infinite footnotes

[Bonnie Surfus (ENG)]

On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Robert Bruno wrote:

> I'm a little over halfway through IJ and I can't help but be infinitely 
> annoyed by the footnotes, esp. the verbose ones.  What literary function 
> do they serve, besides pissing off the reader?  Yes, they do help explain 
> and define obscure terms, and expand the plot a bit.  Maybe it's all part 
> of the ha-ha-now-you-have-to-flip-back-700-pages-type-humor that Wallace 
> revels in.
> 
> In an aside, I kinda wished GR had footnotes; but then again, the darn 
> thing is frustrating enough...
> 
> Rob
> 
So many complaints about those footnotes.  Jeez, never taken a challenge?  

I find that the footnotes in IJ are a tremendous help, and that they
reflect the functions of memory that promote a story.  In other words, the
footnotes seem to emulate real thought processes, like those of, say,
someone recalling a story and telling it to a friend/analyst/reader . . .
They also add a richness of detail that comes from this more complex
context. Rather than simply providing detail in chronological fashion,
Wallace allows his characters to think the way people really think/recall.
That is, by adding more and more detail as footnotes to the linear
narrative, he creates the kind of labyrinthine structure that mimics
nonlinear reality.  It is a tried-and-true practice of the postmodern
author who would create a story with a problematic chronology that echoes
reality more accurately than a traditionally chronological tale.  I think
I've repeated myself.

I liked 'em.

Bonnie