Discussion - Week One - Death Kit - p. 1 - 106

[Jim]

This discussion covers Page 1 – 106, last line: Diddy put on his jacket, checked his briefcase to see he had everything he needed. Went downstairs.


Diddy pops some pills but doesn’t end up dead. A few weeks later, he might or might not have killed a railroad worker in a tunnel, but it seems pretty clear he hooked up with a blind girl in the toilet. After a rough night in the hotel, Diddy finds his confirmation in the Late Edition. At the conference, two teams form and Diddy leans toward the opposition. His appetite returns and so does his confusion.


To avoid spoilers, please limit your comments to p. 1 – 106.

[Nicole]

So far, I've got this:

Diddy is beginning, just beginning, to doubt his memory. But that always happens, doesn't it? All past events, both real and imaginary, are consigned to the trusteeship of the imagination. Whether the killing of the workman was fantasy or fact, Diddy has no access to it (now) except through his imagination. The past must be reimagined; memories aren't like furniture, something solid that you can own.

This is coupled with the repetition of that tic (now) -- which has become sort of obtrustive now (now) that I've noticed she's doing it. Is it meant to create some kind of radical present in the narrative: I will only tell you what is happening to Diddy exactly absolutely right now (now)? Though, if this is what she is on about, the narrative does seem fairly traditional, at least so far. I don't see a huge difference between this narrative and one that would not make a special effort to exist always and only in the description of present states and events.

[Jim]

Nicole wrote: "So far, I've got this:

Diddy is beginning, just beginning, to doubt his memory. But that always happens, doesn't it? All past events, both real and imaginary, are consigned to the trusteeship of t..."

Another question about the "(now)" is how does it affect us as readers? Sometimes the (now) makes logical sense for the sentence, sometimes it changes the sentence, and sometimes it completes the sentence - i.e., there are some cases where if you remove the (now), the sentence becomes a fragment. And so the (now) becomes a kind of speed-bump in the narrative flow. Why is she slowing us down like this? Does she want to draw attention to the specific scene? Is she trying to make us contemplate how, in that moment, the narrative might change its meaning if it were "now" instead of "then"? I'm sure she isn't just messing with us because Sontag wouldn't use this device without it being important to her plan/strategy.

There are three types of narrative. The first is the pedestrian third person which makes up the bulk of the story, and is, as you mention, fairly traditional. The second is the didactic philosopher asides which address the reader directly, such as "But that always happens, doesn't it? All past events, both real and imaginary, are consigned to the trusteeship of the imagination." The third is a second person narrator who uses the word "we", usually when Diddy is in a group of people and some sort of action is being described. I'm very curious about this "we" and I'm hoping for some sort of reveal at the end of the story about who this "we" is supposed to represent.

[Nicole]

It is very speed-bumpy, that's exactly how it is. I find that once you've noticed it's happening, you can't then un-notice it, but you also don't really get used to it.

I don't know why she's doing it, though I think your questions are the right ones.