DFW has a peculiar writing style. For example, in his essay, Authority and American Usage, he makes use of a colloquial form of writing which is often repeated in his other essays. An example of this concerns his use of footnotes — the essay has 81 of them, and sometimes even footnotes have footnotes. This makes the essay something of a wild ride to read.
An example more localized to Authority and American Usage is the colloquial use of titles. Though they draw an ironic point, it's very typical to see this in DFW's writing elsewhere:
THESIS STATEMENT FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE
COROLLARY TO THESIS STATEMENT FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE
INTERPOLATION POTENTIALLY DESCRIPTIVIST-LOOKING EXAMPLE OF SOME GRAMMATICAL ADVANTAGES OF A NON-STANDARD DIALECT THAT THIS REVIEWER ACTUALLY KNOWS ABOUT FIRSTHAND
ANOTHER KIND OF USAGE-WARS RELATED EXAMPLE, THIS ONE WITH A PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON DIALECT AS A VECTOR OF SELF-PRESENTATION VIA POLITENESS
...and so on and so forth. (This essay is a treasure to read.)
He's even, in some other places, gone so far as to embed footnotes inside of boxes inside pages, and putting more footnotes inside those boxes, up to three or four layers deep, such as in the essay, Host.
Did DFW ever write about where he drew inspiration for his style? Was this sort of colloquial-academic prose unique to the way he writes?