There's no doubt that Wallace's talent is immense and his imagination limitless. When he backs off and gives his narrative some breathing room, he emerges as a consistently innovative, sensitive and intelligent writer. In particular, while inhabiting the tortured, drowning minds of the addicts, he is devastating. Too often, however, "Infinite Jest" buckles under the weight of its own excess.

OK.  Now the big finish:

"Infinite Jest" also ends abruptly, leaving as many questions unanswered as does Jim's suicide. Like his alter ego's experimental films, the book seems like an exercise in what one gifted artist can produce without the hindrance of an editor. Subsequently, it's also an exercise in whether or not such a work can sustain a reader's interest for more than 1,000 pages and thus find an audience outside academia. Wallace's take on that can be found in the book's apt title. It's an endless joke on somebody.

(We will leave aside the hilarity of Mr. E----- making an oblique dig at someone for operating without the "hindrance of an editor," as much as it pains me.)

Anyway, let's take a look at that brand spankin'  new foreword again, as Mr. E----- (ca. 2006) returns ten years later to praise Infinite Jest to the high heavens.

Hmm:

David Foster Wallace has long straddled the worlds of difficult and not-as-difficult, with most readers agreeing that his essays are easier to read than his fiction, and his journalism most accessible of all. But while much of his work is challenging, his tone, in whatever form he’s exploring, is rigorously unpretentious.

Well, "rigorously unpretentious" (2006) isn't exactly the same thing as being full of "superfluous and wildly tangential flights of lexical diarrhea" (1996), now is it? But let's keep going:

The book is 1,067 pages long and there is not one lazy sentence. The book is drum-tight and relentlessly smart and, though it does not wear its heart on its sleeve, it’s deeply felt and incredibly moving.

Should I even bother pulling a quote out here?  Just glance upstairs again.  Now we have all that "lexical diarrhea" to go with "extravagantly self-indulgent" and "incredibly verbose" and "exhausting...jargon" and "excess" (1996) up against "unpretentious" and "not one lazy sentence" and "drum-tight" and "relentlessly smart" (2006).

Wait, I also see "no discernible flaws" and, Jesus, "Marcel Proust"!  As in:

...Wallace is a different sort of madman, one in full control of his tools, one who instead of teetering on the edge of this precipace or that, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, seems to be heading ever-inward, into the depths of memory and the relentless conjuring of a certain time and place in a way that evokes — it seems so wrong to type this name but then again, so right! — Marcel Proust. There is the same sort of obsessiveness, the same incredible precision and focus, and the same sense that the writer wanted (and arguably succeeds at) nailing the consciousness of an age.

So add "incredible precision and focus" (2006) to stack up against "self-indulgent" (1996).  Hey, this is fun:

The book is approachable, yes, because it doesn’t include complex scientific or historical content, nor does it require any particular expertise or erudition. As verbose as it is, and as long as it is, it never wants to punish you for some knowledge you lack, nor does it want to send you to the dictionary every few pages. (2006)

Vs.

Aside from being incredibly verbose, Wallace has an exhausting penchant for jargon, nicknames and obscure references, particularly about things highly technical, medical or drug-related. (1996)

At least the Daves agree that DFW can be verbose.  But this sucker is either full of "obscure" references or it isn't and it has either no "complex scientific" content or it has "things highly technical, medical..."  Which is it?

It's OK to change your mind, I think we can all agree, but isn't it important to own up to it?

I leave it to you, dear reader.

(Hat tip to the eagle-eyed "r")

***UPDATE: Will charity prevail?  Will Dave's kids be saved?

Comments

[TJ]

Hats off to this post's title.

[matt]

smacks of the desperate desire to cover enough bases to please just about anyone who reads the review - those who may love the work, those who may hate it, and those who would like to do one or the other, but would rather not read it at all. and remember, everyone's opinion is equally valid, so isn't the man who has more than one opinion more valid?

besides, it's a dessert topping, you cow!

[jon curley]

Oh, the vagaries of reputations and reviews.
Foster Wallace is a keen writer some of the time, but INFINITE JEST is a bore. Yes, it "heats up" after 200 pages but, jaysus, life and literacy are short lived. And the pay-off ain't all that much. His other fictions and non-fictions are far better.
cheers, curley

[Rake]

I disagree, JC, although you should check with me again in 2016.

[Jimmy Beck]

Maybe this is how one gets oneself taken off of Snarkwatch.

[BostonBookEd]

Do you think he was worried about this past writing as he wrote this current intro? Is there evidence he was aware? Careful in pressing the matter - Eggers might fall back on attacking editors again, claiming one made him do this. Poor li'l writer...

[Pete]

I can see it now. The Democrats' next great hope: Kerry/E----- 2008! Or, as the campaign will inevitably be referred to by pundits, Waffle House 2008.

[Matthew Tiffany]

I have to wonder how serious this is - waffling? Has no one changed their mind about anything? If someone other than Eggers was involved, would anyone care in the least?

[J Quackenbush]

Is it really all that surprising that Eggers the magnanimous brownnoser who needs friends in his insular world of literary fiction in order to sustain what little credibility he has left is a different animal than Eggers the scrappy kid who will say anything to get attention, no matter how stupid (see eg Heartbreaking work of staggering genius)?

[Rake]

I dunno: What I found striking is that he made diametrically opposing statements, which is much more intellectually troubling than mere equivocation (which "waffling" would seem to imply).

And, yes, he is free to change his mind, as are we all--see second to last sentence. But I would think making a critical 180 requires some explanation, don't you?

Finally, if someone had alerted me to, say, Donald Antrim engaging in this sort of litcrit pirouette, I think I would have done the same thing.

(Theoretical) Antrim's not nearly the cultural arbiter that DE is accepted to be, but fair's fair. It's just that when E----- is involved, I enjoy it more.

[erin]

I think you should submit this post to McSweeney's.

[fairest]

That "hindrance of an editor" jab is very funny.

[Kerry Eggos?]

from http://idea-bot.com/archive/2006_07_01_archive.html

"David Eggers / George Soros Super Team-Up?"

Rumors abound of Dave Eggers of McSweeneys fame teaming up with rich man George Soros in a concerted
effort to take back the White House in 2008. Obviously hoping to avoid the refrain of the "liberal
media conspiracy", Soros and Eggers (dubbed Team Eggos by their disciples) want to keep this "on the
down low", but their secret was unwittingly blabbed by a drunken Jonathan Safron Foer to Shaquille
O'Neal (!) at a ridiculously expensive jaunt at Nobu's this past Wednesday.

[Matthew Tiffany]

Nah. He doesn't need to explain - lord, if I had to explain my behavior of ten years ago. If it was one year on, yeah, maybe a little bit shifty, but ten years. I guess it doesn't strike me as that strange.

[Rake]

I reckon he should (have), though. At the very least, it would have been interesting to see how one makes the intellectual leap from believing IJ is flawed and self-indulgent to thinking it's drum-tight with nary a word out of place.

Most of us don't have to go around defending our changes-in-heart, but then again we're not major voices in American literature, and we haven't been invited to weigh in intelligently on one of the major novels of the last quarter century.

Oh, well. Fait accompli, and all that.

[TB]

"I reckon he should (have), though."

My guess is that given the fact that Dave Eggars wrote that first review in 96, four years before his first book was even published and well before he was a major figure in literature, he probably didn't even remember the review and/or didn't think anyone had read it or knew about it so there was no reason to reference it.

This isn't like Susan Sontag changing her mind about photography and not mentioning her famous book On Photography or something.

[ed]

If this were just a matter of changing one's mind, ALL Eggers would have had to do in the 2006 review is say, "When I first read IJ, I had my doubts. But I found myself entranced with it on a second read." That's it. Nothing more.

And THAT is the problem here, which is why I suspect this lack of critical disclosure is what makes this change of mind suspect. Any other HONEST critic would have said something similar (I know I've changed my mind many times over the last ten years, let alone the last ten days), but the implication with this 10th anniversary intro is that Eggers has loved this book since he first read it.

[Matthew Tiffany]

Where is it implied that he loved it from day one?

[Rake]

I should let Ed answer if he wishes, but until then...

Suppose I review Book X today and call it brilliant but flawed and self-indulgent. Then, in 2016, I write a forward for Book X, proclaiming it perfect. If I choose not to mention that I once found it flawed and/or how I came to find it perfect, I'm (consciously or not) choosing to disassociate myself from the early review.

If you read only my forward from the year 2016, I'm guessing you'd think the book knocked me out from the get-go, rather than assuming that I once found it flawed and changed my mind.

Again, the shift in opinion doesn't make me a bad person--I wouldn't argue against the development of the critical mind. I'm just saying that that shift should be mentioned and included as part of the critical record, if the reflection of my relationship to the book is meant to be fully accurate.

[may barber]

Ed says he wants Eggers to say, "When I first read IJ, I had my doubts. But I found myself entranced with it on a second read."

Does this, from the intro, fit the bill?

"And I can’t say it was always a barrel of monkeys. It was occasionally trying. It demands your full attention. It can’t be read at a crowded café, or with a child on one’s lap. It was frustrating that the footnotes were at the end of the book, rather than on the bottom of the page, as they had been in Wallace’s essays and journalism. There were times, reading a very exhaustive account of a tennis match, say, when I thought, well, okay. I like tennis as much as the next guy, but enough already."

[may barber]

Plus, are we failing to recognize the two fundamentally different purposes of the types of writing he was engaging in. A review is meant to be a critical appraisal of a work. An introduction to a new edition is something meant to celebrate and contextualize the work.

Why would he write a fresh review for an introduction? He says that he was commissioned to write an introduction.

I love gotcha as much as the next gal, but you guys are looking like pissy little babies.

[Rake]

Aw, not the name calling, May. Not the name calling. Why do polite, if humorously pointed, questions bother you so?

Two separate contexts, perhaps, but it's still the same book and the same man. And the need to be honest remains, I think.

If there's a great explanation, I'm open to hearing it (and cheerfully donating to DE's cause). If the reason is "I was paid for it," well, then, that certainly raises different issues, but I will leave them to someone else or, most likely, to no one.

[may barber]

I didn't say you are pissy little babies, I said you "look" like one.

Does this passage in the intro not reflect his original review: "And I can’t say it was always a barrel of monkeys. It was occasionally trying. It demands your full attention. It can’t be read at a crowded café, or with a child on one’s lap. It was frustrating that the footnotes were at the end of the book, rather than on the bottom of the page, as they had been in Wallace’s essays and journalism. There were times, reading a very exhaustive account of a tennis match, say, when I thought, well, okay. I like tennis as much as the next guy, but enough already."

I'd be more into your "humorously pointed questions" about Eggers intellectual honesty and consistency if you'd put your own money where your mouth is and admit that this isn't some kind of noble quest for the truth, but rather your shot at making Eggers look bad, something you seem to really want to do.

I love the free-swinging opinion, but in my book, being so disingenous about your own motives says hypocrite, spelled, b-a-b-y.

[Rake]

I hate to be a bother, but I pretty much want the truth. Feel free to keep ad hom'ing, if you like.

1) I couldn't get an answer in a thousand years, for various reasons, so I humorously offered an enticement--i.e., money where mouth is--that (seriously) will be paid if DE drops even a few sentences into the blogosphere. I'm assuming here that he has a sense of humor, this being the guy that writes funny books and once led the world to believe that Adam Rich was dead for no particular reason.

2) What follows that passage you're so fond of is: "And yet the time spent in this book, in this world of language, is absolutely rewarded."

So, yes, he admits that he read the book at age 25 and that it could be tough going. No, he doesn't say anything about the review he wrote at the time.

Now, if you read that review, does it reflect a novel that is "absolutely rewarding"? I would say not. It's the classic mixed review, leaning to the negative. It ends by calling the novel, or parts of it (as I read it), an endless joke. It calls the novel (and not just the placement of footnotes) frustrating, exhausting, verbose, tangential, self-indulgent, superfluous, and containing (lexical) diarrhea.

Of course, a shift in opinion is a part of the good reader's journey, but that journey isn't represented in this foreword. It would have been interesting to know how these flaws became virtues, and why, but I'm not seeing it and I wish I knew.

(I bombed out after 250 pages of IJ, started again, made it, and was terribly disappointed with how I was left hanging by the sloppy ending. After hopping online and reading a bunch of reactions and criticism and thinking about it quite a bit, I decided that I hadn't been left hanging at all, how it was all part of the novel's beatiful construction--it wasn't a loose, baggy monster at all, really. I admired the audacity of the book on first read, and as time passes and I read more novels (and more pale imitators of DFW), I can appreciate the accomplishment of the book as well as the audacity. At least, that's how I, the Big Baby, would relate my story with the novel.)

You ask for celebration, and I see that. You also ask for him to "contextualize" and I would think that that includes situating the work within not just American lit and the critical reactions of others, but also one's own initial critical reaction.

[may barber]

"Of course, a shift in opinion is a part of the good reader's journey, but that journey isn't represented in this foreword. It would have been interesting to know how these flaws became virtues, and why, but I'm not seeing it and I wish I knew."

A valid and interesting question and one I'm interested as well. Too bad all your posturing and tweaking has obscured it.

(Though I don't think that a writer is obligated to write what I or anyone else thinks they should. Nor should they suffer unfair criticism for failing to do so.)

No, this claim that all you want is the "truth" is patently ridiculous and belied by your updates, your snotty commentary when you link to the writing center page, the gang mentality, the undeniable quest for attention (which I fell for) and all that. It's a pissing match (or would be if Eggers cared to piss back) and every time you post and claim that you're after "truth" and the like, you come off worse and worse.

[Rake]

Yeah, there are serious points hidden in the jokes, and they're easier to notice when you take your fingers out of your ears and stop screaming "HYPOCRITE!" Literary goofs are basically what I do around here. Well, when my gang of smartasses and I aren't busy taking down mini-multimedia empires by the sheer force of our typing.

I also enjoy teasing children and paying $109 for attention from humorless prigs. I can only hope to make that money back from selling my book, How I Took Down McSweeney's By The Sheer Force of My Typing.

What I see as your finest quality is that you admit there's something to discuss, but instead of elevating the discourse, you'd rather feed me both barrels of your schoolmarmish disapproval.

I hate to disappoint you, but this isn't the first time I've had a wagging finger pointed at me, and we're not giving out any merit badges for Concern Trolling.

[may barber]

For a guy who seems to revel in calling them as they see them, you sure do get pissy when someone does the same back to you.

Look, I get it, you want to take the piss out of Eggers and you feel like you've got a nice little cudgel here so you're trying to work it. No beef from me there.

My point is merely to note that your contention that you're doing so in search of some "truth" is ridiculous, something I suspect you know as well and is probably pretty obvious to anyone who bothers reading any of this.

[Rake]

For a number of reasons, it's impossible to take the piss out of E. (Think back to that time the person from the Harvard Advocate jokingly asked him if he was taking steps to "keep shit real".*) Thus, it's hilarious that people are sincere in screaming "Takedown!"

I don't for a second believe I could honestly make a kitten's scratch in this guy, and, if I did, I wouldn't be going about it this way. I do think that it would be lovely if he actually took up the challenge, however. (Which he won't.)

You're giving me a light workout with all this ad hominem and the staunch refusal to 1) argue substantively or b) believe me when I tell you that couched within the smartassed methods is the real desire to know why he didn't address the 1996 review. (See: 1 or b! That was a joke!)

But, honestly, I'm having a good time and I think for your hard work at earning my distain you deserve a glass of red wine and some lorazepam. Check the couch cushions, if necessary.

*Here:

http://www.armchairnews.com/freelance/eggers.html

[ed]

Like Rake, I'm at a consummate loss as to how our merry pranksterism is (a) hateful of Eggers (I certainly don't hate the guy and have, in fact, offered as many plaudits his direction as I have criticisms), (b) an effort to "take Eggers down" (from what exactly? McSweeney's will still go on publishing whether we're here or not and that's perfectly fine with me), and (c) a hypocrisy, predicated upon a legitimate criticism parlayed into an impish and undeniably adolescent gimmick (i.e., have any of us EVER pretended to believe something we're not; please cite an example, May).

The real question is what happened to Eggers' sense of humor over the years. Eli Horowitz and Heidi Julavits are all right by my book. But Eggers? The notion of spending endless amounts of time protecting your reputation (or not DEFUSING this little issue with a response, which he could have easily done by answering here and which could have actually built a good deal of Eggers love for his critics) is about as impossible as the DOJ trying to enforce a zero tolerance policy on crime.

[may barber]

Loathe as I am to ascribe different reactions to differences in gender, maybe it's a male/female thing. What you call merry pranksterism and impish I see as something that at some point jumped the line to a desire to shame this guy publicly simply because you feel like you have the upper hand this time.

To me, it's ugly,and certainly not in tune with (particularly Ed's) usual balance of the serious and playful. (I'm not a regular reader of Mr. Progess. He seems more easily threatend that my Ed.)

I don't think Eggers will take up the challenge either. I actually share an interest in knowing if and how Eggers' opinion has changed or evolved on the book, but you boys carrying on in this fashion as made it almost impossible for him to do so.

It's like the fastest gun in the West being continually called out by the local quick draws. Respond to one of these things, one-hundred others pop up instantly as others see it as a route to status and attention. Yet you guys even refuse to acknowledge this. If he doesn't respond it's because he's a pussy or has lost his sense of humor.

This is where the unfairness comes in. I think the initial bringing to light of the old review was great, interesting, brilliant, a fruitful path for discussion. The "impishness" since has been a steady move to put Eggers into a box he can't escape from without taking a bullet one way or another. You claim that you actually want him to respond, but if your true motive was a response, you would have stopped well-short of this other B.S.

(And not to put down the reach of your collective influence, but what makes you think that Eggers even knows of the existence of your challenge. He could be in Darfur for the weekend for all any of us know.)

Sure, he's a famous author, he can take it, you can't hope to even make a "chicken scratch" in this guy. I dunno if this is true or not. That Ed seems to think Eggers has lost his sense of humor seems to suggest that maybe he has been scratched. I just keep thinnking that this guy is a human being, has done nothing to harm anyone, and then finds himself the target of something like this. I suppose it goes with the territory of success.

I chose to call that part of it ugly.

[Rake]

Infinite jest, indeed.

I suppose you fail to see the humor in calling me (over)sensitive when, in fact, you're the one taking personal umbrage over an "adolescent gimmick" on behalf of someone you don't know.

This is not an attempt at shame, nor is it a gunfight. I get that you think this is unfair and untoward, but you're merely affirming the premise of the joke, which is that people hate it when the rabble gets out of pocket, even in jest. And, dear me, let's not allow any naughty questions about possible inconsistencies, especially when we have to ask them of well-known, talented people. (Certainly only JEALOUSY could be the motivation.)

The acts of jesting and questioning (or both) are not ugly. They're quite beautiful, in fact. Very egalitarian and levelling. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

[ed]

May: Again, precisely HOW are we shaming Eggers? Shame implies that we are going out of our way to humiliate the man in total. But how is asking for an explanation "shaming" Eggers? I see no personal attacks directed here towards Eggers. I see a funny stunt. Perhaps not a substantive exercise, but one predicated upon a substantive issue concerning reviewing ethics.

To look at this another way, if I asked Rake a question for why he nabbed an MFA and has made fun of MFA workshops on his blog, would this be "shaming" Rake? No, it's asking for clarification for something I'd view as an inconsistency in this scenario. If Rake asked me why I actually enjoyed the film SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE when I saw it at the Sacramento Inn theatre on opening day in 1987 and why I make fun of it now, he wouldn't be "shaming" me if he asked me for an explanation, which would in turn cause me to explain why SUPERMAN IV and SUPERGIRL are in my DVD collection.

This is what's known as civil discourse. While THIS particular road to civil discourse is certainly paved with wiseacres like Rake and me, the end result, nevertheless involves a clarification of issues. I don't believe either of us intend Eggers any malice. I know I certainly don't.

Whether Eggers still has a sense of humor is, as I indicated above, a side issue.

[may barber]

One more time because either I'm doing a lousy job explaining where I'm coming from or you guys are willfully misunderstanding, but to be clear.

1. Mr. Progress seems to think I either take this personally, or, I have a resentment of "when the rabble gets out of pocket." To reiterate. I have no beef of any kind (personal or otherwise) with you fellas calling attention to the inconsistencies between the review and the foreward. As I've said several times, I think it's an interesting and worthwhile discussion, one I'd love to see.

2. In my opinion, at some point, your little game went from impish to ugly. My belief is that it was done in an effort to make Eggers look bad. You deny this. I'm telling you how it comes across as an outside observer. (For this, I'm labeled "schoolmarmish" and told to fish out my anti-depressants and alcohol. Oh, right, that's jokey. My bad.)

3. Stunt, yes. Funny, probably in the eye of the beholder. A way of actually achieving what you claim you want, an explanation?
So unlikely as to be impossible. Likeliness that a couple of sharp cookies like yourselves know that ratcheting up the stunt forestalled any possibility of response from Eggers ? High.

My conclusion. Not after actual discourse, which in my book requires communication in more than one direction, but again, an effort to make Eggers look bad.

THIS particular route to civil discourse that Ed claims, reminds me of the Rumsfeld rhetorical, not quite in form, but intent. I'm picturing a schoolyard showdown where the question is posed and then without waiting for an answer the question keeps saying, "What about it? Huh? Huh? Huh?" while pushing the questionee in the shoulder. It's dismissive of discourse. (Again, in my opinion.)

A couple of small things from Ed's last post,

" Perhaps not a substantive exercise, but one predicated upon a substantive issue concerning reviewing ethics."

I don't see how reviewing ethics come into play when we're talking about the inconsistencies between one review and one foreward written ten years apart. Different times, audiences, purposes. It's an interesting question about how or why Eggers' opinion changed, but it doesn't have anything to do with ethics. That you think so is another attempt to dress up your little stunt under some kind of nobility.

"Whether Eggers still has a sense of humor is, as I indicated above, a side issue."

Actually, you said that it's the "real question," which I took to mean that your stunt means or at least has, dug far beneath the present issue. Perhaps you misspoke.

Look, fellas, I know I'm not going to talk you out of your stance, but neither are you going to talk me out of my response to your actions. That you both continue to spin these rationales that look more and more absurd (and inconsistent) only reinforces my response.

[Rake]

This gag doesn't work on, say, Charles D'Ambrosio. Do you know why? Because I could email him, ask a question, and get an honest answer. It works with DE because he has a rep for being touchy and rather inaccessible. (About which more below.) He's made his choice about how much to talk and to whom; no one finds this shameful. I do find it mockable. A little.

But, no, he won't mix it up and respond, much like Thomas Pynchon wouldn't respond, which if you bothered to look was where this gag started (and which was, in itself, an homage to the stunt Lorne Michaels pulled on SNL about thirty years ago with the Beatles and a check for $3000. I even used some of Michaels' words, you can look it up.)

I really shamed that Pynchon guy, by the way.

You can keep repeating "ugly" all you wish, but I'm married to a lawyer and I watch a lot of Law & Order, and I know for a fact this doesn't even get within spitting distance of slander, libel, defamation, scurrilousness, maliciousness, etc. It's no fake Campari ad, alas.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you don't take this personally, given the time that you've spent trying to badger us into admitting we're bad people. You say you have a "belief" that we're trying to injure someone, and you've proven that no one's going to talk you out of that belief, even when we're sincerely (and now in painstakingly) explaining ourselves. Clearly you regard me as completely full of shit. So why are you still here? Just trying to make US look bad?

You can call me a baby, hypocrite, and, heaven forfend, Rumsfeldian, but that doesn't excuse your humorlessness.

(You'll have to trust me when I tell you that serious inquiries fare no better. If you want details, email Ed; I don't want to tell tales out of school.)