For Sean Maher

In response to a point raised by Jerry: another interesting use of the word fascist, in this case as a pejorative, is when steeply describes Marathe’s vision of ‘L’e´tat protecteur. Steeply describes Marathe’s paternal state as “national socialist,” and Neofascist.” I think that the division between the kind of entirely unlimited negative conception of freedom held by Steeply, and the positive conception of freedom held by Marathe is particularly interesting in the passage from 317-321. Marathe makes the point that the definition of freedom which Steeply holds as axiomatic, a negative one, is as unfree as Marathe’s own, a positive conception in which the choice of the Québécois state as a “temple” takes center stage, and though limiting in some ways, is principally a paternal influence. Marathe’s conception of the states is the father compelling virtue, in his analogy, compelling his children to eat nourishing foods as well as candy. By that analogy the Americans are perpetually childish, so transfixed with the pursuit of ‘candy’ that they become unfree, despite their lack of outward coercion. I think that this is particularly interesting in light of the parts of the text in which we’ve dealt with addiction, and the attendant loss of freedom that so often characterizes it. In all cases, the characters become, like the children of Marathe’s unable to make decisions freely, unable to shun their substances, which while associated with pleasure, can’t be called exactly that. Marathe is correct when he indicates that “the appetite for the appeal” of ‘entertainment’ (also encompassing drug use) is uniquely American. The ‘entertainment,’ the various addictions, all serve as a sort of pseudo temple. It is the natural result when “a people choose nothing over themselves to love, each one.”

I admit that I am torn, I don’t know whether I believe in a negative conception, as I always have, or a more positive version of liberty, which seems to have some merit, but still, to me, seems to hold the threat of “fascism.” I’d like to expand on this at greater length, but at this point I need to submit this, so I’ll save further comments for later, noting that I think the use of Samizdat is particularly interesting. On another note, Fin is somewhat archaic slang for a $5 bill.

I also found Alexander’s idea interesting. In some cases, things in the novel have been shown to be so pleasurable that they cause death, sometimes spiritual, and at others corporal. I am inclined to draw from Neil Postman’s Future Schlock, (albeit with great reluctance, considering my earlier objections to Mr. Postman’s claims,) where he talks about the destructive power of entertainment. The majority of the piece is concerned with the mechanism by which this destructive power manifests itself, an examination not for our purposes immediately relevant, but the underlying message of the piece, that we can be spiritually devastated, oppressed, by not only statist authoritarianism, but by that which we love, rendered, Postman claims, insensate and stupefied by the warm glow of entertainment. I think that that’s definitely a point which deserves further exploration.

Also, as far as Jest, and humorousness goes, I think that there are a number of occasions in the book in which the entertainment value is gained entirely from the hyperbole of the situation, in a manner that is almost cartoonish. I first noticed this when on page 314, the book describes orin’s attempt to correct the drooiness of Mario’s “declaring” lid, giving it a “smart downward snap,” the kind which one would apply to a “dickey” shade, and this reminded me of nothing more than a kind of bugs bunny logic, in which umbrellas stop anvils, and the laws of physical reality, and frankly, mortality are stayed. I noticed this on a number of occasions, particularly in the Eschaton debacle.