Infinite Jest, Footnote Thread

[Zulfiya]

This is the thread to discuss footnotes. Because it might inadvertently lead to spoilers, make sure that you use spoiler HTML and prior to your comment indicate what footnote you are going to discuss.

[John]

To add to what Zulfiya said -- also make sure you don't post anything from the main text beyond the footnote you're discussing. So, for example, if you're discussing footnote 24, not only should you not talk about anything beyond that in the footnotes, but make sure you don't talk about any events past note 24 in the main text as well!

Whew! OK, here's an exciting one:

Footnote 24!

(view spoiler)[
Himself's filmography!

I don't have a lot of time at the moment so I'm going to post some quick and dirty notes I had:

-- Cosgrove Watt is an actor in several films. He was mentioned briefly by hal on pg. 17

-- the movie Widower deals with a fear of spiders, if I remember correctly Orin mentioned his father's fear of spiders in the section with the cockroaches? Maybe? I'll have to go back and check

--Death in Scarsdale mentions excessive perspiration. I read that DFW himself suffered from this, hence his trademark white bandana.

--CAGE III - Free Show -- OK, first of all this synopsis is creepy as hell. Second, it sounds similar to what happened to the Saudi Attache -- he wet his recliner and seemed to slip into some kind of coma. Similar to people turning into eyeballs while watching a show?

--Homo Duplex Is about people named john Wayne. Hal mentioned a "John N.R. Wayne" on pg 17

--The man who began to suspect he was made of glass --"A Man Who Began..." etc. was the name of one of Hal's application essays to U of Arizona, pg7

-- Insubstantial Country seems to have parallels to hal's situation Re: not being able to communicate.

--It was a great marvel that he was in the father without knowing him -- This synopsis is an EXACT summary of the chapter with Hal's interview with his Father! Could the chapter actually have been describing the film rather than something that really happened?
(hide spoiler)]

Whew again :)

[Linda]

Footnote 24

(view spoiler)[
John wrote: "--It was a great marvel that he was in the father without knowing him -- This synopsis is an EXACT summary of the chapter with Hal's interview with his Father! Could the chapter actually have been describing the film rather than something that really happened?

Yeah, that was my first thought, that what we had read before in the actual text, was essentially the film that the father had produced. Film within book. If so, more confusion as to what actually happens lies ahead. Of course, this may not actually be the case. I need to look at my notes to see what year each of them took place - when did the episode in the text take place vs when did the film get produced?

Also, in reference to the years - it was mentioned that the father produced films (or was it he started the E.T.A.?) 3 years before the subsidized years started. And that there are 8 subsidized years so far. So now we know how many years there are and can start filling in blanks. Looks like Year of the Whopper is the first subsidized year, followed by Year of the Tucks Medicated Pad, if I'm not mistaken. I found it funny that anytime before the subsidized years is called "BS". Ha ha, as if to say that anything that happened before the year of corporate influence is irrelevant. And wasn't there a mention that James didn't want any of his films finally finished and produced until the subsidization took place, so his films would all be within the subsidized year? I may be remembering wrong here, though.

John - good catch on the mention of Cosgrove earlier. You seem to have a great memory for the characters mentioned, or you take awesome notes!!

Also, YES, CAGE III - Free Show was totally creepy... Nice comparison to the medical attache.
(hide spoiler)]

[Kaycie]

Re: John and Linda's footnote comments

(view spoiler)[Could the chapter actually have been describing the film rather than something that really happened?

I was thinking this, too!! Either that or the dad made a movie about the event afterwards? I don't have my notes on me, but I thought when I was reading that the movie came after the year it was described.

I also started putting together years based on the order of the films.

And Linda, I also got a good laugh out of the "BS" years...there seems to be a lot of subtle humor throughout the book and I'm sure I'm also missing tons, but these little additions are priceless.

(hide spoiler)]

[John]

24 again!

(view spoiler)[
Linda wrote: " I need to look at my notes to see what year each of them took place - when did the episode in the text take place vs when did the film get produced?"

Ooh excellent point -- just checked, the chapter took place in the year of the Tucks medicated pad, and the film was made (or at least released) in the year of the Trial-sized Dove Bar. So I would guess the James made the film based on the event.
(hide spoiler)]

[Linda]

24

(view spoiler)[So the Tucks Medicated Pad year came before the Trial-Sized Dove Bar. So it seems the film was based upon what really happened? (hide spoiler)]

[John]

24

(view spoiler)[Linda wrote: "So the Tucks Medicated Pad year came before the Trial-Sized Dove Bar. So it seems the film was based upon what really happened?"

Unless the film was just set in the year of T.M.P.? I would say that the interview portion does SEEM "fictional" to me. The dialogue seems more scripted than the other sections of the book which are more naturalistic. Perhaps James made the film *based* on a real event, yet what we saw in the chapter was still the adaptation. Perhaps later we'll see Hal's account of what actually happened? We'll have to wait and see!
(hide spoiler)]

[Linda]

24

(view spoiler)[John wrote: "Unless the film was just set in the year of T.M.P.? I would say that the interview portion does SEEM "fictional" to me.

Touche! Also, I noticed that this episode was set in the year of T.M.P., ON April 1st... Wonder if that is significant at all. The father was in a disguise, after all... (hide spoiler)]

[John]

Still generally discussing 24, although I'm not actually talking about the footnote anymore

(view spoiler)[
Also on April 1 -- this time in the Y.D.A.U. - the Saudi Medical Attache received the mystery video package. I wonder if the dates coinciding indicates a connection?
(hide spoiler)]

[Rosemary]

24

(view spoiler)[What do we think happened to Infinite Jest V? "...lists the film as completed and privately distributed ... through posthumous provisions in the filmmaker's will" - could it be the film the medical attaché was watching? (hide spoiler)]

[Rosemary]

24

(view spoiler)[John wrote: "Cosgrove Watt is an actor in several films. He was mentioned briefly by hal on pg. 17"

Marlon Bain is another actor in several films. One of Orin's "subjects" (i.e. girlfriends?) mentioned on page 47 is "Bain's sister". (hide spoiler)]

[John]

24

(view spoiler)[
Rosemary, that actually sounds VERY likely! James did mention Avril's affairs specifically with "near-eastern medical attaches", I believe. So the film could have been sent as revenge to the men who slept with his wife.

We also know that James had a career in "optics"...maybe developing a film that could be used in that way was actually his goal as a filmmaker all along.

Good catch on Bain's sister as well, I'll have to go back and reread that.
(hide spoiler)]

[Rosemary]

304

Linda wrote: "It looks to be another very long footnote, but in the form of a side story. I'm not sure if I should read this footnote now, or when it is actually referenced in the text."

John wrote:"I wasn't sure about this either, Rosemary you say you've read it? Does it make sense, or is it referencing things we don't know?"

It doesn't contain any spoilers IMO but I will put this in spoiler tags anyway. (view spoiler)[It's background on the A.F.R., the Wheelchair Assassins, presented in the form of a history text that one of the E.T.A. students is plagiarizing for an assignment.

I thought "sub" just meant subsequent. I can't see any reason for us to be led to it via footnote 45, which has no other purpose, if we're not meant to read it. But perhaps this is a dilemma that D.F.W. deliberately foists on us :-) (hide spoiler)]

[Linda]

Rosemary wrote: "It doesn't contain any spoilers IMO but I will put this in spoiler tags anyway."

Thanks for the summary, Rosemary! I guess I'll wait to read it when I get to it, if for no other reason than I have a lot of other reading to do at the moment. It is puzzling why we were led to it this early in the book.

[Linda]

24

Random notes I took while looking over Footnote 24 again:

(view spoiler)["Insubstantial Country - Unpopular apres-garde filmmaker (Watt) either suffers a temporal lobe seizure & becomes mute or else is the victim of everyone else's delusion that his (Watt's) temporal lobe seizure has left him mute."

Is this foreshadowing of what we will learn of how Hal becomes, or is perceived to be, mute? Does he have a seizure sometime during Y.D.A.U.? Although if Hal is portrayed by the actor Watt, it's confusing that Watt is the filmmaker. So perhaps it is actually Himself who suffers a seizure? I was unsure if the problem during their conversation was Hal or Himself.

"Infinite Jest (V?). T.S.D.B. Last Film. James Incandenza death occurred during post-production. Most archival authorities list as unfinished, unseen. Though no scholarly synopsis or report of viewing exists.....essays refer to film as "most entertaining work"."

I'm wondering if James Incandenza died as a result of finishing and, while doing so, viewing this film? It was speculated by John that this is the film that was sent to the medical attache.

"Dial C for Concupiscence.....she falls in love with an armless Near Eastern medical attache"

At first I thought "was the medical attache we have already read about actually armless?? And that's why he needed the tray attached below his mouth??" But then when I went back and reviewed, it seemed he did have arms.... Anyway, I thought this was an odd detail.

I'm wondering who this sandwich bag person is? Mentioned on p. 988 (sandwich bag salesman) and on p. 991 (sandwich bag conglomerate).

"Low-Temp Civics....after their father (Watt) has an ecstatic encounter with death ("Psychosis") and becomes irreversibly catatonic.

I noticed "Madame Psychosis" is listed as an actor in a couple of the I.J. films, but in the final film she is listed as the only actor. Who, or what, is this Madame Psychosis, which apparently is synonymous with "death". (hide spoiler)]

OK, that's all for my ramblings... :)

[John]

66

(view spoiler)[This footnote gives us pretty clear confirmation that Y.D.A.U. is approximately in the mid-2020s.

If MIT students' parents listened to Pearl Jam and R.E.M. Tapes, we can assume the parents were about 20 in about 1995. Further assuming they had kids around age 30, the kids would be entering MIT in the early 2020s. (hide spoiler)]

[Rosemary]

John wrote: "66"

(view spoiler)[So that would mean Orin, Mario and Hal were born mid-2000's? In that case Himself, if he is Jim from the 'young Jim' section, who is 10 in 1960 if I remember right, would have been relatively old for a parent - around 50-55 when his kids were born. Perfectly possible, but might affect family dynamics. (hide spoiler)]

[John]

Rosemary wrote: "John wrote: "66""

(view spoiler)[yep, I think this is the case. The book did mention at one point that James was older when he married Avril -- I think it was referred to as a "may-december" romance. (hide spoiler)]

[Linda]

John wrote: "66"

(view spoiler)[The "may-december" reference reminds me that the marriage was also referred to "more like a july-october" marriage. I was trying to figure out what was meant by that at the time. If May means "young wife" and December means "older husband", then does july-october mean Avril was not as young as people thought, and likewise James not as old as people thought? Not a big deal, I guess, I just remember trying to figure out what was meant by that when I read it. (hide spoiler)]

[John]

Hmm, I don't remember that line Linda! I will have to go back and reread that part.

[Linda]

John wrote: "Hmm, I don't remember that line Linda! I will have to go back and reread that part."

It's on page 64, and references footnote 25.

[Kaycie]

Footnote 110

(view spoiler)[First of all, judging from the convexity/concavity stuff I read online, what is in here is probably the most detailed explanation we are going to get, but I still found it confusing and would not have known what it meant without the webpage. If people haven't read the online "cheat" yet that actually shows a map of what this, I recommend reading it here. It will help tons.

This part and Hal's knowledge of Canadian politics leads me to believe he should be WELL aware of the wheelchair assassins, and maybe more concerned for Orin? A reporter is suddenly super interested in Orin and his family AND goes on and on about Canadian politics AND wheelchaired men are following Orin everywhere? I think that would ring bells for me if I was his brother... (hide spoiler)]

[Dustin]

John wrote: "To add to what Zulfiya said -- also make sure you don't post anything from the main text beyond the footnote you're discussing. So, for example, if you're discussing footnote 24, not only should yo..."

Just read footnote #24 last night, everyone. John, excellent points of observation. It's so interesting to me how Himself's personal life (view spoiler)[tended to translate to film. BTW, I totally missed Hal mentioning Cosgrove Watt, "A Man Who Began..." etc. was the name of one of Hal's application essays to U of Arizona, pg7, and Hal's mentioning of John N.R. Wayne oh p. 17. (hide spoiler)] I'm loving the various connections and how they all tie together.:)

[Dustin]

Kaycie wrote: "Re: John and Linda's footnote comments

Could the chapter actually have been describing the film rather than something that really happened?

I was thinking this, too!! Either that or the dad made..."

(view spoiler)[Yes, couldn't agree more, DFW's subtle humor comes up a lot, probably more than us IJ virgins realize, and to me, those are almost funnier than his outright hilarity.

Hmm, my initial thought was that the events portrayed in The Year Of Glad took place before the film. But now I don't know, you guys have got me thinking now.. (hide spoiler)]

[Dustin]

John wrote: "24

Linda wrote: "So the Tucks Medicated Pad year came before the Trial-Sized Dove Bar. So it seems the film was based upon what really happened?"

Unless the film was just set in the year of T.M.P..."

(view spoiler)[Or maybe the opening is, in reality, the film. John, you made an excellent point about said scene having a more "scripted" feel to it. (hide spoiler)]

[Dustin]

Rosemary wrote: "24

[spoilers removed]"

That was my guess, Rosemary. But how would he be viewing it if it was never released?

[Dustin]

Oh man, if anyone's up to discussing Footnote #45, which leads to #305, I'd love to join you and would be most appreciative.:)

[Linda]

Dustin wrote: "Oh man, if anyone's up to discussing Footnote #45, which leads to #305, I'd love to join you and would be most appreciative.:)"

Ha! What a coincidence. I just read FN #304 (I assume that's the one you mean, Dustin?) last night. I actually didn't read it when FN #45 referred to it, waiting instead until I actually came to #304 in the text.

(view spoiler)[
Anyway, to start off one of my favorite lines was when Jim Struck was wondering to himself:

(page 1061)"...It is not rare for several of the le Jeu's finalists to be struck." Struck tries to decide whether it'd be unrealistic or unself-consciously realistic to keep using his own name as a verb - would a man with anything to camouflage use his own name as a verb?

Too funny!! (hide spoiler)]

[Dustin]

Yep, that's the one! I thought it was #305, but must have been mistaken. Which begs the question: are you supposed to read the footnotes as they appear in the novel, or follow DFW's direction and "see #304." That's probably up to the reader's discretion, but if DFW's referencing it to what's happening in the novel, then there was a reason for that. Right??

And yeah, I love the play-on-words regarding Struck. There are a lot of puns/play-on-words here, and I love it.

[Linda]

Dustin wrote: "Which begs the question: are you supposed to read the footnotes as they appear in the novel, or follow DFW's direction and "see #304.""

Some of us had this discussion because I think most of us read 304 at the time 45 popped up, but a couple of us (me included) waited until 304 appeared in the text. It's anybody's guess what DFW wanted us to do! As someone pointed out (I think Ami?), it was almost like one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books!

[Dustin]

Linda wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Which begs the question: are you supposed to read the footnotes as they appear in the novel, or follow DFW's direction and "see #304.""

Some of us had this discussion because I thin..."

Agreed, it is very much like a Choose Your Own Adventure! But like I said before, if he's directing us to said footnote at that time, then that's more than likely how he intended it. But to each their own, right? Weren't you curious about #304, though? What are your thoughts on it?

[Linda]

Dustin wrote: "Weren't you curious about #304, though?"

Ha ha. Well, actually one of the reasons I didn't read #304 at the time was that it was super long. And I wasn't up for reading a long footnote at the moment.

(view spoiler)[I thought the entire background on the AFR was pretty gruesome, especially being a game that mostly kids were playing. How horrible. The best part of #304 for me was reading about Struck's thought process in order to turn this essay into his own, and the mistakes he made along the way. I also liked how it was pointed out that a couple of the other ETA boys (I can't remember who, now) found it funny how Struck had to put so much more work into plagiarizing an essay than it would have taken to just come up with his own essay. (hide spoiler)]

[Dustin]

Yes, it is quite long (though I've been warned of longer ones..)

(view spoiler)[It is very brutal, indeed! This reminded me of The Running Man or The Hunger Games, actually, though the events in IJ weren't televised. Or were they? I'm not far enough to know.
I also really enjoyed Struck's perceptions of the piece, and how he could have written something original in the time it took to conceal his plagiarism . And how near the end, he either didn't notice that he's copied it verbatim, or simply didn't care.
It also struck me (no pun intended) that while DFW does show us how Marathe lost his legs, including the circumstances, but by bringing Struck into the mix, he not only has 100% control of the scene (this was one of Wallace's strengths, IMO,) but he brings sooo much more than what Marathe's reminiscing! (hide spoiler)]

[Rosemary]

Dustin wrote: "by bringing Struck into the mix, he [...] brings sooo much more than what Marathe's reminiscing!"

That's a great observation, Dustin. I hadn't noticed, but now you've mentioned it, DFW does this again, elsewhere - I can't name particular scenes, but I'm sure there are several where he has something narrated by an apparently uninvolved third party character, and it definitely adds something to the mix ... often because the reader sees more of what's going on than the narrating character.

[Dustin]

Thank you.:) I'm glad I brought it to your attention. This is the first time I've come across said technique in the novel so far (not that directly, at least,) and I look forward to similar scenes in the future.

A couple months ago, I read his short story collection, Girl with Curious Hair, and scenes which are similar to #304, only he went about it differently. And there are no footnotes at all.

[Dustin]

I forget which footnote it is, I want to say 78 or 79, but I knew you all were the go-to group. On page 299, (view spoiler)[DFW lists the names of the wacky years, but unless I misunderstood, the events that took place in The Year Of Glad happened AFTER those I've read thus far?? Is that correct? If so, I'm completely confused! Help!!
And what was the point of said footnote? I don't get it.. (hide spoiler)]

[Linda]

Dustin wrote: "I forget which footnote it is, I want to say 78 or 79, but I knew you all were the go-to group. On page 299..."

I'm confused which footnote you're asking about? #78 is about ratification of some contract, and #79 is about video-recorded suicide notes.

And do you mean page 223? (view spoiler)[yes, you are correct that Year of Glad happens after everything you've read so far. Fun, isn't it?!! :) (hide spoiler)]

[Dustin]

Linda wrote: "Dustin wrote: "I forget which footnote it is, I want to say 78 or 79, but I knew you all were the go-to group. On page 299..."

I'm confused which footnote you're asking about? #78 is about ratifi..."

Footnote #78. Sorry about that. I didn't have my book open, and couldn't verify.

What!??! My mind is officially blown!! It's a lot of fun, indeed, though I have no idea how that's even possible..