Low Traffic, IJ, & Infinite Jest

[Andrew Dinn]

JM writes:

> I don't know if anyone from Marin County is on Pynchon-l, but up there, 
> "IJ" doesn't mean _Infinite Jest_.   One of the things I'm enjoying as I 
> read the non-Marin "IJ" is that the narrator'll make these rapid shifts in 
> diction.  One moment he'll  be using words that send me running to the 
> dictionary, and then along comes a  phrase like: "one sneaker up on the 
> sofa's square frayed fabric arm-thing...."  (p.272)  Now I'm wondering if 
> this is supposed to convey a subtle shift in point-of-view, like suddenly 
> we've gone from the vocabulary-rich omniscient narrator down into the 
> head of some "mere character" like D. Gately.    If it's not some such 
> shift, then it must just be DFW's narrator indulging in some sort of 
> self-mockery, recondite vocabulary-wise.   Sort of like TRP's shifts from 
> realistic description to pie fights and rocket limericks.  

Well, I was in the book store yesterday looking if I could find a copy
of `Infinite Jest' just to see what all the fuss was about and they
didn't have one. But they did have `The Broom of the System'. So, I
had a look, started reading and before you know it I was chuckling out
loud as I marched through the door with the `The Broom of the System'
undermy arm and a customer order slip for `Infinite Jest' tucked into
my diary.

This earlier work doesn't strike me as `like' TRP or Gaddis, whatever
that means. Maybe it's `like' DeLillo at times but again I don't kow
what that is supposed to mean. Anyway, the reason for replying is i)
to point out that it's immensely good and immense fun and I can't wait
for `Infinite Jest' to arrive and ii) to pick up on the point above, I
also thought that DFW's narrative was slipping, no make that drifting
into different, err... voices... mindsets... whatever. Also, when he
swapped the narrative to be Rick Vigorous's internal(?) monologue he
sure as hell throws naturalism out the window. I don't care if
Vigorous does run a penniless publishing house, nobody's monologues
are so abstruse and erudite in their choice of language. Not to fault
him, mind. On the contrary.

One other quirk I really fell for was his use of ellipsis in dialogue.
Not as per Pynchon to denote a hiatus or trailing off in speech but
rather indicating a non-verbal contribution to a dialogue e.g.

    "Is this cuddling? Is what we're doing cuddling?"
    "I think this satisfies standard cuddling criteria, yes."
    "I thought so."
    "...."
    "You have a really bony pelvis, you know. See how it protudes"

It's even better at the end of the scene

    "Good Lord. Are you going to use it?"
    "No. Too long. It's a long story, over forty pages. Also poorly typed."
    "...."
    "Stop that."
    "...."
    "Lenore, stop it. Not even remotely funny."
    "...."
    "...."
    "Except how do you know so much about it."

> I told a woman I know that I was reading a new book entitled
> _Infinite Jest_, and she recognised the source of the title right
> away.  When she explained it to me, I felt awfully stupid.  DFW does
> include hints here and there for those of us who are a little slow.
> Duh....  -jm

Right! It's a reference to Tristram Shandy, no?


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.