Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...2 Chapter 1: Theoretical Background……………………………………………………..6-14

(1)

Introduction

Dave Eggers, born 1970, is one of today’s influential, versatile, and productive writers of contemporary American literature. He has written several books and short stories of various genres. His best known works consist of his autobiographical debut A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (2000), a novel called You Shall Know Our Velocity (2002), How We Are Hungry (2004), which is a selection of short stories, and a biographical novel based on the life of Valentino Achak Deng called What is the What: The Autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng (2006). Furthermore, he has written three semi-science humour books with his younger brother Christopher Eggers, and two nonfiction books (Teachers Have It Easy: The Big Sacrifices and Small Salaries of America’s Teachers (2005) and Surviving Justice: America’s Wrongfully Convicted Exonerated (2005)). Eggers has moreover founded two literary journals: “McSweeney’s Quarterly Concern” (1998) and “The Believer” (2003), which are published by his own publishing company McSweeney Books. His publishing company has attracted new and promising writers; already established and notable authors, such as Rick Moody, George Saunders, Jonathan Safran Foer, William Vollmann, Zadie Smith and Nick Hornby contributed to the journals as well (Nicol, 102). According to Bran Nicol, these writers have a leading role in American - and British - literature and set literary trends. They are seen as a “new departure in American writing.” Nicol claims that they stand apart from other writers, because of “their endless parodic style and fondness of metafictional experiment,” which includes “a similar range of supplementary texts, such as acknowledgements, graphs, ‘rules and suggestions,’ graphic and typological gimmickry, and is written in a distinctive ‘house’ prose style which is ironic in tone and mixes the high-minded and the colloquial” (Nicol 102). Dave Eggers was one of the first writers to use this kind of gimmickry and metafictonal prose in his books and stories; in doing so he draws attention to the boundaries between fiction and reality.

(3)

In the paratexts of A Heartbreaking Work, Eggers explains how the book should be read. Normally we do not analyse the intentions of the author, but in this case they are a prominent feature of Eggers’ authorship. The paratexts consist of the copyright page, a long introduction, and an epilogue. On the copyright page Eggers asserts that he has used fictional techniques to create the memoir, calling it a “work of fiction.” The introduction includes a guideline on how to read this book, called “Rules and Suggestions for the Enjoyment of this Book,” a “Preface,” and “Acknowledgements,” which lists the themes and metaphors of the book. In a later edition of the book, Eggers includes an epilogue, called “Mistakes We Knew We Were Making,” in which he responds to the criticism on his book regarding his use of irony and postmodern aspects. In the text itself Eggers uses metafictional prose, addressing the boundaries of fact and fiction, and informing the reader of his uncertainty about when events occurred. For example, Dave’s little brother Toph and his friend John draw attention to the form of the book, telling us about some of the fictionalizations. For these reasons, this unconventional memoir struck me as an interesting memoir to explore.

Eggers’ second book, Velocity, a novel, has the same characteristic features, regarding the use of irony, metafiction, and paratexts. The book’s protagonists are Will and Hand who travel around the world in one week to give away money to the poor, but they find it difficult to decide to whom and how to give away money; consequently they make many wrong decisions. Will’s mother criticises their behaviour, calling what they are doing “subjective” and “condescending” (122). However, as a passive bystander, she does not have a solution, has a one-dimensional view of the situation, and the aspects she knows about these countries, she had learned from books. All the characters in the book are portrayed as fairly naïve. We can view Velocity at face value, but it may also be viewed as an ironic criticism of American foreign aid.

Hand’s interruption, a long segment in the middle of the book, may be considered as both a paratext of the book and a part of the story. In this so-called “Sacrament,” written from the perspective of Hand, he condemns Will’s use of fiction in the story, telling us how we should view the book. As a continuation of the story, Hand is still the same fictional character as in the book. As a paratext, Eggers’ authorial voice expresses his thoughts on life writing. In addition, it can be argued that the interruption is not just directed towards Will, but also towards the readers and critics.

(4)

purpose in this dissertation is to explore Eggers’ techniques and style, in order to shed light on his books.

In order to explore Eggers’ characteristic style, I will first discuss the autobiographical genre and the concept of irony, in particular Romantic irony. In order to explore how the memoir A Heartbreaking Work fits into the autobiographical framework, I will give an overview of the autobiographical genre, using major theorists of autobiography, such as Linda Anderson, Elizabeth Bruss, Philippe Lejeune, John Barbour, and Paul John Eakin. Bruss and Lejeune propose rules for the autobiographical genre, indicating that truthfulness and sincerity are important features of the genre. Eakin discusses the role of fiction in autobiography, illustrating the role of (meta)fiction in Mary McCarthy’s memoir Memories of a Catholic Girlhood. In order to discuss the effects of incorporating fiction, such as a narrative structure, in postmodern life writing, I refer to Gunnthórunn Gudmundsdóttir’s book Borderlines: Autobiography and Fiction in Postmodern Life Writing. She illustrates that the boundaries in postmodern life writing are radically crossed. To research the effects of Eggers’ irony, I will first summarize the major points from Claire Colebrook’s book Irony. Also, I use Metafiction by Patricia Waugh to discuss the important features of metafiction, such as the exposure of the devices of fiction, the use of frame-breaks, and the use of play.

I will attempt to analyse how Eggers plays with the boundaries of fiction and nonfiction: using irony; blending fact and fiction; responding to, and pre-empting, criticism, with confusing results. My main question is: what is Eggers’ specific use of irony, and how does it create generic crossovers?

The organization of the dissertation is as follows. In chapter 1, I present my overviews of the major theories as I explained above. In chapter 2, I discuss A Heartbreaking Work, examining Eggers’ use of paratexts, which creates ambivalence about the role of irony in the book. It appears that while Eggers, as discussed in chapter 2, argues that he does not use irony in his book, different types of irony are found. I illustrate how Eggers uses verbal irony, consisting of cases of black humour, exaggerations, and absurd metaphors, claiming the opposite of what he asserts himself. Also characteristic of the memoir is Eggers distancing himself from the protagonist. The metafictional prose addresses the boundaries of fiction and nonfiction, indicating when he fused events, or literally mentioning the devices he used.

(5)

against irony seriously or by recognizing Eggers’ ironic mode. In the last section of chapter 2, I examine the fictionalizations in the memoir, since in postmodern life writing, the use of fiction and the crossing of boundaries are common features.

(6)

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background

Eggers’ first book A Heartbreaking Work is usually labelled as a memoir, a part of the autobiographical genre. Several theorists of autobiography proposed definitions for autobiography, with truthfulness as one of its important features. In postmodern life writing fictional devices become increasingly more important. Because Eggers uses irony and metafiction, which cast doubt on the memoir’s truthfulness, it becomes clear that Eggers’ memoir is not a typical memoir. Despite his plea against the use of irony in the epilogue of A Heartbreaking Work, irony has a significant part in the book, and influences its autobiographical features. This chapter discusses the autobiographical genre, illustrating definitions and features of autobiography in order to explore how Eggers’ memoir fits into the framework of the autobiographical genre. I will give an overview of the concept of irony, giving special attention to Romantic (metafictional) irony, with the purpose of exploring the influence of irony on the genre.

Similarly, in Eggers’ novel Velocity irony is an important aspect. But also in this book Eggers creates doubt about its role by encouraging a sincere reading. In Hand’s interruption, Hand condemns Will’s account and questions his reliability as a narrator, revealing his fictional devices. At the same time, Hand is used as Eggers’ alter ego. The metafiction draws attention to the generic boundaries. In order to illustrate Eggers’ characteristic use of irony in Will’s account, the concept of irony will be discussed.

Literary Autobiography

(7)

As a literary genre, autobiography has been recognized since the eighteenth century. Before this time, the autobiographical act was not yet recognized as literature, using the word “memoir” to indicate its informality (Bruss 7). The word “autobiography” was first used at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the English poet Robert Southey. From the 1830s onward it was more commonly used, even though there was not a clear definition (Anderson 7). In the nineteenth century, a distinction was formed between the memoir and the autobiography, or between “serious” autobiography with a “higher” function and “its popular counterpart,” such as the diary and the journal, which has a “looser, more chronological structure” (8). According to Laura Marcus “the autobiography/memoirs distinction – ostensibly formal and generic – is bound up with a typological distinction between those human beings who are capable of self-reflection and those who are not” (8). However, according to Anderson, authors of memoirs did not fail to write developmental works, because they often revised their works in order to fix earlier versions of the self as well (9).

In the second half of the twentieth century, there was a “resurgence or re-emergence of confessional writing” (Gill 6). According to Jo Gill, this rise can be ascribed to the total malaise of society, in which people are more urged to express themselves and turn inwards (6). This was also about the time when criticism of autobiography came about, even though autobiographies appeared throughout the centuries. Olney illustrates that early criticism of autobiography focused on bios (life) rather than on autos (self), mainly concerned with the content (21). He notes that later on autos and graphe (writing) became more important, because it was believed that behind every work the “I” is felt and due to writing the self and the life “take on a certain form” (22). Before the shift from bios to autos there were three “naïve assumptions” about the writing of an autobiography, namely that the life could only “signify the course of a lifetime,” autobiographies were similar to objective historical accounts, and there was nothing problematic about the self (20).

(8)

author must be the subject matter of the text, the events must have a “truth-value,” which has to be accepted by the audience, and the autobiographer should be sincere about what he writes (Bruss 10-11). Bruss notes that the rules are very general, leaving much unspecified; among other things, she says nothing about the length of lifetime or the type of events the autobiography should embody. Furthermore, the rules might be different if one focussed on a smaller corpus of autobiographies and a shorter time period. Because these autobiographies are less likely to have developed, more specific rules may be established (14).

Several theorists of authors of autobiography refer to Lejeune’s definition of autobiography, who defines the autobiography as “a retrospective prose narrative produced by a real person concerning his own existence, focusing on his individual life, in particular the development of his personality” (Anderson 2). According to Gudmundsdóttir this implies that the autobiography, in most cases, has the same author, narrator, and subject (2). Furthermore, Eakin points out in Lejeune’s autobiographical pact there is an entente between the writer and the reader about the intention of the autobiographer to be truthful, which also determines the “manner of reading the text” (20).

(9)

In his book Fictions in Autobiography, Paul John Eakin discusses how fiction is incorporated in autobiography. He claims that fiction may be found in all autobiographies, in the same manner as every novel has autobiographical elements (Eakin 9). According to Eakin, Mary McCarthy was one of the first to violate the conventions of the autobiography, telling the reader about her uncertainties of writing down her memories. In Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, the “stories” of her life are alternated by the commenting on these stories (that she had written later in life), in which she indicates that some of her stories contain fictional elements, for example, in the conversations, but also because of the possible fusion of memories. However, it was still her intention to write a truthful autobiography, indicating that most facts can be checked. McCarthy believes a distinction between autobiography and fiction can be made on the basis of its use of facts (18). Eakin supports Darrel Mansell’s claim who disputes this, because according to him it is impossible to know “the actual relation of literary events to what ‘happened, in real life.’” He believes that the intention of the autobiographer to be a distinguishing factor. Eakin thinks that the fiction in McCarthy’s stories is also characteristic of her character, because she is foremost a writer of fiction and she used to be a “problem liar.” Accordingly, Eakin considers her memories to be “remembered facts,” which he defines as “remembering something that is not true.” Moreover, he thinks that the commentary on her stories illustrates that “autobiographical truth is not fixed but an evolving content” (10-17). McCarthy connects the self-discovery to the self-invention, believing that the self was made, and could not be searched for (55).

(10)

truth, but also falsehood, can be found in both novels and autobiography since autobiographies are at some level false (the author might lie, fabricate or misremember, which is sometimes pointed out by the autobiographer), and fiction is at some level true (i.e. satisfaction lies in the value of creation) (55).

Postmodern Life Writing: “Mode of fiction”

In her book Borderlines: Autobiography and Fiction in Postmodern Life Writing Gunnthórunn Gudmundsdóttir illustrates that the use of fiction is common in postmodern life writing. She indicates that the autobiographical genre has been influenced by postmodern trends, which resulted in the radical crossing of borders. Gudmundsdóttir points out that even though the use of fiction in (auto)biography is not new, it is a specific trait of postmodernism, because “postmodern writers are not attempting to establish completely new forms, but rather rework and revisit old ones” (269).

Gudmundsdóttir discusses the use of fiction in autobiography, analysing several books in which she demonstrates how fictional techniques are incorporated. She notes that she does not want to discuss the fact/fiction debate, but looks at the boundaries of fiction and autobiography. Gudmundsdóttir explores fictional aspects, such as “structure, poetics and literary descriptions of people and places, and ordering of events to create a certain effect,” which are used in autobiography.

In her book, Gudmundsdóttir discusses the relationship between memory and life writing. She illustrates that authors may use memories as an incentive for writing; e.g. to explain the past through the “process of remembering,” as an acknowledgement of the past, or as a starting point for autobiography, “as an attempt to achieve what has been lost” (35). Gudmundsdóttir attempts to show the gaps of the author’s memory in the books, to explore how these moments affect the structure of the books. The forgotten may concern specific gaps, refer to the more general picture, or may be traced when the author is contradicting himself (32). Authors may also deliberately leave out certain parts, when they want to focus on a specific part of their life. Moreover, as time passes, or due to events later in life, the meaning of memories may also change and undergo revision (42).

(11)

life and the form/order of the life; the narrative transforms the fabula into sjuzet. Gudmundsdóttir points out that “retrospective knowledge is necessary to establish a narrative, and it is a vital part of the meaning – making process of the narrative” (60). Part of a narrative structure, is also building towards an end, which is complicated, because the life has not finished yet. Gudmundsdóttir argues that autobiographical endings “build towards an end, even though it is sometimes arbitrary and inconclusive” (90).

Postmodernism: Irony and Metafiction

Due to their fragmented forms and their use of play and irony, critics often label A Heartbreaking Work and Velocity as postmodern and ironic books. However, Eggers pleads against the role of irony in the epilogue “Mistakes We Knew We Were Making” as well as in interviews, even signing the “New Puriton Manifesto,” which includes an explicit ban on irony (Vloet). Nevertheless, because of its ambiguous role in the books, and the effects on the genre, I will discuss the role of irony and metafiction in the books.

In her book Irony, Claire Colebrook analyses the concept of irony from its first occurrence in Plato’s dialogues onwards. The term is most commonly used when someone is asserting the opposite of what he means. In such cases, when a word is substituted, irony is merely rhetorical irony as a figure of speech; irony may also be extended, when it expresses a whole idea (11). In order to recognize irony, you have to “share contexts and conventions, along with the general expectation of sincerity and coherence” (16). When someone does not know the context, he will be excluded from the irony. Irony also has to be partial and selective, which means that there should be people who actually believe what is said. Without this, when everyone believes the same thing, there is no opposite meaning. In addition, when there are multiple voices in a dialogue, the irony becomes difficult to discern.

(12)

we cannot be fully committed to what we say” (18). Defenders of postmodern irony believe that this “is a liberating attitude that remains suspicious of any single foundation or ultimate position of truth” (182).

Another type of irony is Romantic irony, which was first adopted by German Romantics at the end of the eighteenth century. These Romantics questioned the foundation of reason. They believed that since human beings are capable of creating, there can be no fixed nature. One can only attack reason through irony, for to use reasoning or arguments to attack reason, would mean that they would have to apply reason (47). One important aspect of Romantic irony is that it rejects the principle of non-contradiction, which means that “one cannot assert both that something is and that is not.” Without the assumption that we mean what we say, “communication, reason and argument would not be possible” (54). Romantic irony adopts a paradoxical type of irony, which states that “something both is and is not the case” (55). It wants to achieve a “disruption of common sense, communication and assumed coherence” (56-57). Some characteristics of ironic texts are that they are fragmentary, gesturing “to a process of creation that is always coming to completion;” contradictory, there is an “incoherence of voice;” and critical, reflection on and distance from its own origin (66-67).

Very similar to Romantic irony is metafiction, which also questions reason. Metafiction looks more into the devices authors use to address the boundaries of fiction and nonfiction.

(13)

undermined and reworked (12). Opposing devices such as frame and frame-break, technique and counter-technique, construction and deconstruction are used to deal with the familiar and the new. According to Waugh, metafiction is especially prominent in contemporary fiction because contemporary fiction “clearly reflects this dissatisfaction with, and breakdown of, traditional values” (6). Metafiction is typically a postmodern phenomenon, but may also be related to modernism since the modernist author “may draw attention to the aesthetic construction of the text” but unlike postmodernism does not expose and flaunt this (21). According to Waugh, metafiction should not be understood as the exhaustion of the novel but rather as a device that sheds light on the construction of reality and as a developing feature of the novel (13).

Waugh notes that in contemporary metafiction stories have frames, but the borders of the frames are blurred (28). In metafictional novels there is an alternation between frame and frame-break or “the construction of an illusion through the imperceptibility of the frame and the shattering of illusion through the constant exposure of the frame;” it is thus a deconstructive method of metafiction (31). An obvious framing device is the story-within-the-story or the story-within-the-story of a writer who writes a book. Waugh illustrates the frame-break with John Fowles’s The French Lieutenant’s Woman, in which Fowles displays the fiction as a historical document. The reader reads the fiction as if it were history, even though the reader knows it is not “real,” because of the abundance of frame-breaks, such as the appearance of the narrator as a character in the story. The reader is “forced to recall that our “real” world can never be the real world of the novel.” Waugh states that instead of reinforcing the reality, Fowles lays bare and exposes it (33).

(14)

unsystematic or with very little meta-language or metalingual commentary to help the reader. In metafiction the reader is also often a player, because he is forced to choose an ending, or has to interpret or solve acrostics, puzzles, black boxes or blank pages (42).

(15)

Chapter 2: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius

In his memoir A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Dave Eggers narrates the story of the death of his parents, who both died of cancer within the span of five weeks. He relates how he consequently got custody of his younger brother Toph. After their parents’ deaths, Dave, his siblings and his girlfriend Kirsten move from Lake Forest to Berkeley; after a short period of living together, Dave and Toph find their own place to live. In the book, it becomes clear that Toph plays a large role in Dave’s thoughts, his imagination running wild for fear of losing him. Dave and Toph take part in an experimental upbringing, in which Dave is the perfect parent and Toph the perfect child; a very different upbringing from Dave’s own. This experimenting involves constant entertaining in order to keep the mood buoyant, which is Dave’s way of dealing with the loss of his parents. Alongside of this, however, we see a search for drama and a pre-occupation with death, as Eggers relates the tragic stories of some of his friends and colleagues: John’s, Shalini’s and Skye’s, among others. Another theme of the book is the rise and fall of the magazine Might, which Dave and his high school friends founded. We learn about their aims to change the face of the world, but also about their frustrations when the magazine does not seem to work out.

A Heartbreaking Work is usually labelled as a memoir, a part of the autobiographical genre, but it clearly is an unconventional memoir, as I will illustrate below. In this chapter, my purpose is to explore the role of paratexts, irony, and (meta)fiction and how its use influences the memoir’s position in the autobiographical framework. In the different paratexts, Eggers tells the reader how to interpret the book. Even though Eggers emphasises the sincerity of the memoir, the use of irony and metafiction are important aspects. As a result, Eggers’ truthfulness, which is a significant autobiographical feature, is questioned. Yet, the crossing of the boundaries of fiction and nonfiction is characteristic of postmodern life writing.

(16)

“mode of fiction” can be applied to A Heartbreaking Work, since the memoir is strung together by themes and builds towards an end.

To investigate the effects of Eggers’ characteristic ambivalence with respect to the autobiographical genre, I illustrate Eggers’ use of irony. In the epilogue “Mistakes We Knew We Were Making,” Eggers asserts that there is no irony in the book. However, I claim that he uses Romantic irony, verbal irony and dramatic irony. Eggers uses Romantic irony to unveil the fictionalisations in creating the story. But by doing this, he also undermines the autobiographical truth-value.

The Role of Irony and Metafiction

The paratexts of the memoir, in which Eggers tells the reader how the book should be viewed, are characteristic of the memoir. They consist of the copyright page, the “Rules and Suggestions for the Enjoyment of this book,” “Preface to this Edition,” and the “Acknowledgements.” On the copyright page of A Heartbreaking Work, Eggers indicates that his book is a “work of fiction,” stating that “in many cases, the author could not exactly remember the exact words said by people, and exact descriptions of certain things, so had to fill in gaps as best as he could.” He claims that he did not have the imagination yet to write fiction. In the “Acknowledgements” Eggers delineates the themes of the book. He clearly indicates that he is aware of the techniques he uses, such as “The Knowing about the Book’s Self-Conscious Aspect.” Eggers states, “while the author is conscious about being self-referential, he is also knowing about that self-conscious self-referentiality.” In the “Rules and Suggestions of the Enjoyment of this Book,” Eggers suggests that there is no need to read the whole book. For instance, he tells that there is no need to read the introduction.

(17)

friends’ and family’s lives, adding several untold stories he wanted to include, but originally left out.

Eggers pleads against the use of irony in the epilogue, claiming that telling jokes, satire, parody, the absurd, exaggerations, and weirdness as well as the footnotes, appendices, and epilogues should not be called irony. Instead of irony, they are rather cases of (sharp) contrast, or mere coincidences. Furthermore, he explains that books or movies, which can be humorous and serious at the same time, do not have to be one thing or the other. According to Eggers, the only part of the book that can be considered ironic is when he and his friends were working on the “Might” magazine, and were debunking everything the world believes in. However, Eggers’ plea against the use of irony is undermined by silly examples, which are illustrated in a very small font, suggesting an ironic interpretation of Eggers’ book. Indeed, despite Eggers’ claims, it appears that several types of irony are used in the book, such as Romantic (metafictional) irony, rhetorical irony and dramatic irony.

In interviews Eggers expresses his views on the novel with respect to the use of irony and metafiction as well. He states that he uses metafiction mainly for structural reasons. In an interview in “The New Yorker,” Eggers points out that his degree in Journalism from Illinois has caused him to take facts “very seriously”:

And that's why I'm obsessive and conflicted about fact in my own stuff, and why, I guess, I kept qualifying what I was writing in the first book. Everything there was true, but you can't really call it all fact. For example, I didn't want to pretend I could remember entire conversations from 1991, so I made clear that those were reconstructions, as they always are with memoirs or anything written without having actually recorded a conversation. If you haven’t recorded it, you’re making half of it up, period, and any reader of a newspaper should know that.

(18)

able to capture truth at all. Additionally, other types of irony demonstrate Eggers’ ambiguous stance towards the memoir.

Verbal Irony

Despite Eggers’ denial, he uses verbal irony, such as black humour, exaggerations, and absurd-sounding metaphors. It can be argued that some of the protagonist’s remarks in A Heartbreaking Work should not always be taken seriously, since they seem to mean the opposite of what Dave asserts himself, or he claims and elaborates on the importance of trivial aspects. This type of irony, therefore, does not refer to a “mode” but is verbal irony: “a statement in which the meaning that the speaker implies differs sharply from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed.” This irony is often straightforward, but it also may be more subtle and complex with the clues “oblique and unobtrusive” (Abrams 135).

Quite a few sentences in the book can be interpreted to mean the opposite of what they state. In the first chapter of A Heartbreaking Work, in which Eggers relates the last weeks before his parents’ deaths (1-45), Dave’s tone and attitude can sometimes be considered ironic, for example, when Dave talks about his mother’s utensils and the petty TV shows. He thinks that the half-moon plastic receptacle in which his mother has to spit is “a great find” (3). He notes that his mother’s IV bag is “kind of cute,” claiming that “it’s futuristic looking, like a synthetic ice pack crossed with those liquid food pouches engineered for space travel. We have a name for it. We call it ‘the bag.’” (4). Furthermore, Dave speaks elaborately of the greatness of the TV shows that he and his mother are watching. For example, he notes that “the host does then something pretty incredible: even though he’s already paid for the three dates previously described, and even though he has nothing to gain from doing anything more, he still gives the bachelor and bachelorette money for their next date” (10), showing his mother’s utensils and these TV shows in a ridiculous light. Moreover, in the epilogue “Mistakes,” Eggers narrates that he and his mother did use to watch those TV shows. He states that she did like the “Studs,” which suggests that she did not really like the dating show.

In addition, the book reveals Eggers as a great lover of exaggeration. For example, Dave often points out his own genius, referring to himself as “the sort of person who belongs on TV, inspiring a nation of disaffected youth” (182), and “a master of strategy” (298).

(19)

have to look for clues or has to interpret them, because it is laid out for them; e.g. the MTV interviewer tells Dave that the snowshoe “is a mediocre metaphor” (212). There are also metaphors that are slightly absurd, and that do not always seem to make sense. For example, he compares his mother to a doll and a vase: “She is a vase, a doll. A giant vase, A giant fruit. A prize-winning vegetable” (32).

As I have demonstrated, there are certainly cases of verbal irony in the book. It may even be argued that Eggers mocks the use of metaphors, undermining their significance by exposing the metaphors in the introduction. Even though Eggers rather does consider black humour and exaggerations as irony, they are cases of verbal irony, since they state the opposite of what he asserts. This affects the seriousness and the tone of the whole book.

Dramatic Irony

The term dramatic irony is usually used when the audience or reader knows about the fate of a character, all the while the same character is unaware of his fate. Even though the reader of A Heartbreaking Work knows nothing about a particular fate, the reader is aware of the fact the Eggers, the writer, and Dave, the character, are not on the same page. Eggers portrays Dave as an ignorant character, from whom he distances himself. Dave largely does not deal with the flaws of his own character or the ways he could be a better person and a better parent. However, Eggers criticises Dave through the characters of Toph and John, showing his disapproval of the protagonist.

As an ignorant character, Dave is clearly not critical of his own character or of his role as a parent, but he does judge other people. He addresses the failures of other people, especially when it comes to the upbringing of children, such as the failures of the parents of Toph’s classmates. For example, when Toph tells his peers that his parents died in a plane crash, a boy named Stuart remarks that he hopes Dave and Beth will also die in a plane crash. Urging them not to worry about Toph, Dave calls Stuart’s parents to contradict this. He thinks that they should worry about their own son for expressing such a wish. Dave even feels sorry for them, saying, “Oh these poor people, what is to be done?” (89). Even though, this is certainly not unreasonable, he never wonders why Toph told Stuart that their parents died in a plane crash.

(20)

themselves are doing an excellent job. He relates, “She and I are collaborating peacefully, tag-teaming, doing the parent-teacher conferences together. We are a circus family, a trapeze family, with perfect timing, great showmanship, tight green outfits” (301).

As a whole, Dave never admits to his own faults, even though he clearly does not always make the right choices himself. For example, Dave does not seem to make the connection between his own lying and Toph’s lying. Dave indicates that, “people ask me questions, and before I can formulate a truth-oriented answer. I lie.” (137), but he does not acknowledge that this has influenced Toph. Furthermore, Toph is not always happy about the wild games that he and Dave are playing, occasionally withdrawing from their games when he thinks that his brother is taking it too far. Finally, even though Beth and Dave believe that they are doing a great job and are a great team as parents, they often do not seem to get along and they differ in opinion on how to deal with the loss of their parents. These examples show that Dave is not very critical of his own character, suggesting that Eggers’ memoir is not a self-reflexive one. However, Eggers criticises the protagonist, using other characters to point out his flaws.

The reader knows about Eggers’ disapproval of Dave the protagonist, because he uses the characters of his little brother Toph and his friend John to deliver the criticism. It becomes clear that these characters were not the ones who expressed this criticism in real life. Eggers indicates that they are breaking out of character and that they are used as devices, serving as Eggers’ conscience and alter ego. In one passage (114-118), Toph blames Dave for being rude to his friend Marny, who tentatively told him that he should not punish Toph for being late, pointing out that her remark was likely only “an innocent comment” (117). Dave, taking it as criticism of the way he brings up Toph, gets very upset by this comment. When Toph comments on the innocence of the remark, Dave’s response to Toph’s is very laconic. He does not seem to take him seriously, because in the middle of Toph’s outburst he mentions the toothpaste on Toph’s chin. Even though Dave is seemingly indifferent to the criticism, in retrospect, this is Eggers’ criticism of his own behaviour. Thus, even though Dave does not reflect on his own character, other characters do. Besides Toph, the character of John also breaks out of character to expose Dave’s flaws.

Romantic (Metafictional) Irony

(21)

Waugh demonstrates that one way of achieving this is through opposing devices, such as frame frame-break, which expose the fictional techniques. Furthermore, she states that through the use of language, reality is mediated, meaning that language can never capture the whole truth, but can only represent the “discourses of the world” (3). Metafiction bears close similarities to Romantic irony. In her book Irony, Claire Colebrook illustrates that the Romantics were sceptical of reason, asserting that there is no fixed human nature. She notes that it is a paradoxical form of irony, rejecting the principle of non-contradiction, meaning that a text can say that “something both is and is not the case” (55). Metafiction and Romantic irony in these forms are found in A Heartbreaking Work.

In the book, Eggers draws attention to boundaries of fiction and nonfiction by telling the reader of the fictional devices he has used, such as fusing events and frame-breaks of the characters of Dave’s little brother Toph and his friend John. On several occasions, Dave reminds the readers that they are reading fiction, or that he is not sure how it exactly happened or when a particular event took place. During the MTV interview, he reminds the reader that this interview is not the actual transcript of the interview, but rather a handy device to introduce some of the upcoming characters and events. He thinks it is a nice transition from the less self-conscious first half of the book to the more self-devouring second half of the book. During the interview, Dave tells the reader about this interview style, which he uses as a device:

So tell me something: This isn’t really a transcript of the interview, is it?

No.

It’s not much like the actual interview at all, is it?

Not that much, no.

This is a device, this interview style. Manufactured and fake.

It is.

It’s a good device, though. Kind of a catchall for a bunch of anecdotes that would be too awkward to force together otherwise.

Yes. (196-197)

(22)

In other parts of the book, Eggers points out that he could not exactly recall when something happened, which is demonstrated in the following passage:

It might be right then that Marny calls. It might be the day before, or the day after, or the next week. We go. I think we go right then. Maybe we wait until the morning. No, it must have been then, it must be right then when we go. Maybe it is not right then that Marny calls. Maybe it is day, and I leave Toph alone. Or maybe I lock – This is it: (326)

When he is not sure about when the actual event happened, he often indicates this in a similar manner. These examples all show how Eggers addresses the form of the book: he shares his doubts about his memory, reminding the reader about the fictionalizations.

Another way Eggers addresses the boundaries of fact and fiction is through opposing techniques, such as the frame-break. The passages in which the characters of Toph and John “break out of character” call attention to the form of the book (as well as to Dave’s ignorance, as I have illustrated above). Through the frame-breaks, the frame and fictional devices of Eggers’ book are exposed. For example, in one passage, Toph claims that it is not entirely believable that all the events Dave has just described (“the half day at school, then the basketball, and then dinner, and the open house, and then ice cream, and a movie”) happened in one day. Dave responds that they actually had several eventful days, the day he described being “just a caricature.” He notes that it is much harder “to adequately relate even five minutes of internal thought-making” (115). Out of frustration he included all the gimmicks and tricks. However, Toph thinks that it is more a “problem of conscience” than of form, because his parents would hate him for relating all this, “especially the stuff at the beginning” (114-115). Therefore, these passages draw attention to the form of the book.

A telling passage in which Toph deviates from character is when they are discussing Dave’s condescending attitude. Here, Eggers also literally mentions that Toph is breaking out of character, saying: “You’re breaking out of character again” (316). In a similar vein, the character of John reminds us of the form of the book.

(23)

As I have illustrated, metafiction is extensively used in the memoir. The function of Romantic (metafictional) irony is in itself ambiguous. It undermines the autobiographical criteria by claiming that it is impossible to be completely truthful, which is an important aspect of autobiographies. One important aspect of Romantic irony is that it rejects the principle of non-contradiction that, “something both is and is not the case” (55). This means that the text may both be or may not be interpreted as an ironic text. A case of “performative contradiction” can be found in the “Rules and Suggestions for Enjoyment of this Book,” when Eggers claims that there is no need to read particular sections of the book, as I have mentioned above. It can be argued that by saying this, Eggers is implicitly asking to read these sections. Or, as Colebrook illustrates with her example of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, “at least, want[s] to have the minimal recognition that [he does] not want[s] to be recognised” (56). Therefore, Eggers’ use of irony is paradoxical, causing “disruption of common sense, communication, and assumed coherence” (Colebrook, 56-57).

Some critics take Eggers’ assertion that he did not use irony in the book seriously. Den Dulk believes that Eggers is part of a group of authors who are looking for meaning. They are against a “total” form of irony which often leads to cynicism. According to him, Eggers is mainly opposed to certain forms of irony. He compares Eggers’ attitude towards irony with Kierkegaard’s, who considered irony as “a way of life,” which may initially be idealistic, but leads to cynicism when there is no clear goal and when it is “total.” One can only be freed from irony when one takes responsibility for one’s own freedom. According to Den Dulk, irony is not just simply a figure of speech, but a way of life in which authors distance themselves from society and their social selves, often resulting in a negative sort of freedom. With this negative form of irony authors ridicule and undermine every human activity (4). In the same vein, according to Corine Vloet, Eggers’ preface, the gimmickry and the epilogue do not have a hidden meaning, or ironically undermine the story, but are actually an accurate reflection on the events (3).

(24)

(109). According to Nicol, Eggers demonstrates in his memoir that “writing is always a matter of textual effect.” Moreover, he notes the ambiguity of the memoir: “I.e. the uncertainty as to whether we should finally treat it either as a genuine account cloaked in self-protective irony or a complete deconstruction of the confessional genre” (111).

Tamara Straus calls Eggers’ memoir “intensely ironic,” claiming that nothing is saved for the sake of seriousness (1). Even though Straus acknowledges Eggers’ dislike of the word irony and its lack of a good definition, she does think that he embraced the ironic mode by taking himself not too seriously, also in contrast to the “tear-jerking” memoirs, which are often “cold beneath their stylistic surface” (1). Straus thinks that nothing in his memoir is spared for the sake of seriousness, but she also notes that his book is moving, hence calling it “irony with soul” (2).

Thus, critics take up Eggers’ view on irony differently, either by taking his denial of irony seriously, by claiming that his book does have an ironic mode, or by stating that his use of irony is ambivalent. Consequently, because of Eggers’ ambivalence and the role of Romantic (metafictional) irony, A Heartbreaking Work subverts the autobiographical criteria by theorists such as Elizabeth Bruss, Philippe Lejeune and John Barbour, who point out the importance of truthfulness in autobiographies. Therefore, by using metafiction Eggers points to the thin boundaries of fiction and nonfiction. In postmodern life writing the crossing of boundaries are more and more accepted. Besides his use of metafiction, Eggers also uses a “mode of fiction” to create the story.

Postmodern Life Writing: “Mode of Fiction”

In her book Borderlines: Autobiography and Fiction in Postmodern Life Writing, Gunnthórunn Gudmundsdóttir demonstrates that fiction is part of autobiographies. She states that postmodern trends have influenced the autobiographical genre, which has resulted in the crossing of boundaries. She asserts that postmodern autobiographies adopt a “mode of fiction,” including a narrative structure and underlying themes, which give the events of a life meaning and connect the present and the past. Furthermore, Gudmundsdóttir points out that autobiographies often focus on a specific part of the protagonist’s life, consequently “forgetting” other parts. In A Heartbreaking Work Eggers adopts this “mode of fiction,” connecting the story through underlying themes and building towards an end.

(25)

of the story, which have their own topic, are clustered. In the “Rules and Suggestions for Enjoyment of This Book,” Eggers comments on the separate parts of the book. For example, Eggers calls chapters I till IV (1-122), “a nice novella sort of length.”

However fragmented, there are quite a few themes that make the story whole, and which, according to Gudmundsdóttir, are used to order the life, and to connect the past and the present. In the introduction, Eggers points out the major themes of the book, which virtually cover all the themes of the book. The choices of the events, characters and conversations are determined by these major themes that connect the story. For example, when Dave meets up with his friend Meredith at the beach, they contemplate breaking down the world and building it up again in one day. This demonstrates Dave’s desire to change the face of the world, which, he points out to Meredith, is also the aim of the magazine he is working on with his high school friends. Their conversation gives Dave the opportunity to introduce the Might magazine and its aims. He says: “I tell her how funny it is that we are talking about all this because as it so happens I’m already working to change all this, am currently in the middle of putting together something that will address all these issues, that will inspire millions of greatness” (147). Therefore, through these underlying themes, Eggers connects storylines.

In her book, Gudmundsdóttir illustrates that authors of autobiographies often focus on a specific part of their lives, leaving behind “certain gaps” (32). In A Heartbreaking Work, which only comprises about seven years of his life, Eggers does not focus on his childhood. He only narrates a few stories from his childhood during the MTV interview, which prove to be relevant for the themes of the book. Dave tells the stories of his classmate Steve, one of the few black people in the neighbourhood, and of the suicide of Ricky’s father, which are in association with the themes of the book. Furthermore, we find out very little about Dave’s siblings Beth and Bill, and their father. For instance, the reader learns that Beth is going to get married, because Dave and Toph are going to the wedding. However, this is the first time the reader finds out that she is involved with someone.

(26)

the book, such as John, Sarah and Shalini, return once more at the end. In “Mistakes,” the stories about their lives are updated

Eggers also finds closure concerning his parents’ deaths. In chapter X, Dave returns to his hometown to figure out what happened to his parents’ bodies, which have been missing since their deaths. Finally, towards the end of the book it becomes clear that the magazine Dave founded with his friends is coming to an end as well. He points out that they started to become frustrated and fed up with their own attitudes. Dave notes, “But the grind has begun. The windows don’t open, and even the availability of near-constant jokes about Jews and Mormons fails to stem the tide of frustration, decay” (287). In the last chapter, Dave states that besides the fact that they also started to hate the meetings and each other half of the time, they were also not able to get any funding. He points out that the death of their friend Skye made the reason for debunking everything pointless.

In this chapter, I have illustrated that despite Eggers’ assertions in the paratexts that there is no irony in his book, several types of irony are found. As a result of the use of irony and metafiction in the memoir, A Heartbreaking Work subverts the autobiographical criteria. Yet, in agreement to postmodern life writing, the borders of fiction and nonfiction are radically crossed.

(27)

Chapter 3: You Shall Know Our Velocity

Eggers’ second book You Shall Know Our Velocity is a novel, but has the form of a memoir, written from the perspective of protagonist Will. In this book, Will and his friend Hand travel around the world in one week to give away money ($ 32.000) to the less privileged. Will has recently earned a large sum of money because his silhouette was used for a light bulb packaging. They intend to travel to all the five continents, but they only go to four countries - Senegal, Morocco, Estonia, and Latvia - on two continents. They want to give money to the poor who do not ask for it, even though it becomes clear that the people who do ask for it are the ones who need it the most, whereas the ones that do not, often do not even want it. In addition, they give the money to the people in a very roundabout way, often after asking them for directions. Their trip frequently reminds one of a vacation, because they get around in the cities, play tourists, and go to clubs. During their trip Will is often troubled by the memory of Jack and his sudden death, recalling memories from when they were growing up. The main theme of the book (ironically) calls attention to American foreign aid and intervention in less privileged countries. But alongside of this, it is also a fictional story about Will dealing with the death of his friend Jack.

Eggers published another version of the book, renaming it You Shall Know Our Velocity! (including an exclamation mark), in which he included “An Interruption,” written from the perspective of Francis R. “Hand” Wisneiwski, the other protagonist of the book. This interruption, which was also published separately, can be found on the McSweeney’s site (Eggers’ website of his publishing company). I have read Velocity (the version without the interruption) and “Sacrament” separately. This is important to note, because through the inclusion of the Interruption, the dimension of the book changes. In this so-called interruption, supposedly written two years after the first edition, Hand feels the need to make corrections to Will’s account of their trip. Informing the reader that Will’s account is partly fallacious, Hand condemns it, since he believes that it should be possible to write down the truth about their experiences. Hand discusses issues, such as truthfulness, blending fiction and nonfiction, and the nature of autobiography. Alongside of this, he talks about the rain in New Zealand, and about the woman he meets there.

(28)

we consider A Heartbreaking Work as a paratext of the book, in which Eggers shows his dislike of irony, this may also apply to Velocity. However, Velocity may be interpreted as a serious account as well as an ironical account. On the one hand, Eggers’ book may be interpreted as a way to ridicule American foreign aid. The characters of Will and Hand are portrayed as ignorant characters, who do not reflect on their actions. On the other hand, Will and Hand are sincere and are really trying to fix things. In addition, Will’s mother is criticised for her inaction. In the conversations between Will and his mother, the reasons behind the conventions of American foreign aid are being questioned, which may be related to Will’s questioning of the concept of truth. Therefore, it may be interpreted as means to illustrate the problems regarding American foreign aid, for the readers (Western readers) to think about their own role in this.

Hand’s Interruption is a paratext of Velocity, in which Eggers is playing with fiction and nonfiction. It is continuation as well as a destruction of the story. It may be viewed as a continuation of the story, because Hand is still the same ignorant person as in Will’s account, remaining a fictional character. He still can be criticised for his ignorant attitude, but his sincerity shines through as well. As a deconstruction of the story, Hand condemns Will’s account for not being completely truthful, telling us how we should understand the story. The interruption shows Eggers’ involvement with the text as well. It can be argued that Hand serves as Eggers’ alter ego, because his thoughts correspond to Eggers’. Also, I argue that Eggers’ alter ego responds to critics.

Will’s Account: The Role of Irony

Velocity is often labelled as a postmodern novel, but it has also been labelled as post-postmodernist and post-ironic. Irony certainly plays a role in Velocity. In Chapter 1, I explored that there is a distinction between rhetorical irony and extended irony. Extended irony extends across a whole idea instead of just a word. Different persons can only recognize irony when they have the same conventions and contexts. In dialogue, when the author presents different voices and positions, it is difficult to discern where the intention of irony lies. At the same time, there have to be people who actual believe the irony; without an opposite meaning, there can be no recognition. The role of irony may be related to the dialogues between Will and his mother, in which they challenge the conventions of American foreign aid.

(29)

about their actions, and who are more worried about their own problems than the problems they encounter. On the other hand, it can be argued that the characters in Velocity are sincere, stressing the problems regarding aid, to make the reader think about these issues, and to think about their own role with respect to these matters. Besides, Will’s mother is also an ignorant character. As a bystander she criticises Hand and Will, while lacking the same knowledge of these countries as them, and offering no solutions.

In postmodern irony the contexts and conventions are challenged: “there is no truth and reason behind our values.” Advocates of postmodern irony consider it to be “a liberating attitude that remains suspicious of any single foundation or ultimate position of truth” (Colebrook 182). In Velocity, Eggers challenges the conventional conventions by illustrating that there is no reason behind giving away money, nor is there for doing nothing. Eggers does not offer solutions, and he does not believe that there is one truth. This may be related to Will’s thoughts on the concept of truth; he believes that truth cannot be found in books, and which you can only see with our own eyes.

In Velocity, Eggers illustrates the problems of giving away money, such as deciding to whom and how to give away the money; but also problems regarding time and space. In illustrating these problems, Eggers stresses the awkwardness and ignorance of the benefactors, who perceive things from a Western perspective. Will, for example, is particular happy about a route around the world “that [has] everything. Political intrigue, a climactical buffet.” In addition, he wonders when “planes [got] so slow” and is surprised that there is no one-way flight from Greenland to Rwanda, claiming: “this is like the Middle Ages” (8). These remarks illustrate that they have no notion of what they are getting themselves into, or the seriousness of the problems of these countries. Their lack of knowledge of the countries is demonstrated by colour symbolism. Eggers compares the landscape of the countries Will and Hand visit to colours, but the colours of these countries often do not match the colours they had imagined: Morocco is green, and Senegal is brown - but they expected it to be the other way around. When they arrive in Morocco, Will notes:

(30)

Similarly, they do not know what to expect from Latvia and Estonia, because they expected “something more drab, with less panache” (311). Therefore, Will and Hand are typical uninformed characters, who know nothing about the state of these countries or their culture, viewing them from an American perspective.

One of the biggest problems Hand and Will face is to decide who deserves the money, and how to give it to them. The people they give their money to are picked randomly. They meet several people who obviously need the money, but they are afraid to give it to them in case they will be robbed or lose it. In contrast, Will and Hand give the money to people who do not really need it or do not want it. For instance, they give money to an Estonian guy for his band, or to an old man who changes their tires, but he does not want it. The way they give away money is awkward. For example, they try to tape money to donkeys, or make a treasure map with clues where to find the money. Furthermore, they want their recipients to do something in return for their money, such as showing them directions. Therefore, Eggers shows the inadequacy of their actions, imposing American values on their recipients.

Will and Hand are conscious of the absurdity of the situation. They do occasionally consider the feelings of their recipients, acknowledging that they are making a mess. When Hand wants to give away money to a few women walking just off the road, while he is still wearing his huge shiny sunglasses, Will asks him to do it without the sunglasses; he believes that “if you get out in your nylon pants and Top Gun Liberace sunglasses, then it sends a weird message” (179). However, Hand does not want to take them off, wondering what kind of message they are sending: “And just what is the message we’re sending, Will? Are we sending a normal message otherwise?” (179). A little later they actually wonder about what kind of message they are sending:

We debated briefly whether we were giving people false hope. That now the common belief around these parts, on this countryside, among the rural poor, would be that if one waits by the side of the road long enough, Americans in airtight rental cars and wearing pants that swish will hand out wads of cash. That we pay extravagantly to be told where to go (182).

(31)

sincere. They show their goodwill by recognising that they are making “a mess.” Furthermore, Will’s mother criticises their behaviour. Yet, she is as ignorant as Will and Hand.

Will’s mother plays the role of the critical bystander, criticising Will and Hand. She tells her son that the idea of giving away money to strangers “sounds silly,” that he is just “acting out,” claiming that he is doing it for other reasons, such as dealing with Jack’s death or his father’s abandonment. In other words, she tells him that he only does it to feel better about himself. His mother thinks he should rather give it to charity. She believes that what they are doing is condescending and subjective, because it is not clear whether they want it and it is hard to decide who gets the money. Despite this criticism of the obvious ignorant characters of Will and Hand, Eggers also presents Will’s mother as an ignorant character. Will criticises her, because he believes that calling it condescending is “a defence you to defend your own inaction” (122-124). Similar to Will and Hand, Will’s mother does not know anything about these countries. As a student of anthropology the aspects she knows about these countries she has learned from books. This is noteworthy, because Will believes that you cannot learn the truth from books. In addition, her ideas about African countries are very one-dimensional: When Will tells her, that they plan to go to Senegal, she claims that “No one goes to Senegal!” and “You’ll get AIDS!” (29). Thus, it can be argued that Will’s mother is just as ignorant as Will and Hand, demonstrating her passive attitude. Therefore, none of the characters seem to offer a solution. However, they do challenge the conventions of American foreign aid, indicating that there is not one truth. This questioning of the truth is related to Will’s thoughts on the concept of truth.

In Velocity, the concept of truth is frequently brought up by Will. He notes the truth is mediated through language, which means that something is only true when we see it with our own eyes. For example, Will is distressed about the fact that Martin Gilbert’s biography of Churchill does not convey several aspects of WOII and that it had to be condensed. According to Will, even if it had been written down, you would not know the truth:

(32)

Will realizes that even the facts in guidebooks are not always true. “Nothing was true. Nothing in the guidebook was true but the maps. Are maps true? Nothing else was true. The word fact could not exist. All facts changed on the way to the printer” (272). In addition, when a Russian woman claims that half of Latvia is Russian, Will says: “We had to accept this as true, until we could get back to our guide book.” (315). Thus, even when Will has first-hand information, he rather relies on a guidebook. In my view, Will’s ideas on the truth correspond to questioning the truth of American foreign aid. As I have illustrated, Eggers shows that there is not one good way of doing this. Neither Will and Hand nor Will’s mother offer solutions.

As I have illustrated, one possible interpretation of the book is that Eggers ridicules the characters of Will and Hand in the book for their inadequacy in giving away money, corresponding to the inadequacies of American foreign aid; Will and Hand do not carefully consider to whom they should give their money. However, despite their naïveté they are also sincere. They are not aware of their ignorance, and they are really trying to do good. In addition, Will’s mother is criticising Will and Hand for obvious reasons, but at the same time she is not doing anything herself. Furthermore, none of the characters offer solutions, illustrating that there is not one good way of doing charity, and thus not one truth. This corresponds to Will’s ideas on the concept of the truth, who believes that you can only see the truth with your own eyes. Therefore, it can be argued that the point of the dialogues between Will and his mother is to make the readers think about their own role.

Eggers thinks of Velocity as a straightforward political book, in which he wanted to say something “in the context of where we are, in terms of First World vis-à-vis Third, and our roles as individuals – as representatives and beneficiaries of the relatively incredible wealth of our nations – in that relationship” (“McSweeney’s interview”). He claims that there are serious topics at the core of the book. This indicates that Eggers rather wants to address the issue than to ridicule it. He indicates that he wanted to illustrate the mess of it all:

But this is the problem of giving at all; there are the people who want the money you’ve given to the other guy, and there are the people watching – in this case, the reader – who are standing aside, critiquing the giving. It’s all a mess, and it soils the simple act of giving, which really shouldn’t be questioned.

(33)

Americans, calling Will and Hand “pilgrims [who are] doing penance for their American privilege”, calling the book “a comedy of globalization.” He also notes the ambiguousness of the book: “As always with Eggers, not least interesting figuring out just who the joke is on.”

In his review “Dave Eggers Gets Real,” Lev Crossman claims that Eggers is “through kidding around,” claiming that Will and Hand have “genuine existential pathos.” He believes that Velocity is Eggers’ “attempt to cleanse himself in the turpentine of earnestness.” Besides, Crossman thinks that the book as well as Eggers “should deserve our forgiveness and our respect,” indicating that he has done a great deal for American writing.

In his article “Voorbij de Eindeloze Ironie,” Den Dulk claims that at the end of the book Will and Hand are not ignorant characters. While at the beginning of their trip they do not make decisions, consequently not really experiencing anything; at the end of the book, they realize that they can only be “free” when they make decisions. He believes that Eggers belongs to a group of authors who are looking for forms of sincere expression, and who want to communicate with readers.

As I have illustrated, characteristic of this novel is Eggers’ use of irony. Even though critics and Eggers have defended its seriousness, the irony in Velocity makes multiple interpretations possible. In the next section, I will discuss Hand’s interruption, in which Eggers reinforces his ambivalent tone.

Hand’s Interruption: Metafiction

The interruption, written by Francis R. “Hand” Wisneiwski is a response to Will’s account. It is a narrative about a narrative, in which Hand condemns Will’s use of fiction in his story of their trip around the world. Several interpretations of the interruption are possible: the interruption may be a continuation of the story as well as a destruction of the story. As a continuation of the story, the same ambivalence about the characters emerges. On the one hand, Eggers criticises Hand for his ignorance. On the other hand, Eggers shows his sincerity. It is a deconstruction of the story, because Hand condemns Will’s account for not being completely truthful.