[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.10 MB, 1125x1484, IMG_7330.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22944266 No.22944266 [Reply] [Original]

I’m not sure I even know what to say. To be honest, a good bit of it I don’t remember. I don’t think my memory works in quite the way it used to. It may be that this kind of work changes you. Even just rote exams. It might actually change your brain. For the most part, it’s now almost as if I’m trapped in the present. If I drank, for instance, some Tang, it wouldn’t remind me of anything—I’d just taste the Tang.

From what I understand, I’m supposed to explain how I arrived at this career. Where I came from, so to speak, and what the Service means to me.

I think the truth is that I was the worst kind of nihilist—the kind who isn’t even aware he’s a nihilist. I was like a piece of paper on the street in the wind, thinking, ‘Now I think I’ll blow this way, now I think I’ll blow that way.’ My essential response to everything was ‘Whatever.’

>> No.22944274

Fogle never "was," as in he never grew up and even as an adult is still just a child playing his parents.

>> No.22944284

>>22944274
I like it. Do you have some other observations on fogle? Or perhaps anything else in the book?

>> No.22944303

>>22944284
§19 (elevator) provides 90% of the context for §22 and is one of two sections which David Wallace appears in outside of the times he is directly narrating and this is important. If you actually offer something you would probably get more.

>> No.22944324

>>22944303
I missed it. I’ll go back and reread that section. Why is DFW’s appearance there important?

>> No.22944326

>>22944324
>I missed it.
“It” being how section 19 provides the context for 22.

>> No.22944357

>>22944324
It and his other appearance in the novel provide the context for David Wallace, the parts he narrates are like Fogles long bit, ego and self serving but his two appearances give us the context for who he is too the novel other than "author" and what he spoon feeds us.
>>22944326
Sort of the point. The novel turns on §22 and functionally it is sort of the climax, everything before it is setup and buildup, everything (sort of) after is resolution. Structurally things get a little wonky here and I say "sort of" because §46 (Drinian/Rand) serves the same function as §22, ultimately it is the structure of TPK that is fragmented and not the plot, plot only seems fragmented because it is subservient to structure and David Wallace plainly explain the failings of plot in §9 (author's forward).

>> No.22944370

is this about infinite jest lol

>> No.22944376

>>22944370
We are talking about The Pale King, not Infinite Jest. Go read something for a change.

>> No.22944377

>>22944357
Geez, I’ve only read it once (just finished actually), and now I’m realizing how much I missed. Thanks, anon. Definitely going to give it a reread.

Is there any narrative/thematic purpose to DFW and Fogle being egotistical and self-serving?

>> No.22944378

>>22944376
I read infinite jest though...

>> No.22944422

>>22944377
There is a lot to get, one read is not enough. The David Wallace narrated parts explain it all, hiding what is import in the tedious and all that, the catch is that everything in TPK is actually important; in IJ he used a great many characters to provide the nuance, in TPK it is the reiteration and recursion (the meta) that he uses to provide the nuance.

Self serving/ego is a tad misleading, they are really just trying to keep up their own self image. Self serving and ego suggest more, they are not trying to be right or anything like that, really just incapable (unwilling) to sift through it all so they can provide only what is needed. Wallace is better at it all than Fogle but not by much.

On your reread it would be worthwhile to ignore the footnotes, like Infinite Jest's endnotes they are primarily about obfuscating and fracturing, while they do provide important information they are not critical especially after you have read it through already.
>>22944378
And yet your failed to realize OP was TPK.

>> No.22944429

>>22944422
that's why I said lol you fucker

>> No.22944437

>>22944429
Are you retarded?

>> No.22944441

>>22944422
Thanks, anon. I'll take your advice. I've got your posts copied to a doc so I can check them while I reread, lol.
>in TPK it is the reiteration and recursion (the meta) that he uses to provide the nuance
Do you mind providing an example of that? This must be another thing that flew over my head.

>> No.22944442

>>22944437
no

>> No.22944491

>>22944441
§22. Fogle endlessly reiterates with slight variations, I used to be an embarrassing retard but now I am not but I was actually still an embarrassing retard but this time I am really not but I was actually still an embarrassing retard but this time I am REALLY not. The entire novel is built around this sort repetition/reiteration with each instance providing a bit more nuance. §22 on the plot level is just Fogle demonstrating a profound lack of self awareness which rivals that of /lit/, but thematically and structurally it is a bit more.

§5 is where Wallace lays this all out and really establishes this structure with its endless runons which are used to wonderful effect in demonstrating the obnoxiousness of Stecyk, we kind of feel bad for him at first but after the umpteenth go around it is hard to not find him as obnoxious as the style. Go read through §5 a few times, take the time to understand how it works and how Wallace uses style to carry theme and get us to really understand how much of an obnoxious little fuck Stecyk is and the complexity of his being an obnoxious little fuck really being our own failing. I probably reread §5 once a month and have for years now, an amazing few pages.

§2 is where he lays out theme, Sylvanshine is the shotgun to Reynolds' rifle both aimed by MEL. The reader needs to be the complete package.
>>22944442
Would you tell us if you were?

>> No.22944506

>>22944437
I‘m retarded! (Nta)

>> No.22944548

>>22944491
Damn, anon. You really know your stuff. It's very rare to see posts like this on /lit, but when it happens it actually makes it worthwhile to come here.

>§5 is where Wallace lays this all out and really establishes this structure with its endless runons which are used to wonderful effect in demonstrating the obnoxiousness of Stecyk, we kind of feel bad for him at first but after the umpteenth go around it is hard to not find him as obnoxious as the style.
Yes, you're so right. He was so obnoxious, but I could never put my finger on why, but now that you've pointed it out it seems so obvious.

Since you seem to be really knowledgeable about DFW, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about his work in general rather than just TPK:

1.) DFW often switches between using third and first person narration which I haven't seen much. Obviously Fogle's section and some others in TPK, but also Hal in IJ. Is there some deeper meaning behind when he uses one or the other or even some relevancy to the act of switching itself (like some kind of metafictional technique)?

2.) What's with the use of the blank "Q:" but just giving readers the answer and not the actual question that preceded it? For example the Steeply and Joelle interview in IJ, and in many parts of Brief Interviews. I guess I'm asking what narrative/thematic purpose it serves (if any).

>> No.22944677
File: 94 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22944677

>>22944506
kek. You are doing better than most of /lit/.
>>22944548
>but now that you've pointed it out it seems so obvious.
He spells it all out and examines it in great detail, read it a few times.
>Everyone hates the boy. It is a complex hatred, one that often causes the haters to feel mean and guilty and to hate themselves for feeling this way about such an accomplished and well-meaning boy, which then tends to make them involuntarily hate the boy even more for arousing such self-hatred. The whole thing is totally confusing and upsetting. People take a lot of aspirin when he’s around.

> DFW often switches between using third and first person narration
From the postmodernist on the narrator is a considerably more complex thing than just reliable or unreliable and this whole thing really started with the modernist and stream of consciousness, the narrator became a character even if they are not a literal character in the novel. In TPK Wallace is trying to teach the non lit major this and he explains all this in the Author's Foreward and he does it without dumbing things down so even the lit major can enjoy it. Both IJ and TPK have a single narrator and do not shift between perspectives, which is to say that the narrator is giving you that information and it is not Fogle or Hal taking over the narration, the narrator is relaying you something from another perspective. In TPK it is supposedly epistolary, the narrator is providing you with sources other than himself, in IJ it is an extension of free indirect speech and the narrator is going through the same things which Hal is going through and Gately went through and really every character in the novel experiences, the loss of self to the image/purpose they serve society. In both this is thematic and not just some gimmick, the Author's Foreward explains this, sort of.
>What's with the use of the blank "Q:"
This is something which has been exploited in literature for a good while and comes from how interviews are actually conducted. If you watch the unedited interview that picrel comes from you see the questions are kind vague, the answers rambly and often not even answers to the question asked, and we can not even hear the interviewer very well; this is because the questions are edited in, they edit in new questions which better suit the answers given and edit the answers to be more concise. This has been standard form for ages and avoids interviews being rambly things like the unedited DFW interview. In literature it has been used to various ends but generally it comes down to being a way to force the reader to not accept the character's account so blindly, your having to fill in the questions forces you to question the character. Remember what I said about narrators, perspective has not actually shifted and this is still information which the narrator has decided to give you and it is up to you to decide what to do with it and how reliable it is.

>> No.22944702

>>22944677
>From the postmodernist on the narrator is a considerably more complex thing than just reliable or unreliable and this whole thing really started with the modernist and stream of consciousness, the narrator became a character even if they are not a literal character in the novel.
That is to say the reader needs to ask why is the narrator providing this information in this form, we have to consider the narrator's motives and understand the narrator in the same way we do a character. Was a bit roundabout and rambly in that response. A bit drunk.

>> No.22944730

>>22944677
>>22944702
This is all really incredible, anon. I greatly appreciate the time you've taken to post this. I hope you continue posting here, you're knowledge is definitely a diamond in this place.

>> No.22944839

>>22944730
While it is nice for my effort posts to be appreciated it leaves me conflicted, I want to do what I can to improve /lit/ but it is difficult to not believe that /lit/ is dead and my efforts ultimately only serve to insure the steam of shit coming from this place continues.

When you reread TPK remember that the structures are not just on the microscopic—Fogle endlessly remembering how he used to be an embarressing retard—but also on the macroscopic—Fogle reducing the Jesuit professor to the same level as the foot across the street. This same structure is used on all levels of TPK and is ultimately the structure of TPK.

>> No.22944871

>>22944677
>What's with the use of the blank "Q:"
Just noticed I lost an important part of this in editing this down to 3000 characters. In the days before audio recording was cheap and everywhere the interviewer would only write down the responses. If you look in the archives of journalists you will find loads of interviews which are just the answers because the printed questions would be worked out later, the questions actually asked were just a way to get discussion going. In literature we can see this form being followed as a way to makes the reader question the character going back a good while. Off the top of my head we can take this back to the 1920s with Akutagawa's In a Grove which has the first few chapters following this form even if it is only a single question asked each character, question is implied and it makes clear that the characters recollections are not absolute and gets the reader in the habit of questioning the characters for the later chapters. Strongly suspect we can go back further than the 20s with this.

>> No.22944901

>>22944839
Thanks, I’ll keep this in mind.

>>22944871
If you currently have or ever start a blog or substack on literary criticism/analysis drop a link. I would subscribe.

>> No.22944934

>>22944901
It is unlikely I will ever start a blog but I have considered making some websites of annotations for various books like IJ and TPK with annotations that focus more on analysis and the mechanics instead of autism and trivia. This is something which I think is sorely lacking and most people do not understand that annotated editions are not about explaining the novel or improving understanding—they assume the reader already understands it and has put in the time—the annotations mostly provide those things which have no real bearing on understanding the work itself such as sources of influence and the like. No clue if it will ever happen but it has been on my mind for a good while now and will not go away so probably more likely than not?

>> No.22944944

>>22944934
Well, you definitely should. And if/when you do, start a patreon for donations.