Characters/Connections

A fan of IJ created a poster that shows most of the characters in the book and their connections to locations and each other . It's worth looking at and doesn't contain any spoilers.

What's missing here?

The section beginning on page 144, in which Wallace outlines the rapid rise and fall of "videophony"¹ in the Jest's near-future culture, is one of the funniest and most memorable of the novel's non-plot passages. It could have been inserted just about anywhere in the novel, and is clearly the product of (a stoned?) Wallace rambling away and amusing himself.

Wallace was quite wrong in his prediction, of course. Video communication is already available in the latest portable communications devices, both mobile phones and tablet computers, and will probably be quite commonplace for everyday conversations by the end of this decade. As for the whole riff about personal vanity creating a new market niche which eventually undoes the parent product, he's wrong for a reason none of us could have possibly predicted: the decline of privacy. The age of social networking and online video has eroded our modesty and self-consciousness about our public image and reputation to a degree that would have seemed jaw-dropping around the time that Wallace was writing the Jest. In particular, the generation just now becoming adults seem to have accepted the occasional embarrassing online photo of one without clothes, doing a kegstand², or doing a kegstand without clothes, as a harmless coming-of-age rite. The embarrassment passes quickly and, despite the efforts of older generations to get them to understand that these photos, once released into the wilds of the Internet, will never go away ever, today's youth figure the memory will fade along with the attendant social uproar.

But it's the fact that in the Jest these video communications are conducted from home, through the household entertainment centre (the "teleputer"), that, to me, constitutes another, related incorrect prediction: how did Wallace whif so completely on foreseeing the ubiquity of cellphones? The first digital "2G" portable communications networks were unveiled in 1991, and from there the spread of cellphones has been quite rapid. They were nowhere near saturation point by the time the book was published, but anyone with his ear to the ground consumer-technology-wise could probably have figured out by, say, 1994 that these things would be everywhere within a decade or two. Why does no one in the Jest have a cellphone?³

The most likely explanation is simply that Wallace was a bit of a Luddite; in the introduction to the original electronic edition of his long-form essay on John McCain's 2000 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination (then titled Up, Simba!), he claims to have no idea how an e-book works and, further, to have little knowledge of the advanced functions of contemporary personal computing technology. Surely he was the last kid on his block to own a cellphone, but doesn't it seem like just the sort of thing he would see coming and wish to grumble about?

1. Interesting to note that the etymology of this word makes it completely wrong. As the word "telephone" is derived from the Greek words for "distant" and "sound", the technology described should rightly be called "televideo". "Videophone" should mean something like "image-sound", and could just as easliy be another name for pretty much any video playback device. Surprising that a language-obsessive like Wallace didn't catch that. [Return]


2. By the way, when was the last time any of you did a kegstand? Mine was this past May. I was, at the time, a 35-year-old father of two. Thank you very much, you're only as old as you feel, etc etc. [Return]


3. Actually, I can't remember whether or not Hugh Steeply has one, he may very well. Still, the top-secret government agent having one as part of his arsenal of high-tech spy gear would just further underscore my point, n'est-ce pas? [Return]

In an effort to create some order for myself in this astonishing beast of a book, I've been making a list of the (more or less) discreet narrative threads:

• Hal Incandenza @ C.T.A. and his various family members, Orin and Mario in particular

• The Chemical Substance Abusers (in addition to Hal):

Erdedy the marijuana addict
Don Gately - the drug addict burglar
Tiny Ewell the alcoholic
Kate Gompert suicidal, depressive, also marijuana addict

• Mildred Bonk and Bruce Green living in a trailer
• Medical attache to Prince Q_____
• Clenette's story about Wardine, Reginald & Roy Tony
• Marathe and Hugh Steeply in Arizona

Still waiting for O.N.A.N., InterLace, B.S., Canadian theme (to name just a few mysteries) to become clear. I'm trying to avoid the commentaries because I'm afraid they're going to give it away in advance.

Kindle? I-something?

An open question to everyone reading along.

Those of you on the electronic reading devices, how are the end-notes dealt with? Are they directly linked within the text? Is there a separate section you need to jump to?

I'm wondering if I'd miss the ritual of flipping to the end-note section and then jumping back into the main text.

Word! #2: "rictus"

"Word!" is a regular post in which we select words or phrases--slightly or extremely unusual--used in compelling ways, then link to a good definition. The goal is to shine a light on the wonderful vocabulary of IJ and inspire retention of ~50 interesting words/phrases by the end of our read.

Today's "Word!"
"rictus" (p. 79)


ps- Sections that stood out for me this week: the Kate Gombert and Mario/Schtitt passages. What did you think?

Word! #1: "apocopes"

Hi all. I've decided to start a regular post called "Word!" My intent is simply to shine a light on some of the wonderful vocabulary employed by DFW in IJ. My plan is to select words or phrases--slightly or extremely unusual--used in compelling ways, then link to a good definition. My hope is to inspire the retention of ~50 interesting words/phrases by the end of our read.

Today's "Word!"
"apocopes" (p. 57, bottom)


ps- I loved the filmography footnote. Did you?

Deformities

A random side note: The Incandenza children seem to possess various physical deformities. Mario has an oversized skull, Orin has an enlarged arm/leg and there's a subtle reference to Hal's disability when he places "the good leg" into his sweatpants first while getting dressed. And yet, despite these handicaps, both Hal and Orin excel at sports.

Birth defects? The result of too many steroids in the breakfast cereal?

Antichrists

What makes this such a wonderful book to dissect is the density and careful placement of every little detail, such as the "Dennis Gabor is the Antichrist" line brought up yesterday by mark. As for its meaning inside the text, I tend to think that this line functions as a kind of payoff of the title of one Hal's nine "stellar" (and highly suspicious, especially under the circumstances, to the administrators on hand) application essays he had submitted to the U of Arizona: "The Implications of Post-Fourier Transformations for a Holographically Mimetic Cinema." The science is entirely over my head, but it seems that much of Gabor's work is built upon a foundation laid by the French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier, with the Gabor Filter and Gabor Transform being of particular note. Between that title and the Gabor as Antichrist remark I think we can infer that Hal is not terribly rosy about the implications of post-Fourier transformations for a holographically mimetic cinema. This subject gains a political dimension in the (spoiler free) description of "The Machine In The Ghost: Annular Holography For Fun And Prophet" in the James O. Incandenza filmography end note that is part of this week's reading.

I think it's safe to say that one of the major themes of this book as well as Wallace's writing in general is the destructive personal and societal conquences of pursuing entertainment/pleasure above all else. Whether rejecting the poisonous irony of '80s television and the lavish pampering of a cruise ship vacation or chronicling the evil genius inner workings of focus-group testing, a deep mistrust of things that cater relentlessly to the American appetite for pleasure reverberates throughout all of Wallace's work. More than style, it's that quality that links his work to his postmodern literary forefathers like Pynchon, Dellilo, Barth, Barthleme, et al. Whereas those authors used irony, black humor, fractured narratives and other devices to attack the overbearing conformity of post WWII America, Wallace consistently took aim at the dark forces (advertising, marketing, late 20th century American entitlement & malaise) that sprouted from the cultural rubble that followed their rebellion. Vilifying holography fits with that thesis. What could be a more seductive form of visual entertainment than a hologram?

Finally, Wallace has like a thing for Antichrists. In addition to Gabor, the brother of the protagonist of Wallace's first novel was nicknamed the Antichrist. In his pre-IJ essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction," Wallace stops short of calling David Letterman the Antichrist, but he does call him something like "the archangel of contemporary irony," which if you know much about DFW you know that that's pretty much synonymous with Antichrist. I have also read interviews with Wallace where, again with regards to the evils of modern irony, he calls Rush Limbaugh and novelist Mark Leyner Antichrists. And I also seem to recall reading him refer to Marcel Duchamp as being considered (the implication being by others, not necessarily by him) an Antichrist for opening this whole art regarding itself can of worms in the first place.

Timeline/ Chapter Titles

So how many of you have read this beast before? Just curious if I am the only virgin Infinite Jester here.

For those more experienced...is there significance / order to the chapters (is that what they are called)? I noticed that we go from "9 May -Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment" to "Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment" to "Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar" and then back to YDAU. Just not sure if there is a time/ space thing happening here. Maybe this all comes to light later.

I'm in here

N.B. All these years I've wondered, "Who/What the hell is Cosgrove Watt and why the hell does Colin use this cyber-pseudonym anyway? Finally, this mystery is (kind of, not really) solved (to an extent) and I can move on with my life. Will Mr. Watt (who is evidently dead) make another appearance in Jest? A quick internet search brought me to this page where spoilers may or may not lie, but because this is my first time reading Jest I can't tell if I've been spoiled or not. But clearly, this webpage is connected to the book in some way. It may, in fact, be directly lifted from the book or it could be total bullshit, but hell if I know. Proceed at your own peril.

Hal's Communication Problem

Clearly, Hal has difficulty communicating, or rather he communicates in a manner which isn't familiar to most people who regularly speak or navigate through 3D space. We know from his childhood flashback that he could speak English at one point in life (or could he?) and for reasons unknown at this time he's lost that ability. Does he communicate this way by choice? Or is it conditioning? He obviously can write English but he doesn't speak it. Are those "subanimalistic" noises random sounds or a language that perhaps only Hal can speak and understand?

Hal also appears to have difficulty controlling his body as well. During his interview, he expends what seems to be an enormous amount of energy in order to appear passive and at ease. A brief crack in his composure occurs when one of the deans asks, "Is Hal all right, Chuck?...Hal just seemed to...well, grimace. Is he in pain? Are you in pain, son?" There are hints that he's aware of these physical shortcomings, such as when he thinks, "I am debating whether to risk scratching the right the right side of my jaw..." Normally we would just attribute this to interview jitters, but now we know that any attempt to scratch his jaw would have resulted in a disastrous, violent flailing of limbs which is exactly what happens later. Ironic because he's a young adult championship tennis star, which obviously requires a fair deal of physical prowess.** Hal's tennis is not in dispute-- he is admired, awed, and is described as balletic (although at this point we don't know if this is even Hal's intention-- we haven't yet been inside Hal's head during a match and for all we know he's a complete headcase.). His uncle appears to be with the program and tries to protect Hal from the inevitable backlash that results whenever Hal opens his mouth or gestures.

Basically, Hal communicates in a completely different way compared to the rest of the world, verbally and physically. No doubt various forms of communication will be dissected throughout the book.

P.S. Why does Hal refer to his mother as The Moms? Does she have a split personality?

** You probably already know this, but DFW was also a promising young adult championship tennis player with professional aspirations until a knee injury ended his career. He's written several essays on tennis and his piece "How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart" is hilarious and well worth the read.

Subanimalistic Noises

Why can't Hal communicate? His thoughts, while kind of all over the place, are basically coherent. He's aware that he can't make himself understood, but is powerless to do anything about it - (see the bottom of page 9, "I'd tell you all you want and more, if the sounds I made could be what you hear.") Shortly after this when he tries to speak, he says, "I cannot make myself understood. I am speaking slowly and distinctly. 'Call it something I ate.'"

Right after that line, 'call it something I ate,' the scene shifts from the college interview to Hal as a 5 year-old eating a large patch of mold, causing his mom to (understandably) freak out.

The description of the noises Hal makes when trying to speak are pretty interesting: 'subanimalistic', 'like a drowning goat', 'a vision of hell', 'only marginally mammalian.' Again, the question is why? Why can't Hal make himself understood?

A random bit from the first section:

- on page 12 Hal mentions 'I believe Dennis Gabor may very well have been the Antichrist.' I had never heard of Gabor, his wikipedia page includes the following:

Gabor's research focused on electron inputs and outputs, which led him to the invention of re-holography.[3] The basic idea was that for perfect optical imaging, the total of all the information has to be used; not only the amplitude, as in usual optical imaging, but also the phase. In this manner a complete holo-spatial picture can be obtained.[3] Gabor published his theories of re-holography in a series of papers between 1946 and 1951.[3]

Gabor also researched how human beings communicate and hear; the result of his investigations was the theory of granular synthesis, although Greek composer Iannis Xenakis claimed that he was actually the first inventor of this synthesis technique. [1] Xenakis was the first to explicate a compositional theory for grains of sound. He began by adopting the following lemma: "All sound, even continuous musical variation, is conceived as an assemblage of a large number of elementary sounds adequately disposed in time. In the attack, body, and decline of a complex sound, thousands of pure sounds appear in a more or less short interval of time."

Why does Hal think Gabor's the anti-christ?

Use and abuse

As I write this, the Associated Press is calling the no-vote for California's Proposition 19 with 39% of precincts reporting. Those of us nowhere near California figured the measure had a pretty good chance, but the ten-point margin of defeat makes it seem as though in hindsight it was never close. The only counties voting yes seem to be all the ones around the Bay Area and a couple on the Nevada state line just south of Lake Tahoe. Los Angeles County, which includes Claremont, latter-years home of David Foster Wallace, is voting no.¹

I wonder how Wallace would have voted. Even having read his extended essay on John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, I know very little of the man's politics. I do know, however, that he had a pretty serious drug problem as a young adult, and a big part of that was his marijuana habit. Most stoners will be happy to tell you that, unlike, say, herion, which permanently hinders one's endogenous opioid production, marijuana use does not result in physical dependence. Psychological dependence, on the other hand, is a more subjective, and debatable, subject. I have no doubts as to where Wallace would stand on the matter.

Many of Ken Erdedy's habits, obsessions, neuroses, denials and rationalisations will be familiar to anyone who has smoked a lot of grass over a long period of time. He's certainly not physically unable to stop himself, but mentally he's helpless. Wallace spoke quite candidly in interviews about similar experiences.

I'm going to phrase these next two sentences carefully in order to avoid any spoilers. Erdedy will not be the only character whose marijuana use gets beyond his control. And, at some point, the possibility of professional counseling for marijuana use will be addressed. There, I hope I didn't give too much away. When we think of rehabilitation for substance dependence, we rarely associate it with marijuana. Wallace, however, takes the idea quite seriously, and it seems like one of the underexplored themes in the literature I've read about the Jest.² Worth keeping in mind moving forward.

As a final note, I wonder whether, had he lived to see marijuana legalised in California, Wallace would have felt compelled to move. Could he have resisted the temptation?

1. As is Humboldt County, by the way. Seriously guys? Couldn't get off the couch for thirty minutes to go vote? [Return]


2. Not drug rehab in general, mind you, just the idea of it being equally applicable to excessive marijuana use as to that of other, "harder" drugs. [Return]

Alright. So I guess I'll start......

But damn, it feels pretty intimidating to start ANY kind of discussion on IJ.

Year of Glad. Hal is a pretty major character in the book, maybe the most important. He's sort of the co-protagonist, if you want to get fancy about it.

And I remember that the first time I ever started this book I was pretty wary of this opening section as I was reading it. It always struck me, and still does, as being overly "writerly". Like DFW is just flexing his muscles here, showing off a little. But what hit me this time around is that it completely fits. Because it's Hal's voice. When the deans start reading off the list of Hal's papers, and the titles just veer off into the most arcane academic subject imagineable, it fits. It seems to function both as authorial showboating and a kind of self-indictment. It's funny because it's true. (I figure pop culture references will abound in this discussion. How can they not?)

But even in the midst of all of it, you can start to get a sense of what this is all about. This whole first bit is a teaser, as is the second bit.

I used to think the book should have opened with this epic pot/paranoia/preparation episode. I had completely forgotten about this part until that first sentence. And it had me laughing out loud almost the whole time. The insane rituals, all the elaborate justifications and fears. Just awesome. And it lays down the foundation for the main focus of this whole gigantic thing: addiction. Addiction and how all sorts of different people deal with it, fight against it, live with it, and lose to it. Half of the time its funny, if dark; the other half is just plain dark.


Now, the more concrete, how-in-the-hell do i manage this unwieldy beast advice:

- Use 2 bookmarks. One for the book, one for the endnotes. And don't skip out on the endnotes, they're worth it.

- I think I read 5 or 6 other books over the course of IJ the first time around. While there are going to be times when this book will definitely sweep you up and you'll cruise through huge chunks of text, there will also be times when you'll have to force yourself to get through it. And sometimes it helps to have a distraction to clear your head. Kinky Friedman mysteries, essay collections, rock music bios (yeah i'm looking at you, Keef), etc.

- Its sometimes a little complicated to try and keep track of who's who, and what year happens when, and how all of these people relate to eachother. I've never picked up any of the IJ "guides" but i imagine they might be helpful on some very basic levels. Anyone have one? Or recommend one?

- Lastly, keep in touch. I know this went up one day late, but let's aim for a Monday afternoon posting every week.
I don't know if this seems like a good jumping-off post or not, so feel free to write whatever you like. As long as the discussion happens, it doesn't really matter what form it takes.

Let's begin...

OK, welcome to the group; first post! Let me start the discussion with a contemporary example of the Jest's prescience.

One of the main points of critical respect often bestowed upon works of fiction taking place in the "not-too-distant future", so to speak, is that of the accurate prediction. That is, when a minor piece of scene-setting detail (as opposed to actual plot point) which seems satiric upon publication turns out to be all-too-true just a few years later. Think of the critical reception of William Gibson's Pattern Recognition and its attendant sequels.

In the Jest, DFW introduces the ridiculous notion that, following the example of college football bowl games (and, presumably, sports stadium names), actual calendar years will someday soon have their names sold to corporate sponsors. For those of you new to the Jest, you'll notice this right away: yes, the "Year Of Glad" does indeed refer to the household plastics manufacturer.

For those of you who live in Philadelphia, well, you probably know where I'm going with this. Philadelphia's public transit system has two urban subway lines: the orange, or Broad Street line, and the blue, or Market Street line. At the southern extremity of the cartographically vertical Broad Street line lies the city's sports complex, a multi-acre expanse of stadia, arenae, parking lots and the occasional sports bar. As the major through street in the vicinity is named Pattison Avenue, this terminus was, until recently, named Pattison Avenue Station.

No longer. Say hello, denizens of the immediate future, to AT&T Station.

Not kidding: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100625_SEPTA_approves_changing_name_of_Pattison_station_to_AT_T.html