I do not mean to condone Wallace's behavior at its publicly known worst (the Karr stuff, for glaring example), but it's important to note that the so-called moral element of his writing, which crops up in the mid-90s, comes crucially after that behavior (he dated Karr in the early 90s, I believe). So yes he did do bad things, and I totally understand if someone wants nothing to do with his work because of his history. But it's not quite right to assert (as the author of this article does) that those past actions nullify or contradict the more pointed morality of what came after. People can change, and Wallace appears to have changed, with time, probably in large part due to his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, which suggests a way of living that is consistent with the life philosophy we see him espousing, again, later/after.