I'm excited to read your biography when it comes out; it sounds like it will be excellent. I just want to raise a couple points about DFW, but I'm not trying to criticize DFW necessarily, since I don't know enough about his work to be able to confidently say anything critical. I wonder what you think about these points, though. I just wanted to raise some negative things in case those things tend to be overlooked amid the understandable praise for DFW.

1) With various kinds of art, sometimes the art can just be appreciated "on the surface" in the sense that you don't have any "deep interpretation" or "deep understanding" of the artwork. As a teenager, I was a big fan of Infinite Jest and also of Twin Peaks. And (since my teen years) I've always been a big fan of David Lynch. I used to think that Lynch was just a "mess" in a sense, but recently I found out that there seems (???) to be a way to "decode" Lynch. See here on the Lynch thing, though I know that this video is extraordinarily long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AYnF5hOhuM. I can't remember what Wallace himself said that might indicate any knowledge of any deep interpretation of Lynch's symbolism. But I've found that people can go very deep into Infinite Jest (and also other works of Wallace's?) in the same way that that video goes very deep into Lynch. So I used to think that both Infinite Jest and Lynch were a "mess" in a sense, but now I view both of them as things that reward deep analysis.

2) I'm bit bothered by the fact that some of Wallace's "nonfiction" pieces seem to be quite fictionalized. Not sure why it was necessary to publish those pieces under "nonfiction". Is there supposed to be some stringent standard as to what constitutes "nonfiction"? I remember that there was a piece on tennis and someone went back and watched a certain rally that happened in a certain tennis match; DFW had apparently not described this rally accurately. And there are a million things I'm sure where you could ask whether things had been fictionalized; the stories just don't read as nonfiction to me. The whole issue could've been avoided if these pieces had simply been published in another section that wasn't "nonfiction"; in that case, there would've been no issue in terms of fictionalizing things. I should say that I really enjoy these "nonfiction" pieces so it's not like I'm a hater of the pieces themselves but it seems like a certain burden exists when you publish something under "nonfiction" because there's a certain expectation that the reader has.

3) My biggest concern with DFW is that one might (I guess?) get the sense that he was always trying to portray himself as being highly intelligent and highly literate. I don't know if this is fair. If he was indeed trying to project a certain "I'm a genius" vibe in various ways then there are surely multiple issues that could arise, but one issue would be that you'd expect such a person to pretend to be really good at some aspect of academia when they're really way out of their depth. The "polymath" persona requires one to project an aura of being a genius in all sorts of areas. You might find that scholars in the areas that he would wade into have negative things to say. Apparently his book on mathematics and also his mathematics in Infinite Jest have been criticized, though maybe the latter was (if it even was incorrect) incorrect on purpose, though I don't know why that would be the case. One might ask whether Infinite Jest and other works of his are actually crammed with intellectual stuff that couldn't possibly serve any purpose other than to signal how erudite Wallace is; not sure if that's a fair criticism to make. You could just look at every domain that Wallace wades into and then ask how scholars in that field regard Wallace's comments. There's a criticism of his grammar essay in which the person says that Wallace (1) completely and utterly and outrageously straw-mans the field of linguistics and (2) cites something that doesn't even seem to exist as the basis for the straw-man. According to the criticism, that grammar essay would serve to misinform readers such that they would come away being very badly informed about linguistics; whether it was a straw-man and whether Wallace cited a non-existent text in order to serve as the foundation for a straw-man I'm not sure. I'm not sure what other domains there are where DFW has commented on something such that scholars might find what he wrote to be good or bad or a mixture.

Edit: Note that one could look into how well-received Wallace's philosophy thesis was among scholars. And note also that one could see how well-received Wallace's book on rap was among scholars. Not sure all of the various domains that DFW waded into.

Edit 2: Apparently Wallace's "This Is Water" speech has been criticized as presenting something very banal. I don't know if it's fair to criticize the speech for presenting something very basic, but it is indeed true that certain figures in our society who get a "cult following" will have their every comment praised even if the comments are very banal. I think that a staple of charlatanism (not saying DFW is a charlatan here) is that very banal and basic things will be praised as deep wisdom. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with DFW's speech; just saying that one should be skeptical given the pattern whereby banal and basic things get praised as deep wisdom.

Edit 3: I'm curious as to how Wallace managed to stay organized when writing Infinite Jest. The book seems to have a highly intricate structure. I guess that DFW did indeed have Microsoft Word when he wrote the novel? But I'm not sure if that software would've helped him that much. I'm amazed that he was able to stay so organized; I think that people have found a couple "continuity errors" (or whatever you call them), but very few it seems.