Semiallegoricality
This is one of those posts that it would be great to get comments on, to add to the picture I'm constructing here.
I wouldn't accuse DFW of writing something as unsophisticated as a straight-up allegory, and IJ seems more complex than that, but I'd like to type up this as a brief hypothetical thought: what if it were a straight allegory?
More on that in a second. I'd just like to interject that DFW is an obnoxiously good manipulator of his readers. I mean, here's the picture: the character I badly want to see horribly suffer and die is separated from his would-be destroyers by one thing. What is the one thing? A character I very much don't want to see harmed or killed, namely Don Gately. My desire to see Don Gately not die ultimately outweighed my desire to see Lenz die, so I was glad to see him wiping the floor with the Quebecois.
OK, back to the allegory thing.
What if different characters in Infinite Jest represented different motivating forces, aspects of humanity, philosophies?
I'm a big fan of Lyle. I think he's just about the smartest character in the book (for example, I think DFW applies the most elevated vocabulary to the narration of Lyle's sections, few though they be.) And since he's a guru, I think he would represent the mystical side of human understanding. He gives advice of a vague and loosely interpretable nature-- but often very helpful-- in exchange for sweat. The sweat-drinking seems bizarre, and it could possibly stand for the kinds of bizarre rituals that we take for granted in religion and mysticism. It also means he gains his sustenance completely from other human beings, making him sort of parasitic (a little like religion.) His advice usually works, though, except when confronted by a single problem: the threat of suicide. Neither with Clipperton nor JOI does his advice successfully stop self-slaughter. It's like suicide is the one issue beyond his scope. Is DFW saying that religion or mysticism is somewhat effective but falls short when placed against issues of the severe degree that is required for suicide?
Hal would pretty obviously be intellectualism.
Mario would be intuition and empathy: he inherently feels for Hal on a gut level, he cares for all, and he understands things amazingly well despite a lack of-- intellectual-- mental power. He is fearless. He is also (worth noting) very small and under-developed in the modern world. He also finds it harder and harder to connect with Hal as his brother gets more and more wrapped up in his own intellect and addiction (AA says that intellectualism is the cathedra from which addiction rules. The Mario-Hal thing would suggest that they're right.)
Orin and Lenz, even though I actually like Orin, could to some extent be the same thing: the desire for power, or rather, the illusion of power. They exert their will over other beings (Lenz kills, Orin nails) to resolve internal issues with power and control. Lenz's animal-abuse and Orin's childhood Mario-abuse seem very much akin, come to think of it. I accidentally read a bit too far and found other stuff that I think supports this parallel, but I won't mention it for obvious reasons.
Would Joelle be shame?
Don Gately is pure fanatical devotion; in a way, maybe he and Marathe are the same? In any case, Don Gately, once he has dedicated himself, is in all the way. He's dedicated himself to sobriety, so he gets Active. He's dedicated himself to being an Ennet House staffer, so he's willing to fight three armed men and get himself injured to protect the people he's sworn to take care of, even though the main target, Lenz, is someone he personally detests (good old Don.)
Avril would be the desire to maintain complete and absolute control.
I'm going to stop here, but anyone who reads this, add comments on the above and consider other characters. Some other good ones to get down would be Steeply, Poor Tony, Michael Pemulis, JOI of course, his father, and John Wayne (I think those characters are likely to click into this hypothetical allegory.)
I wouldn't accuse DFW of writing something as unsophisticated as a straight-up allegory, and IJ seems more complex than that, but I'd like to type up this as a brief hypothetical thought: what if it were a straight allegory?
More on that in a second. I'd just like to interject that DFW is an obnoxiously good manipulator of his readers. I mean, here's the picture: the character I badly want to see horribly suffer and die is separated from his would-be destroyers by one thing. What is the one thing? A character I very much don't want to see harmed or killed, namely Don Gately. My desire to see Don Gately not die ultimately outweighed my desire to see Lenz die, so I was glad to see him wiping the floor with the Quebecois.
OK, back to the allegory thing.
What if different characters in Infinite Jest represented different motivating forces, aspects of humanity, philosophies?
I'm a big fan of Lyle. I think he's just about the smartest character in the book (for example, I think DFW applies the most elevated vocabulary to the narration of Lyle's sections, few though they be.) And since he's a guru, I think he would represent the mystical side of human understanding. He gives advice of a vague and loosely interpretable nature-- but often very helpful-- in exchange for sweat. The sweat-drinking seems bizarre, and it could possibly stand for the kinds of bizarre rituals that we take for granted in religion and mysticism. It also means he gains his sustenance completely from other human beings, making him sort of parasitic (a little like religion.) His advice usually works, though, except when confronted by a single problem: the threat of suicide. Neither with Clipperton nor JOI does his advice successfully stop self-slaughter. It's like suicide is the one issue beyond his scope. Is DFW saying that religion or mysticism is somewhat effective but falls short when placed against issues of the severe degree that is required for suicide?
Hal would pretty obviously be intellectualism.
Mario would be intuition and empathy: he inherently feels for Hal on a gut level, he cares for all, and he understands things amazingly well despite a lack of-- intellectual-- mental power. He is fearless. He is also (worth noting) very small and under-developed in the modern world. He also finds it harder and harder to connect with Hal as his brother gets more and more wrapped up in his own intellect and addiction (AA says that intellectualism is the cathedra from which addiction rules. The Mario-Hal thing would suggest that they're right.)
Orin and Lenz, even though I actually like Orin, could to some extent be the same thing: the desire for power, or rather, the illusion of power. They exert their will over other beings (Lenz kills, Orin nails) to resolve internal issues with power and control. Lenz's animal-abuse and Orin's childhood Mario-abuse seem very much akin, come to think of it. I accidentally read a bit too far and found other stuff that I think supports this parallel, but I won't mention it for obvious reasons.
Would Joelle be shame?
Don Gately is pure fanatical devotion; in a way, maybe he and Marathe are the same? In any case, Don Gately, once he has dedicated himself, is in all the way. He's dedicated himself to sobriety, so he gets Active. He's dedicated himself to being an Ennet House staffer, so he's willing to fight three armed men and get himself injured to protect the people he's sworn to take care of, even though the main target, Lenz, is someone he personally detests (good old Don.)
Avril would be the desire to maintain complete and absolute control.
I'm going to stop here, but anyone who reads this, add comments on the above and consider other characters. Some other good ones to get down would be Steeply, Poor Tony, Michael Pemulis, JOI of course, his father, and John Wayne (I think those characters are likely to click into this hypothetical allegory.)
posted by Alexander Dove Lempke at 8:02 PM
4 Comments:
Wellll I think it's an interesting theory, and certainly there's stuff to support it, but at the same time I feel like the characters are too nuanced for that to have been the intention. For example: yes Hal has an astounding vocabulary and at the very beginning of the book (during the still-unsolved mystery where the administrators didn't understand him) mentioned his interest in several academic areas, but at the same time he smokes marijuana in secret and is a great tennis player.
I think what I mean is, a lot of what you're saying is valid, but I think as much is true of most books, if you're looking for it.
I thought I made clear in the post that I don't actually think it's as clear-cut as this: this is just a handy way of looking at it that lets some connections start to form more easily.
fair enough
and then ok: JOI as the struggle of the artist. He has an influential and important career, as far as we can tell, and he did some wild, avant-garde (or maybe just ridiculous) stuff like Found Drama. And of course he kills himself in a particularly gruesome and unnecessary way, for reasons we don't yet know. He spent a huge amount of time attempting to perfect Infinite Jest (we assume, since he made like 5 different versions) and may or may not have succeeded in producing his masterpiece. And then he dies and leaves behind a legacy (the Entertainment?) that he may only receive credit for posthumously.
ok, you were right, this is useful. excuse my skepticism.
Post a Comment
<< Home