Infinite Jest
discussion
does anybody want to talk about Infinite Jest?
message 101:
by
Ken
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Jul 18, 2011 06:06PM
Wallace is just another intellectually advanced, emotional manchild hiding beneath a blanket woven of sophistries and self-absorption. The genius of the book is that Wallace shrouds it in so much esoteric material that anyone who questions it can be accused of not fully understanding.
reply
|
flag
Also, I'm just trying to recall, at what point did it click for any of you that (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT) the "Ente..."
I don't think it was all that much of a surprise, at least compared to the other revelations/coincidences peppered throughout the rest of the novel.
Robin wrote: "Please?"Absolutely not. The most over rated, over wrought piece of contemporary literature I have (tried, twice) to read. Not worth your time, or mine.
I'd rather not talk about Infinite Jest.
Wow, some haters. Why would someone even bother adding a comment, if they're not interested in the discussion, I wonder.
Because they have very little imagination. Viva L'Infinite Jest! And go suck an egg, haters.
this is a great point about hal, and the fact that he is unaware of his emotions that are showing (sort of like micro expressions writ large). and the whole map/territory thing is def. alluded to here, but i'm having trouble seeing how it all fits thematically. what is the reference for? does it somehow point toward something else? or is it just a nod at lit theory? by this i mean: edward p. jones' "the known world" has references to the very same thing, and these references are about knowledge and how it confers power upon those who possess it. but he goes deeper than this and gets into the difference between "map power" and "territory power" (this is all thematic btw he explicitly states none of this). this is most heartwrenchingly reinforced when a free black has his freedom papers eaten by a corrupt degenerate southern white. when the black's map (and the power it contains) was destroyed, the territory was destroyed with it. powereful stuff...so do you think this map/territory stuff works in a similar way in this book. i've personally never even thought of it this way until now. thanks for the thoughts.
yeah i love how dfw used the real enfield - being underwater and all - as a metaphor for the current state of so many of the residents of his fictional enfield. in a weird way this is also a map/territory idea: the fictional enfield being the map, and the real enfield being a watery territory. it also doesn't bode well in terms of projecting out the plot and wondering about that 'continental emergency'; maybe IJ's enfield ends up like it's real counterpart: buried in water.
yeah that's weird, there are administraters around here, but i'm not sure how to contact them.
there's a help button at the bottom left of the screen and you can contact them through that and see what's up, if you want
Yikes, and all of those were the most useful/insightful posts here in ages.
In the meantime, map/territory placeholding via a still from Raul Ruiz's The Territory:
I'm trying to sort this out with goodreads, which has just erased my entire account for the second time. Meanwhile, you guys will just have to carry on the discussion. (If you want to complain about my repeated disappearances, feel free!)
Reading this book, with it's three and four page paragraphs, was pure torture for me. The only reason I read it was that it was on top of Stephen King's list of his top ten reads of 2010. I wish he would have added a footnote regarding the book's length. Speaking of footnotes, I quit reading them early on and wouldn't be surprised to find out I lost something by doing so. I was interested in several of the threads but felt let down without clear cut resolutions. I suppose Hal wound up in the drooling ecstasy brought on by his old man's pleasure flick, but even that was not certain. Ultimately, the book was disappointing and I have to assume that Mr. King was giving a kindhearted boost to Wallace's estate.
1. What the hell happened here?2. I wouldnt put too much thought into the slangy usage of "map".
3. Yes not all of the footnotes are important. The parapgraph+ ones are the more important. JOI's filmography is fun to read, but not essential either.
Since neither my account nor my last comment have disappeared in the last couple of days, I'm going to repost a version of the original comment, just because so much thought went into it. Yes, the idea of the "map" really is important, although very little discussed on IJ discussion forums. Like many of DFW's sly literary, scientific, philosophical, mathematical, geographical etc. references, it can probably only be seen by people with a particular knowledge set: in this case, people who are old enough to have been reading the science fiction novels of A.E. Van Vogt back in the sixties, and still have enough brain cells left to remember them.
Van Vogt's "The World of Null-A" (an otherwise rather ordinary galactic shoot-em-up) was designed to dramatize the theory of General Semantics developed by Alfred Korzybski. General Semantics apparently never spawned the world-changing philosophical revolution that the novel imagines, nor, alas, did it result in the development of a culture of incredibly sane, hyper-logical people capable of defeating a galactic invasion with their bare hands. Oh, well. But the book does give us one very clear signpost: the dictum of General Semantics that "the map is not the territory." In other words, our representation of a thing should not be confused with the thing itself. What we perceive is only a partial abstraction from the reality, and all such abstractions are conditioned by the observer's own experiences and perceptual equipment. Even if that sentence is one's only contact with the theory, it's hard not to notice its echo in Pemulis' exasperated shout, during the Eschaton game, that "It's snowing on the MAP, not the TERRITORY!"
Once you have that key, the use of "map" for "face" and "de-map" for "violent death" begins to make all kinds of sense. A character's face, or map, is the representation of himself or herself as seen by others. And it can be misleading, incomplete, completely missing (as with Joelle), or deliberately falsified. Just think of the number of times that characters in IJ are masked or disguised. The chapter on the history of videotelephony is not just an amusing aside, it's Wallace announcing in bold caps just what he's talking about here.
When we first meet Hal, he has completely lost the ability to connect his self-representation with his inner experience. He thinks he's speaking intelligently and articulately, but all the other people in the room hear are howls and roars. His "map" has become completely disconnected from his reality. Perhaps this is the result of his eating the mold at age three, as several people have argued. I think, however, that the mold is also a metaphor for the poisonous rot at the heart of the Incandenzas' family relationships: the network of lies that they tell themselves and each other, and the suppression or denial of genuine emotions. Hal is "tiny" when he learns to stop having emotions. When he begins to withdraw from marijuana, his emotions begin to resurface, but he himself is not aware of them. He cries and laughs, but only other people can see it. This disconnection of maps from territories is one of the deepest reasons for the isolation and lostness of so many of the characters.
So, Enfield. A sly geographical metaphor that may only be visible to people who have spent some part of their lives in the area of central Massachusetts near the immense Quabbin Reservoir. The real town of Enfield, Massachusetts, is no longer on any map. (Well, yeah, I found a 1905 one on the internet, but still.) It has been literally de-mapped: first razed and then drowned in the 1930's, during the creation of the reservoir. The town center was in the deep valley that is now the southern tip of the reservoir, right behind the dam, making it the most deeply drowned of the "five lost towns."
It is no coincidence whatsoever that in the course of Hal's first fumbling attempt at recovery from his drug habit he drives west, out along Route 9, ending up at a place called "Quabbin Recovery". If he had just kept driving for another two hours on the same road - the road is punishingly slow - he would have ended up at the southern tip of the real Quabbin, right where the real Enfield used to be. In fact, I think the road actually passes through a non-drowned part of what used to be Enfield.
I suspect that there are enough literary, philosophical, mathematical, scientific, and geographical references scattered around the book to allow any literate reader to construct his or her own "map". Which is one of Wallace's many points. The man was diabolical.
#####Spoiler Alert######So I just finished this last night, and love all the insights and theories.
There were two assumptions that I made while reading the book, and after finishing I have no idea if they are correct or not, and would like some other peoples take. These were my knee-jerk reactions to what I read, and they are heavily influencing my perception of the book.
1. After reading the opening section, I assumed Hal was a drug addict, and the whole seizure-thing was a way to get into a hospital, and get one of the lower level employees to hook him up with some drugs. It seemed like he knew the play-by-play of getting in (like he had done this several times before), and finding someone who'd ask what his story was, and he would pay them to get him the drugs.
2. The way that, in mid paragraph, Gately goes from being in the hospital to waking up from his Dilaudid induced coma made me think that the entire book happened in Gately's head, during a drug-induced coma/dream. There are many parallels to hal and gately from sports to drugs to family life that really opened up, only after I read the final scene.
Regardless, this was the best book I've ever read, and I think I might just start it over again.
I guess starting all over is the best choice. I've got through in 10 days , now one month later I've started another, less rushed read. I hope to have such fun with Pale King
I've read it two-and-one-half times... The first attempt was the one-half. I got mad at myself for giving up, jumped back into it a year later, and now I feel pretty much compelled to re-read it once a year or so.
For me, plot and continuity and mystery and "who's telling the story" are almost beside the point. I'm simply a fan of big ideas, and facility with the language - both of which Wallace had in spades. Or clubs, diamonds, or hearts...
It's fun to theorize, to peel away layers of meaning; I never want to imply that anyone's wasting his or her time. But after watching the (woefully few) interviews with the man, my feeling is that DFW was almost an unwilling participant in the storm of creation which brought this work to us. Further, that every effort to write after IJ was truly like labor, whereas for IJ, all he had to do was get out of his own way and let the Muse flow out of the ether. Or something.
All I know is that I will defend, to the death, the overall importance and worth of a mind that could give us such deep human insight, of course, but who could also so easily stick me to a page, or pages, reading and re-reading every word just for the sake of the words themselves. Sometimes, where the story was going didn't matter at all - I just had fun as a witness to The Incredible Use of Language and Humor he employed so effortlessly...
I seriously hated this book. I was tricked into reading it by a friend, and because I never abandon a book, I felt compelled to finish it. Torture! I just don't understand how anyone could like it at all. It's much vaunted "inventiveness" really wasn't very clever, it was just ridiculous and tedious. Any number of authors I have read are way more inventive without being boring. All the stupid footnotes were incredibly annoying and pointless. The excessive, belaboured detailing of every scene, compounded by the compulsive footnoting drove me to despair! This was a very self-absorbed monumentally annoying book, with no redeeming features.
Chuckell wrote: "Hating this book is a moral issue for me. The thought that good trees continue to die to print copies of this monstrosity causes me real pain. "You are right - it is a monstrosity. Monumentally boring!
I thought the book was fantastic. Poignant and piercing. My advice would be to take a hard second look at yourself when you feel compelled to use such universals as "NO redeeming features". Or "ALL the footnotes... boring... pointless". One of the few comments Wallace has made on the work regards his POINT in including so many END-NOTES (he was deliberate NOT to include footnotes). Even an honest critic would have to acknowledge some credit to the work, even if she felt the entirety of the work missed its mark: the constant parallels and allusions to Shakespeare, the poignant monologues and first person glimpses into characters lives that are seldom the focus of narratives within the literary cannon.
Literature challenges us to be honest about our lives, opinions, relationships and beliefs. I'd really encourage you to take a more careful look at this and see if there isn't something for you in it that lies perhaps a little bit deeper under it's surface.
Happy reading,
Ashley
this book hooked me after the first chapter when Hal is making his inhuman noises for speech. the other character's descriptions of the sounds made me laugh out loud (literally!)yes this book was not a 'breeze' to read, and when i reread it i will skip the chapters of the discussion b/w the 2 agents on the mountain/desert [?]
but part of the ridiculusness of story and literary interpretations comes from the dense and difficult pages (and pages) of whatever! tough to read!! [its like he pranked all us to have read through it!]
its like running a marathon...it hurts, but its also a serious accomplishment [bragging rights!]
i love the MAP interpretation...spot on! all makes sense :) and thanks for the research of Enfield, neato.
love it or hate Infinite Jest is a landmark of history now!
chuck
This thread seems to be long-dead, but I found so many interesting insights in it, I felt like this was a good place to pose my questions about the book (having finished it for the first time yesterday). If any of you are still around, I'd love some insights.Many of my major questions have been, if not answered, at least dealt with adequately, but there's some points I'm still entirely in the dark about. Maybe these should be easy to figure out and I've just missed them, but whatever. There will be spoilers here, though if you havent finished the book I don't see why you'd be reading this anyway frankly.
Firstly, Orin's capture. When his cage is filled with roaches, he says "Do it to her" (the Swiss model/AFR spy). This is a pretty obvious reference to Orwell's 1984, where Winston is tortured to the point of wishing his punishment to be transfered onto the one person who he truly cares about, Julia. This reference seems kind of out of place and odd to me though. I mean, the whole idea of Orin's relationship to women, including this one, is that the women are instrumental to his own happiness (or so he thinks). 'Do it to her', in this context, sounds less like 'you've tortured me beyond all loyalty, I will betray my most loved ones just to make this stop' and more like 'I'd rather some random other person go through this pain that me'. This is probably in line with the whole theme of the book pointed out previously, w/r/t the threat of solipsism and isolation, but I still can't make sense of why Wallace would reference 1984 in this context.
Secondly, arguments have been made here for JOI as the overall narrator and even 'director' of the book. This idea is flawed in my view, for two reasons:
1: Though the book is largely anti-confluential as JOI's films are, it is pretty much opposite to them in sentiment; JOI's films were accused of being cerebral to the point of evoking no emotion or empathy from audiences at all. I think we can all agree that the book Infinite Jest is nothing like this. We can accept that James directed the book, but claim he has made some 180 turn and gone from making emotionally dead stuff to the complete inverse. This to me seems far-fetched. The other option is that JOI is not the omniscient narrator.
2: It has been pointed out that the vocabulary used by the narrator is more in line with Hal's character than James'. This has been explained away by the fact that James, as a wraith, has access to the mind of Hal. I think this explanation misses the point. Sure, James has access to all the words in the world, but this doesn't mean he desires to use them. The strong inclination to using polysyllabilic terms is clear in the narrator, and implies only one character, namely Hal. Indeed, there are several points in the book where the main character of the scene narrates. Most of these starkly contrast the overall narration in style and vocabulary, but the scenes where Hal narrates are indistinguishable from it.
This is why I think if we have to point out a character as the narrator, it would be Hal. Of course discussing which character is the narrator when the narrator is omniscient is terribly post-modern, and from interviews we know Wallace had a troubled relationship with post-modernism, being bound to it unwillingly if you will. Perhaps we could interpret the whole thing as Wallace trying to simply write from the perspective of the writer, full stop, but being forced by this connection to postmodernism to make some strong link between the narrator and the main character of the book.
That's about all for now, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
Check the forums at infinitesummer.org for some interesting insight. This book is not a mystery or a hidden messages delivery device. Watch, read, listen to Wallace's interviews and he talks about writing fiction that is about being human, about loneliness, about being inside one's head and making connections to others. Infinite Jest has has all of those elements. I understand the need to figure out if Gately is real of fake or whatever, but why care? Focusing on if he is an apparition or if Wallace read Nabakov's poem takes away from Wallace's attempt to write something that gives you the opportunity to be inside Hal and Gately's head. Not once in any interview did Wallace say he wrote a real humdinger of a mystery that he hopes people spend lifetimes trying to figure out. He seemed to want a book that bridges the loneliness that the modern (post-post-modern) reader feels. This book does that in a very unique way.
well, i think wallace was using the desire for resolution as a tool to get the reader to re-engage with what is a long novel, with non-traditional aspects. so ignoring these mysteries in essence neuters one of the novels strongest aspects: namely, the addictive quality of fiction as entertainment v. 'a book that bridges lonliness'. i'm not saying the mysteries are the point, but they are important; not only do they get the reader to mimic the character's addictive actions - taking theme outside of the fictional construct and into the reader's real world - but they force the reader to SLOW DOWN and read more carefully. you may be trying to solve a mystery, but at some point, you realize there are no answers, or rather the information is purposefully contradicing, and in the process of trying to solve the mysteries, you glean the real purpose of the book, which you eloquently stated. i guess i think ignoring the mysteries at first can stop the reader from attacking the novel with the enthusiasm that only human curiosity can engender. but of course after a while you have to come to terms with the novels true message.
Joshuathoreau wrote: "This thread seems to be long-dead, but I found so many interesting insights in it, I felt like this was a good place to pose my questions about the book (having finished it for the first time yeste..."I'm probably wrong here but when Orin is captured and says "do it to her" I had the impression while reading it that he was talking about Avril. I didn't think it made sense for him to reference the spy, since she was on the torturers side, and Orin had some serious mama drama issues.
gosh I love this book...and i'm only halfway through.
Relating to the 'do it to her' stuff, I also assumed Avril because if the AFR were looking for the antidote that was buried with JOI, then Orin wasn't at the funeral but Avril was so she'll know where to look up in the Concavity. That being said, don't ask me, because reading this makes me realise there was a lot of stuff I knew but just hadn't put together. Like the flash forward itself which I took to just be a hallucination while Gately was trying to Abide.
"Do it to her!" Jeffrey Paris, on his Infinite Tasks blog, makes a convincing case that Joelle is "her." http://infinitetasks.wordpress.com/20...
I've been wondering about the mention of John Wayne standing guard in a mask, and whether that was literal or figurative. If literal, we have a couple of options:
-the telephony mask that people wore so people on the other end would see an interested/more glamorous face looking back at them
-the Raquel Welch-style mask from the disturbing molestation episode, by which I mean basically a Halloween mask
-or, most likely, and as Jesse mentioned earlier in this thread, the domino mask worn by the AFR. This would make sense, as there are numerous indications that John Wayne is an AFR member.
If figurative, it could just be the "emotional mask" of hiding emotions. "The thing about Wayne is he's all business. His face on court is blankly rigid, with the hypertonic masking of schizophrenics and Zen adepts" (262).
And as for Wayne's not participating in the Year of Glad Whataburger, I'm thinking it's because he went back to Quebec and is no longer at ETA.
As for resources used while reading, I didn't find any of them until I was near the end of the book and thirsty for discussion. Unless you, too, are "an OED man, doctor," and have it memorized, you'll need a hefty dictionary at your side. Online, I've found the Infinite Jest Wiki (and accompanying index) to be most helpful. There's a wealth of discussion on the Infinite Summer blog and its various offshoots (Infinite Tasks, Infinite Detox, etc.), as well as this mostly-illuminating Goodreads thread. Howling Fantods is a big help, too, like this chronological sequencing of events by page number: http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/...
I find myself linked from one site to the next while reading, furiously bookmarking it all in an attempt to remember them for the future. Ah, but it's a labor of love.
On a more general note, I love that you can spend just as much time (if not more) reading about, thinking about, and discussing the book as reading through it. Currently on my first re-read...
I had the feeling that the Whataburger was imminent when Hal went off his rocker which was Nov/Dec. But isn't he in the semis as he is interviewing at UA in January, Glad?
Chuckell wrote: "Purchasing this book and Delillo's Underworld are the two greatest crimes I've ever committed against the innocent trees of the world. Big fat books that I couldn't finish and couldn't bear to infl..."I can't exactly argue with this. I found Infinite Jest interesting and useful given the level of conversation and the author's ultimate fate, but I cannot say it was "good" or an enjoyable/rewarding read.
For me, Delillo ultimately ranked among a select group of trumpeted authors who are overblown wastes of time, and yes, trees. If there's a good story somewhere on the far side of his lugubriousness someone should resurrect it. I couldn't even finish Underworld.
I think Infinite Jest is the type of book that appeals to the intellectual mystery/conspiracy mind in some people. It's detail and sheer volume, combined with DFW, at times, exceptional writing ability push the reader to the pursuit of some kind of explanation for it.I see it as a testimony to the authors fate. He was obviously a profoundly sensitive intellect, and Infinite Jest seems to be a failed attempt to bring meaning to some of the biggest questions of our time - environmental destruction, the show bizification of politics, the burden and nature of beauty....
Hindsight is 20-20, but if you acknowledge the book's failure to bring coherence to these enormous issues it's a short journey to understand the man's depression and suicide.
The book is ultimately a tragedy that echoes eerily into the real world.
Robin wrote: "I don't know if I have any theories. I just really loved it. I read it in about a month like four months ago, and I actually just started reading it again, this time more slowly so I can really d..."What's great about that passage is when you looks at the Dad's filmography and see references to it, and odd other episodes.
Like how it's off-handedly mentioned in note 234 (1038) that J.O.I. "also came up with that new kind of window glass that doesn't fog or smudge from people touching it or breathing on it and drawing little finger-oil faces on it [...]," which sounds like a direct result of Avril's finger-writing in the Volvo.
Glad to see this thread still going. Glad to see Jesse had continued to post here as recently as this spring. Couple of things about some of what other people have written here lately."The strong inclination to using polysyllabilic terms is clear in the narrator, and implies only one character, namely Hal."
You are forgetting how JOI "collaborated" with Gately's consciousness in the hospital, enhancing Gately's vocabulary. Hal has zero role in that. The narrator is JOI-via-everyone, or, rather, everyone-via-JOI. With Hal merely being featured or accessed more than any other character.
As for Wayne's mask, it's juxtaposed with Hal's face at the same time. Hal's face appears to express unspeakable sadness. APPEARS. Mind you, as we all should remember, Hal's face isn't working right at this point in the book, his face is disconnected from his real emotions, it's even expressing the opposite of what he feels. So, "Too late!" is actually a moment of triumphant jubilation for Hal. (In other words, the good guys win. The radical separatists lose. Life goes on. There is a Year of Glad. The world doesn't end. The book isn't the "Saddest Ever" because the plot ends in disaster. Because it doesn't end in disaster. It's sad for other reasons. It's also life-affirming!) Likewise, Wayne is miserable, menacing, and defeated...in a smiley mask. As far as I know, every single reader has misinterpreted this scene. (Except me, yet again, lol.)
[See reachandpull.wordpress.com for more on this scene, and for all sorts of lively and original and sometimes-insane Jest interpretation.]
As for "Do it to her", it's possible that Avril is Luria P., right? Anyway, that Orin scene is clearly taking place within a dreamworld/wraithworld. (Orin is listed as alive and well and still playing football later on, not dead.) As may be the whole novel!
OK, now it's obvious to me that I need to reread this, again. I had only reread the first 100 pages, and was so happy to have so much explained. but now I see I've forgotten it all over again. oh my aching brain.
If i had to qualify Joelle's face (I'm 600pp in, mind you) I would say that she is acid damaged on one side of the face only, representing the physical manifestation of the battle between Medusa and the Odalisque.
That's what I love about this book, everything is left to your interpretation. Did anyone else who has finished the book have a split second of "what the heck, I'll never know 'blank' for sure"?
Linda, after immediately re-reading the book upon completion and spending hours on various well-written blogs, I still don't feel any closer to "the answers," if indeed there are any. But I will say that the re-read and blog musings were incredibly enriching and enjoyable, and that the "unknowable" quality of the book will keep me coming back to it in years to come. Sure, it would be nice to have concrete answers to various plot points, but it's important to recognize how all this speculative discussion has brought people together instead of being like the medical attache alone in his living room with the Entertainment. Paul, you say that Wayne's "mask" is the smiley-face; do you support this because of the juxtaposition with Hal's sad face and the irony of putting a smiley-face on a stoic character? I also like the idea of the smiley-face juxtaposed with Hal's sad face, as it connotes the tragedy/comedy masks, the duality of man, etc. Not to mention that the joyful mask works the jester, Yorick, back into the story; and in a graveyard, no less.
Geez, this discussion is making me want to set off on a third reading, but there's a pile of Poe on the table that I want to tackle first.
So I just finished the book last night, and then promptly reread the first ~50 pages, as recommended. A few thoughts:I still maintain that Joelle has been burned by acid, but only partially, representing the embodiment of the struggle between Medusa and the Odalisque. This same theme can be extrapolated to Hal, whose expression is generally the opposite of what he is feeling. When he is freaked out about the Darkness having his face struck he looks happy, when he is calm he looks freaked out. This is the struggle of opposites viz. sobriety v. addiction, etc.
I also read on The Howling Fantods a VERY interesting hypothesis that Hal's body has naturally synthesized DMZ. The person that mentioned it gave a few examples of evidence: Hal remembers the mold eating episode from his youth multiple times, and the narrator mentions "mold growing on the mold," DMZ is also described a a fungal (or yeast, maybe) derivative that has been synthesized from a mold . . . also the attache is a specialist that deals with mold that grows on mold . . . and finally, at the beginning at the University he says "call it something I ate . . ." and then remembers the mold episode from his youth.
One of the reasons I like the hypothesis is that, if it's true, Hal's Bob Hope use has slowed or prevented the DMZ synthesis in his body. The irony being that when he tried to go sober he becomes otherworldly messed up. The overarching point being, from Wallace, that when an addict tries to get clean, the sobriety, in itself, is a horrible high, and messes you up in an otherworldly way. The sobriety itself (see Don G.) becomes an addiction, and after a certain point you will do anything to maintain that state of consciousness (see Don G.'s drug refusal in the face of terrible pain at the hospital).
David, keep in mind that both times that the mold-eating episode is recounted, it is Orin's version of the story. Hal doesn't even remember it: "It's funny what you don't recall." At the beginning of the book, Hal tells Orin's story (about the Moms, Orin, and Hal); later, Orin is telling it to Helen Steeply, as I recall. So to put complete faith in Orin, a master liar if ever there was one, is a choice the read has to make. Same goes for the plot information revealed by Molly Notkin, whose veracity during her interrogation is also questionable. So there's that whole "reliability of the narrator" thing going on.That being said, I'm also partial to the naturally-synthesized-DMZ hypothesis. I think there's more evidence for it than against, and it ties together several disparate points of the book. And the sobriety-as-addiction thing is one of those great double-binds so prevalent in the book, isn't it?
It is, Kirk.I don't have the book in front of me, but the first telling of the mold story is in 1st person, isn't it?
At any rate, it doesn't much matter. Regardless of Orin's reliability (or lack thereof), I think it is accepted by all actors involved that Hal actually did eat the mold, which is the main thrust of the natural DMZ synthesis hypothesis.
I also think it's interesting that the book is, itself, a mobius strip. You could literally start the book anywhere and keep reading in an endless loop.Of course, I know it's obvious that that is intentional, but it's interesting nonetheless . . .
Yeah, it's first-person, but the episode begins with, "my eldest brother Orin says he can remember..." The story goes on from there. "I had stopped crying, he remembers," etc.; it's a purely second-hand account. I apologize for the lack of page numbers to anyone else reading this, but I returned my copy to the library and am now relying on Google Books, which for some reason doesn't have the page numbers. David, all the circular imagery and circular structuring of the book makes me think of Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, talking about the traffic in the staged town: "They're on a loop: they go around the block; they come back; they go around again. They just go round and round! Rooouund and roouund!"
Ace wrote: "Reading this book, with it's three and four page paragraphs, was pure torture for me. The only reason I read it was that it was on top of Stephen King's list of his top ten reads of 2010. I wish he..."Stephen King saying that he likes DFW is like James Patterson saying that he likes Dostoyevsky.
re: message 130I appreciated your thoughts on the narrator. I've read IJ more than twice and noted a very few occasions where DFW uses an "I" POV and I haven't figured out why. In some cases (all?) I = Hal. (Or is "I" me?)
"I also read on The Howling Fantods a VERY interesting hypothesis that Hal's body has naturally synthesized DMZ."Consider two things.
1 - In the center of your brain a very, very, very minute chemical is produced and then released when you are asleep and dreaming, and the chemical is thought to be a close relative of DMT. This is not fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl...
I'm going to take a very un-wild guess that Wallace at least vaguely knew about such a thing 20 years ago, did some improbably dense research about it, in all the right journals, etc.
2 - The entire book, except for the very last sentence when Gately wakes up, probably takes place within a dreamworld which is based on a skewed, almost-deranged version of our reality -- just like our own dreams are themselves based on a skewed, almost-deranged version of our reality! It would not be accurate to say the book is "all a dream", but, yeah, it's all a dream. Or, rather: All dreams, plural. Don't judge yet. Just test out that general lens a little bit for a little while.
Then revisit the part-genius, part-crazy, part-***hole blog "Reach and Pull", and make sure to read not only all the entries, but also all the comments.
But these are probably the most unusual insights from there, in a nutshell, if they are indeed not only "valid" but more importantly ACCURATE -- there's such a thing as an accurate reading of IJ.
· Lyle's a wraith, the entire book.
· The IJ-universe is all a dreamworld.
· Wallace was more or less a prophet -- accidentally, in all likelihood, I can't imagine he was consciously trying to be -- and we all kind of think of him that way, about a few things already, but...more than you probably think, lol.
And, to repeat:
· Your body also synthesizes DMZ...er, DMT. Literally. (EVERYONE YOU KNOW trips balls every night for hours!)
As for the question about John Wayne's mask, what other mask would ever make sense. It's probably the most analyzed passage in the novel, and I bet Wallace himself agonized over every minute detail of that same passage. Yes, the smiley-face mask makes a kind of mirrored, poetic sense. Hal, the boy whose face is happy when he's sad and vice versa, giving off the saddest look ever because his side has somehow won a decisive world-historical victory against the separatists. John Wayne, the utterly joyless machine, wearing a mask, almost certainly the same smiley-face mask mentioned somewhere else later in the book in relation to the separatists that Wayne is certainly an agent for.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
V. (other topics)
Gravity’s Rainbow (other topics)
The Broom of the System (other topics)
DMT: The Spirit Molecule (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Finnegans Wake (other topics)V. (other topics)
Gravity’s Rainbow (other topics)
The Broom of the System (other topics)
DMT: The Spirit Molecule (other topics)
More...
