IJ

[Kyle]

And I think the big question is:  what is life without addiction?  What are
you "recovering" to?  I mean, logically, you have to fill your life with
something.  You spend time doing one thing, and if you want to "recover" you
simply find something else.  At first, when reading IJ, I thought this view
was pretty if not completely pessimistic (and logical, really), but read
especially the section in which Marathe explains to Kate Gompert about the
American perception of love as a constant intake of pleasure; this idea is
the same one people hold w/r/t any other addictive substance.  But the
redeeming aspect is, here (though most of the AAs do not recognize it), that
you can choose your addictions.  What's worse to you, an addiction to
cocaine or an addiction to a spouse (of course this is an extreme example,
and the judgment is far more subjective, but there still is a judgment you
can make)?  In my opinion, DFW's recognition of this (the AAs going from one
addiction to another) was definitely intentional.

On 3/24/06, jd <wescac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't Wallace pretty much flat-out talk about how AA is replacing
> one addiction with another, giving in to a higher being you don't
> believe in, etc?  I could be mistaken, but I think he certainly, if
> unintentionally, sheds light on the fact that these people are NOT
> actually recovered: chain smoking, drinking endless cups of coffee,
> self-deprecating to the point that the Self isn't important at all,
> giving up rational thought for the guidance of an invisible higher
> being... etc...
>
>


--
-kyle b
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20060324/5c34906e/attachment.html>