Oops! Child was mentioned, once near the end.

Rereading the story increases my appreciation for its strength.

I wonder if it's part of something longer, like zenith said.

But is this really a 'fine' piece of writing? It feels like a second draft...if the blurriness of the writing is deliberate, it's over-done. This sentence is a good example of what I mean (it's not cherry-picked...there are plenty to choose from):

"The only other individual nearby was a dozen spaced tables away, by himself, standing upright."

Try:

"The only other individual was a dozen tables away."

Is anything necessary lost by tightening that sentence? Wordiness can be a rhythmic device or a tone-setter and so forth, sure, but isn't this merely DFW being kinda sloppy? Or, again, over-indulging in the demotic?

I was just reading E Unibus Pluram again and it hit me that DFW's making use of a sort of constructive (reverse?)irony in the tension between what is said and the imagery conjured up. Man oh man is this a powerful story. I'm about ready to get all evangelical and have a shirt made that says "Lake of fire survivor" or something corny but truish like that.