LangComp makes me see the world in parallels
Selected Transcripts of the Resident-Interface-Drop-In-Hours of Ms. Patricia Montesian, M.A., C.S.A.C. Executive Director, Ennet House Drug and Alcohol Recovery House (SIC), Enfield MA, 1300-1500H., Wednesday, 4 November – Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
(p 176)
We’ve encountered many perspectives on across the vast spectrum of drugs and the thought process when planning, using, abusing, et cetera. The whole question of ‘perspective’ and whether or not we can legitimately trust in the claims of the narrator is prevalent through the majority of IJ so far, and has been since page one when we are deceived to the reality of the situation while being told only of Hal’s perspective.
Here, we come across a discussion between all sorts of addicts at all levels of addiction, as a strong parallel to the greater Infinite Jest itself. Each statement presents a problem or state of mind regarding the common theme of drugs and addiction, like each brief section of the book showcases one person’s point of view on that certain drug. With no certain string or tie between speakers, it is hard to follow the logic behind the conversation, but makes sense as in the big picture when one knows the context of the discussion, much like the book as a whole.
I am only able to approach reading Infinite Jest as a whole because I am aware, after having read thus far, of what seems to be the method in which it is written, and can prepare myself for the style and style changes, as well as it’s intimidating size, when I sit down to read a chunk of it. Though connections are coming together slightly more clearly than before in that characters play reoccurring roles, I am still overwhelmed by the construction that is at the moment, to me, still seemingly an acute form of madness.
I very much enjoyed the inclusion of Hal’s essays (140, et c.) This is one of the only places where we are distinctly told that the characters in the book exist in the same world we do. Pop culture references, like the discussion of Hawaii 5-0 and modern technology, connect Hal, in his sober state of mind, to us as readers, which has not been done in such a way until now. We see a conscious view of something we know to be concrete and not skewed by drug use, and we can relate this to what Hal is saying about the subject.
The footnotes simultaneously aggravate and enthrall me. The ridiculous definitions are entertaining, and the stories within stories manage to successfully get my mind off of the real world, from which I desperately need a break. Furthermore, the filmography, though impressive, makes me seriously question David Foster Wallace, even more than the book itself. Why would its presence play such a major role that it was necessary to take the time to create it, and what purpose does it serve? I can’t seem to find one, except as something that I was forced to read through by my own mind, despite the evident lack of necessity of the information it contained.
Also, the fact that every year present EVER, except for in essays relating to the real world, like when Hal mentions the 1970s, are documented in their wordy, unexplained name, like the year of the Whopper, has began to annoy me greatly.
I hope I’ve adequately literarily luminated these parts of the text that I found especially interesting or bothersome.
(p 176)
We’ve encountered many perspectives on across the vast spectrum of drugs and the thought process when planning, using, abusing, et cetera. The whole question of ‘perspective’ and whether or not we can legitimately trust in the claims of the narrator is prevalent through the majority of IJ so far, and has been since page one when we are deceived to the reality of the situation while being told only of Hal’s perspective.
Here, we come across a discussion between all sorts of addicts at all levels of addiction, as a strong parallel to the greater Infinite Jest itself. Each statement presents a problem or state of mind regarding the common theme of drugs and addiction, like each brief section of the book showcases one person’s point of view on that certain drug. With no certain string or tie between speakers, it is hard to follow the logic behind the conversation, but makes sense as in the big picture when one knows the context of the discussion, much like the book as a whole.
I am only able to approach reading Infinite Jest as a whole because I am aware, after having read thus far, of what seems to be the method in which it is written, and can prepare myself for the style and style changes, as well as it’s intimidating size, when I sit down to read a chunk of it. Though connections are coming together slightly more clearly than before in that characters play reoccurring roles, I am still overwhelmed by the construction that is at the moment, to me, still seemingly an acute form of madness.
I very much enjoyed the inclusion of Hal’s essays (140, et c.) This is one of the only places where we are distinctly told that the characters in the book exist in the same world we do. Pop culture references, like the discussion of Hawaii 5-0 and modern technology, connect Hal, in his sober state of mind, to us as readers, which has not been done in such a way until now. We see a conscious view of something we know to be concrete and not skewed by drug use, and we can relate this to what Hal is saying about the subject.
The footnotes simultaneously aggravate and enthrall me. The ridiculous definitions are entertaining, and the stories within stories manage to successfully get my mind off of the real world, from which I desperately need a break. Furthermore, the filmography, though impressive, makes me seriously question David Foster Wallace, even more than the book itself. Why would its presence play such a major role that it was necessary to take the time to create it, and what purpose does it serve? I can’t seem to find one, except as something that I was forced to read through by my own mind, despite the evident lack of necessity of the information it contained.
Also, the fact that every year present EVER, except for in essays relating to the real world, like when Hal mentions the 1970s, are documented in their wordy, unexplained name, like the year of the Whopper, has began to annoy me greatly.
I hope I’ve adequately literarily luminated these parts of the text that I found especially interesting or bothersome.
posted by Paris at 10:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home