Not all literary hoaxes get the same kind of exposure as James Frey's brutal whooping at the hands of Oprah Winfrey. Some sneak right by, especially the subtle ones like Jay Murray Siskind's review of David Foster Wallace's "Oblivion" in a 2004 issue of Modernism/Modernity. In the five subsequent years, the review has been treated as legitimate, even being cited as peer-reviewed research. The problem being that Jay Murray Siskind is a character from the books "Amazons" and "White Noise" by Don DeLillo. In simple terms this is like Frodo Baggins reviewing "Harry Potter."
Some scholars became aware of the review at the time of its appearance but, as with many small, curious concerns, most simply assumed everyone else also noticed it and that someone else would fix it.
The review itself, littered with tangents and in-jokes for anyone familiar with the book "White Noise," has been attributed to no one in particular and remains something of a mystery. Whether the hoax was perpetrated by Wallace, DeLillo or maybe just a bored fan of the genre with a bit of spare time, it has since become apparent that nobody really cared.
From the Web:
Prank War's Newest Stunt Involves 17,950 Fans (College Humor)

























Lingerie Worker Claims She Was Fired For Being 'Too Hot'
What Happened When Alex Kenjeev Paid His Student Loan in Cash
'Undercover Boss': 5 Most Gripping Moments From Season 3
Billboard Music Awards Red Carpet 2012 (PHOTOS)
Why Facebook's Falling Share Price Really Doesn't Matter
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan: A Romantic Facebook Timeline
Peter Jones Dead: Crowded House Drummer Dies of Brain Cancer at 45
Facebook's IPO Debacle, Day 3: Un-Friended and Dis-Liked on Wall Street
Vet Saves His Own Cat's Life After Car Accident
Jennifer Lopez, Casper Smart TV Show: J.Lo to Star in Reality Series With Boyfriend (REPORT)







Comments:
Add a comment
Wednesday 22 July
By Erin Renee
I was required to read White Noise as an undergraduate English student
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Cecil Jones
This hoax has limited appeal and limited impact on society as a whole. Now if you want to talk about literary mysteries I've got a truth that will rip your eyebrows off. Why didn't anyone look for the person who made Oprah get political? Who is "The Bush Fly?" Who put former VP Dick Cheney in the bunker? Who impeached Bill Clinton? Who is former VP Al Gore's Poetic Sidewind? Who helped Democrats defend Terri Schaivo and Social Security? Who is responsible for "Childish Things" and "The Politics of Personal Destruction?" Now were talking mysteries of social substance. These are right below "Deep Throat" and not the porn movie.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By ksb28839
wtf does anyone understand this! can you make anything harder to read?
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By jan
I don't find it amusing and on the other hand time consuming to read a bunch of words strung together in the name of literacy. I find that most writings are judgmental and inflammatory at the bottom line and to think that this is what we leave our young people to repeat as fact and current news is an abhorrance to me. Come on people. Is the media always to be allowed to publish such garbage?
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By kirk
geez kathleen....lighten up!
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By dickn2000b
The other obvious hoax here is this article written by Ian Fortey. Talk about making the obscure, ridiculously more obscure. I'm certain Fortey believes he is a journalist, but he is miserably mistaken.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Caroline
Perhaps the person who wrote the initial review was trying to see if anyone had read enough to know that a character supposedly written it. I can well imagine the author's smirk when the review went over everyone's head.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Demi22
that's some good stuff! it's nice to know that even scholars can drop the ball on things they should be aware of. I wonder... if you read the book and then read the review, how you miss the pen name. I wonder who wrote the review...
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By ROLLANDO
It seems the author of this article has nothing else better to do. Just as AOL trying to look for something interesting for it's readers. And I, having nothing else better to do, reading this article.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Jonathan
I remember this going around. We got it, but it just wasn't particularly funny or interesting. To be frank, David Foster Wallace was pretty much past the time anyone considered him particularly interesting either, and DeLillo's bludgeon-you-with-his-ideas-instead-of-telling-you-a-story BS is not something I was interested in dredging up from the '80s just to make successful someone's little attempt to invoke it in the first place.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Easter Bunny
I'm glad that was a short article - it gave me time to read the Bickerson's reviews afterword.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Kris in Tampa
It is confusing for those of us who haven't read these books. From what I can tell, this is about one "character" from a book reviewing another book written by the same author. It was taken as a serious review. Hope that helps ;)
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Cat
I totally understand the article. My question is: Why is it important enough to discuss? Here we have a planet filled with stupid wars, a lot of inhumanity between people, illness, famine. Here we have a crashing economy, health care not available to MILIIONS of Americans who simply cannot afford it, an environment that is fraught with destruction. So, now someone perpetrated a hoax by not putting his or her real name on to a book review. All I have to say is, "Strange idea of what is important!"
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Denise
Too all the smart asses and your nasty remarks to people. TO all whom claim to understand this article and ridicule of others It is funny I do not see you explaining it to them.
Reply
Wednesday 22 July
By Kris in Tampa
So is that ALL people should ever discuss anymore? Doom and Gloom of our world and planet? Oooh thats a great world to live in!
Reply
Monday 27 July
By Nadia
Only complaint:
Was the LOTR analogy truly necessary?
Reply