Amusing Ourselves to Death

Right around the time I opened Infinite Jest, a friend happened to be reading Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. (Incidentally said friend is now reading IJ after I brought it up.) I haven't read Postman's book myself, but the title seems almost suspiciously reminiscent of Infinite Jest. Literally so, if you consider the implications of the Entertainment, for example.

I found an amusing (uh-oh) graphic interpretation by Stuart McMillen of the book's foreword, in which Postman compares Orwell and Huxley's famous premonitions of a horrifying technological future. It seems that Postman finds Huxley's argument the more compelling, which I think is consistent with DFW's perspective. Unlike DFW, Postman's argument concerns the more basic characteristics of visual entertainment, such as its inability to portray "rational" content. From the little I know of his writing, I assume it precedes the irony frenzy of modern entertainment that clearly concerns DFW in "E Unibus Pluram." Nonetheless it seems appropriate, even obvious, to consider Postman a predecessor.

In a 1995 PBS interview with Charlene Hunter Gault, he poses the frightening question, "Am I using technology, or is it using me?"--a concern that DFW ostensibly generalizes to drug addiction, depression, sports, and entertainment in Infinite Jest. (Interestingly, DFW was probably in the process of finishing his book as this interview took place.) An even more compelling addendum to this question that I see between the lines of IJ is how volitional our fatal (otherwise fateful but not quite deadly) interaction with entertainment is. What factors may compromise one's voluntary involvement with television/movies or drugs, for example? Can we assume that all individuals naturally possess the free will to choose?

Some food for thought comes from Marathe:

"This appetite to choose death by pleasure if it is available to choose--this appetite of your people unable to choose appetites, this is the death. What you call the death, the collapsing: this will be the formality only." (319)

And:

"No, you say, not children? You say: What is the difference, please, if you make a recorded pleasure so entertaining and diverting it is lethal to persons, you find a Copy-Capable copy and copy it and disseminate it for us to choose to see or turn off, and if we cannot choose to resist it, the pleasure, and cannot choose instead to live?" (321)

There is plenty more, of course. Just about Infinitely.

Focus Passage Week 5

Eschaton (321-342).

This is one of IJ's most interesting passages in my opinion. First because I find the idea of bright children creating this kind of highly convoluted, complex game interesting and even somehow charming, like reading about Calvin playing Calvinball. Of course the difference between Calvinball and Esachton is the level of realism and structure which Eschaton posesses, and in this particular juxtoposition of choas v. order, some aspects of Eschaton become more salient. The children of ETA have created a game much like their own lives which center on competition: strategy, ruthlessness, competition, rigidity.

Is Eschaton making a point about professional sports, or the road thereto? Is the game functioning as a microcosm of global competition and warfare?

Recent comments?

Hey, Chloe, is it possible to put up a widget for recent comments? It would be under the tab for “layout” and it think it would be helpful for following conversations. (feel free to delete this post, if you like)

-t

All right, you know best.

I came across this passage today in some other reading and thought of our discussions in this class, so I thought I’d share. It is from Italo Calvino’s If on a winter’s night a traveler in the first few pages as the narrator speaks directly to the reader about sitting down to read If on a winter’s night a traveler by Italo Calvino.

You are about to start reading Italo Calvino’s new novel, If on a winter’s night a traveler. {1}

He, like DFW, puts reading in the context of other media distractions.

Relax. Concentrate. Dispel every other thought. Let the world around you fade. Best to close the door; the TV is always on in the next room. Tell the others right away, “No, I don’t want to watch TV!” Raise your voice – they won’t hear you otherwise – “I’m beginning to read Italo Calvino’s new novel!”

A bit later on, in the passage I found apt, the narrator predicts how his audience see him or herself, their general attitude toward life and books.

It’s not that you expect anything in particular form this particular book. You’re the sort of person who, on principle, no longer expects anything of anything. There are plenty, younger than you or less young, who live in the expectation of extraordinary experiences: from books, from people, from journeys, from events, from what tomorrow has in store. But not you. You know all the best you can expect is to avoid the worst. This is the conclusion you have reached, in your personal life and also in general matters, even international affairs. What about books? Well, precisely because you have denied it in every other field, you believe you may still grant yourself legitimately this youthful pleasure of expectation in a carefully circumscribed area like the field of books, where you can be lucky or unlucky, but the risk of disappointment isn’t serious. {4}

Beside characterizing his audience, Calvino here is laying out what he sees as the cultural conditions into which he sees his book emerging. To me, this sounds like it describes the aloof, ironically distanced media consumers of DFW’s essay, but we are getting another side.

It is not irony that is lost in this passage, exactly, but expectation, desire, passion. There is a deep self-satisfied cynicism described here, however, it is not a fear of being found uncool as a result of revealing real emotion.  It manifests in an inability to expect or want anything for fear of a disappointment that would be serious. This lead me to wonder if we find this side of contemporary cultural moment in DFW. What do you all think?

Brief Interview with Hideous Men

So I had read a review which said that the movie John Krasinski adapted from DFW's Brief Interview with Hideous Men was awful, but the trailer didn't look awful (it didn't look great either) and it might be worth looking at, so here's a link if you want to check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfdMQJ_BevM

I haven't read the book, but now I kind of want to. Post IJ reading group over the summer anyone?

Another focus passage (week 4)

Pages 248-258: Hal & Orin's phone conversation about the details of their father's suicide, Orin's commitment to Helen Steeply, Hal's interactions with the grief counselor and Lyle, etc.

Focus Passage Week 4

Pages 317-321: Marathe and Steeply discussion on choosing and external enemies.

We have discussed both of these ideas before, but how does this passage expand our understanding of both issues, as presented in this book and in a larger cultural sense?

Howling Fantods

This is a great IJ and DFW resource page, with all kind of interesting info and links:

http://www.thehowlingfantods.com/dfw/

With the lights out, it's less dangerous; here we are now, entertain us.

I believe there's more to it than just the obvious fact that they share the spirit of the '90s that I find a cord between Nirvana and Infinite Jest. Allow me to meditate on this mutant seedling of an idea just a moment.

Maybe my imagination is dangerously wild, or maybe I'm unknowingly immersed in some Jungian collective consciousness, but considering the sentiment on the delights of reading that DFW (which I want to pronounce "dee eff dub," as if he were a dear old pal, since we find ourselves with him so often lately) expresses in the Charlie Rose interview, which is that it makes him say, "Good lord, I’m really stretching myself, I’m really having to think and process and feel in ways I don’t normally feel," I think the Man Himself would encourage this feral breed of thought. (How's that for an infinite sentence? Perhaps I should have taken a cue and used footnotes.) It's that sentiment that makes me feel as though I would have his support in these wanderings, even if they make no sense, so here they are, uncensored.

Now what could it possibly be that I think Cobain and Wallace have in common (other than the sadly obvious)? I think much of their harmony lies in their equally bold expressions of the human condition (to be sure, something they were both personally troubled about). Said condition, whatever it is, they seem to agree is one in which things are easier to swallow with the lights out, or sitting on the couch watching TV, lighting up, heaven forbid sticking a needle in your arm, hypnotizing oneself into a trance (be it on the court with racquet or on stage with a guitar--both "sticks," after all, to quote the novel). All of these activities, these things we do to distract ourselves from whatever it is that is painful or trying to us as humans, fall nicely under the category Entertainment. Which is one thing (perhaps the thing) in IJ that is undoubtedly present. Ubiquitous, in fact, and explicitly touched upon by the author when asked, "What is this?!" (this being IJ). So here, if not elsewhere, is where my imagination touches upon a relevant and trustworthy theme, which is: Entertainment as escapism.

Admittedly, my interpretation of Cobain could very well be legions more profound than his actual intentions (truly, did he mean for the lyrics to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to mean something, or are they just syllables taking up the right amount of space? oh well, whatever, nevermind). As for DFdub, who we can be absolutely sure must have something holy to say in these 1,079 pages, what is his message about Entertainment? Is Entertainment good, is it bad, is it scary, is it fun, is it useful and intelligent, might it be harmful, and if harmful, is it intrinsically so, or are we the culprits for indulging too much? What about books? Are they Entertainment? (Well yeah!) How about losing oneself in a book, is that escapism? Is escapism ever desirable and wise? To what degree? It appears that according to DFdub, a book requires too much of its reader (i.e., active and creative thought) for it to be a shady escape. But not all books are created equal, just as movies and TV shows are not. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of clarity or a simple solution to satisfy these doubts (a task which, I imagine, would require a very lengthy exploration of about 1,079 pages, give or take). Another hypothesis I can't help noticing in the book is whether tennis (see: sports) is Entertainment and thus a form of escapism. For example:

"Here is how to avoid thinking about any of this [i.e., doubts about one's father and one's talent, or probably doubts about anything at all] by practicing and playing until everything runs on autopilot and talent's unconscious exercise becomes a way to escape yourself, a long waking dream of pure play" (173).

Sounds a bit like getting high. But with skill and talent and effort. So should we consider things like tennis an acceptable escape if they require talent, whereas drugs are nothing but a nasty cheap vice? Are some things we consider pleasant, healthy, or applaudable actually detrimental in large doses? Or small doses even? Moderation in all things would perhaps be a suitable mantra, if one were to begin to try to answer these questions in just one short lifetime.

I may be only 200 pages (give a little) into this tome, but for now my wandering imagination tells me our friend the Author's hope is for us to revolutionize the way we interact with our world; the ways we seek pleasure, escape, knowledge, love... etc. And not by becoming revolutionaries; no, on the contrary, finding the anti-rebel (see "E Unibus Pluram") in us by embracing the simpler things: the single entendre (although I thought it was fun for a day to consider how the triple entendre was like a revolutionary single entendre), and to kick the irony habit. Figuratively, of course. Or literally, in some cases, as we discussed on the first day of class when I still thought it was somehow poignant to turn down Oprah's Book Club. Anyway, I think it's safe to say for now that she's afraid to consider IJ--it could very well consume 6 hours a day for days on end. And then who would have any time for TV?

(After all this speculation, Chloe, I feel compelled to say that Infinite Jest may be nothing more than a fictional version of Andrew Weil's The Natural Mind. Which, importantly, I consider a bible despite its much smaller size and ostensibly less humble author.)

Focus passage

Pages 157-169 (Tucson, 1960: James O. Incandenza's father's one-sided discourse, directed at J.O.I.)

Elements of the passage I find especially compelling/worth discussion include:

- The recurrent theme of alcoholism. What might J.O.I.'s father's habit say about J.O.I. (Hal's father), and consequently Hal? Where does this fit in with the rest of the novel?

- The numerous characterizations of black widows (I've noted that insects appear to be a motif throughout the book so far); e.g., in this passage the father tells his son to kill the widows in the garage and compares spiders to "a machine a body an object," just like the car engine and his son (159); the father also tells J.O.I. about widows in the fronds of trees that sometimes fell below, which is the reason his (J.O.I.'s) grandfather refused to sit under trees (164-5); finally, he blames his trip on the tennis court on a fallen widow which he purportedly slipped on (167).

- He tells his son "Today, Lesson One out there, you become, for better or worse, Jim, a man. [...] A machine in the ghost, to quote a phrase." The father's error is reminiscent of Wallace's purposeful rearrangement of "E Pluribus Unam" to "E Unibus Pluram" in the essay we read. Does this mistake reflect a similar sentiment as the essay title, or a different one? What might it say about the father?

- The train of thought describing what some call being "in the zone" (a "trance" according to the father), particularly on the tennis court (166). What relevance does this state of mind have and what might we be able to compare it to? What other parts of the book reflect a similar consciousness in other characters?

Focus Passage Week 3

Pages: 144-151 (Video-phone Technology)

Some questions to think about: What is this passage saying about the intersection of appearances, technology and self-consciousness? Why might this be important to us, not just the fictional characters? Don't a lot of people today use video-phone-communicating technology (think Skype)- is it creating these sorts of problems? Why or why not?

The Onion Makes fun of DFW

I was laughing the entire time I read this, after I saw a picture that seemed to be the front of a magazine claiming that Wallace couldn't read, and then I saw the telltale little "Onion" in the top left corner. It's worth a read.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/girlfriend-stops-reading-david-foster-wallace-brea,76/

Charlie Rose Interview with David Foster Wallace

This interview was my first exposure to David Foster Wallace:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6191

As I said on the first day of class, I really love Wallace in this interview, and hearing him speak about why he loves writing and literature was the main thing that got me interested in his work. Wallace states, "What drew me into writing was mostly memories of really fun rainy afternoons with a book, it was a kind of a relationship...Part of the fun for me was being part of some kind of exchange of consciousnesses, a way for human beings to talk to each other about stuff that we normally can't talk about.". I have always felt that there is something very intimate about reading literature, delving into not just the events of a novel but into the psyche of both the characters and the author, in a way that even the closest of typical human relationships rarely do. We get to a glance at someone's deepest, innermost feelings and thoughts and values through reading their literary work.

As I continued to watch the interview I heard some ideas very pertinent to our study of Infinite Jest, issues relating to living and reading in a world taken over by electronic entertainment. Wallace says, "The thing that interests me in a lot of the stuff I think that I do has to do with commercial entertainment...it's sheer ability to deliver pleasure in large doses changes people's relationship to art and entertainment, it changes what an audience is looking for, I would argue it changes us in deeper ways than that."

Infinite Jest Timeline from Wiki

As Tim said last Thursday, decoding the timeline in which things are happening can make Infinite Jest a little easier to follow. So in case you check out the wiki page and missed the timeline portion, I thought it was really helpful and so here it is:

"In the book's future, advertising's relentless search for new markets has led to a world where, by O.N.A.N. dictate, years are referred to by the name of their corporate sponsor.

1. Year of the Whopper
2. Year of the Tucks Medicated Pad
3. Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar
4. Year of the Perdue Wonderchicken
5. Year of the Whisper-Quiet Maytag Dishmaster
6. Year of the Yushityu 2007 Mimetic-Resolution-Cartridge-View-Motherboard-Easy-To-Install-Upgrade For Infernatron/InterLace TP Systems For Home, Office, Or Mobile
7. Year of Dairy Products from the American Heartland
8. Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
9. Year of Glad

Most of the action in the novel takes place in the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment, or Y.D.A.U., which is probably Gregorian 2009. Critic Stephen Burn, in his book on Infinite Jest, argues that Y.D.A.U. corresponds to 2009: the MIT Language Riots took place in 1997 (n. 24) and those riots occurred 12 years prior to Y.D.A.U. (n. 60). Also, if the "2007" in "Year of the Yushityu 2007 Mimetic-Resolution-Cartridge-View-Motherboard-Easy-To-Install-Upgrade For Infernatron/InterLace TP Systems For Home, Office, Or Mobile" refers to the pre-subsidization-style numerical date convention, then Y.D.A.U., which comes two years later, would be 2009.

It is also possible that Y.D.A.U. is 2008, as Matty Pemulis turns 23 in Y.D.A.U. (p. 682). Matty and Mike Pemulis' father immigrated from Ireland in 1989 when Matty was "three or four" (p. 683). If Matty had been three and four in 1989, he was born in 1985, which mean he turns 23 in 2008.

Also, in the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment, November 4 falls on a Wednesday (176). If Subsidized Time is parallel to real-world time, this means that Y.D.A.U. would be either 2009 or 2015. Yet, Thanksgiving of the Year of the Tucks Medicated Pad falls on 24 November (793). Accordingly, Y.T.M.P has to be either 2005 or 2011, meaning that the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment would be 2012 or 2018, respectively."

-IJ Wiki page

Infinite Jest Wiki

For a while now I have been working on a character list, complete with citations, and as I was looking something unrelated up I just found out that all the work has already been done (and much more thoroughly than my attempt as it currently exists).

So here is a link to a very thorough Infinite Jest resource page:

http://infinitejest.wallacewiki.com/david-foster-wallace/index.php?title=Infinite_Jest

David Foster Wallace Consider the Lobster

http://www.lobsterlib.com/feat/davidwallace/index.asp

This website has one of Wallace's most famous non-fiction essays Consider the Lobster, on the moral issues related to eating animals, and I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look.

Karl Baden Tele-Constructions

Untitled from Tele-Constructions series, 1986.

"Baden wanted to represent how television not only mimics our lives and desires but is capable of creating a hierarchy of economic and moral values...Through the process of dismantling, fragmenting, and reassembling, Baden reanalyzes and reinterprets television's symbolic language. Baden states: "The prints are made from BW negatives. The color is subjective, not derived from the source images. This is done so that the idea of the color will be psychological rather than literal, the resultant piece being based more on mood or feeling than fact.""

This photograph and the conceptual development of the photograph interested me in the context of our conversations relating Infinite Jest to an exploration of televisual culture. Particularly the idea of the subjectivity of of what is seen in the photograph, the acknowledgment that while photographs are necessarily a reflection of something that actually existed and occurred (barring a discussion of photo-editing), that what we see, a reflection, is not what was there. Furthermore, these images are fragmented by and inside one another, so that even the reflection of some reality that the photo first appeared to portray is obscured.

Focus Passages Week One

Pages: 27-31(Hal's Professional Conversation), 105-109 (Marathe and Steeply), 109-114 (Togetherness)

Reading the First 100 pages of IJ

As I've been re-reading the first 100+ pages of Infinite Jest I have been amazed at what a different experience reading the novel for the second time is. I have read many books more than once of course, and often I have picked up on little things I missed the first time around, or appreciated some scene or aspect of a book more on take two, but never have I felt I was seeing things as radically differently, not to mention more clearly, than I do re-reading IJ. The first time I was spending all my time and energy trying to figure out what was going on- why can't anyone understand Hal? Is he psychotic or what? Who are all these different people coming and going with no seeming relation? It wasn't until I was a couple hundred pages in that everything started coming together to form a coherent whole and I could stop trying to get my bearing in the world David Foster Wallace created, and start really appreciating the story and characters and becoming wholly enmesed in Infinite Jest.

When my friend Paul first starting reading IJ last summer at my urging, after reading the first hunderd pages he said he didn't even know what was going on, and on his blog cataloging the novel (which remains sadly unfinished) he quoted Eden M Kennedy saying:

"Each dip into the novel also feels like a completely separate excursion. When I take a break from a conventional novel it’s like pressing pause on a video, with the narrative flow frozen on the screen, awaiting my return. But in reading Infinite Jest I have tended to stop at the chapter divisions, and nearly every chapter of the first 100 pages starts in a new place, with new characters, and often in a new time. It’s akin to reading a collection of short stories, set in a shared universe but with little else in common. I can see why many people–including myself a decade ago–put this novel down and never pick it up again. There is so little connective tissue thus far that the end of each chapter feels like a natural place to stop reading, forever.

And yet, 100 pages in, I sense engrossment on the horizon. With each additional chapter I find myself sinking into the salty tide. It’s probably only a matter of time before I disappear below the waves for good."

So if you're about approaching the end of reading assignment 1, or right in the middle, or even at the beginning, wondering how this is all going to come together and make sense, or simply getting a little frustrated- don't worry! As the threads that the novel sets up in the beginning come together, if your reading experience is anything like mine, you'll be unable to put the novel down.

Reading Schedule- Reading Infinite Jest in 10 Weeks!

Week Reading Assignment

1 E Unibus Pluram
2 IJ: 1-121
3 IJ: 121-219
4 IJ: 219-321
5 IJ: 321-442
6 IJ: 442-548
7 IJ: 548-648
8 IJ: 648-755
9 IJ: 755-851
10 IJ: 851-End (981)