Robert Durick: Okay, I've read it. So what?

I have some questions about Infinite Jest, but I don't know whether I will stay interested long enough to address them. If I do I will address them in this thread or in response to other opinions in the threads in this group.

How true are the depictions of depression? How true are the depictions of addiction or alcoholism? How true are the depictions of recovery? How true are they vis a vis one another?

Is the book a novel?

Does the narrative cohere?

Is the story complete?

Is there something, anything, to take away from the work?

I would like to be on record that I like the book enough to read it fairly attentively all the way through pretty much to the exclusion of every other book. I don't believe it is solid enough to have more sticking power than say Theodore Dreiser or John O'Hara; time of course will tell.

Robert

What is the legitamacy (or enter your own query word here, please) of a desire to relate physically to a fictional character? I really want to hurt Lenz.

What is the relation in this book between disfiguration and dysfunction? I think, maybe, this question belongs subsumed under the question of whether the book is a novel, but it also colors the way we may read it, the way we may take the characters.

Robert

1> How true are the depictions of depression? How true are the depictions of addiction or alcoholism? How true are the depictions of recovery? How true are they vis a vis one another?

Painfully, spot-on true. Especially now that we know Wallace was pulling this material from the excruciating pain of his own mental breakdowns and subsequent hospitalizations. He attended 12-step meetings religiously. I doubt he had to do much research to write the substance abusing and Ennet House recovery sections. Wallace lived for six months in a house much like Ennet.

I could make a case for Theodore Dreiser if I were inclined, big fan of An American Tragedy that I am here, regarding comparable terms of sticking power, though I'm struggling to remain polite and respectful as I loudly clear my throat here, when you wonder whether Wallace will have the sticking power of John O'Hara. And I like O'Hara too, just not as much as Dreiser, and yet I wasn't aware O'Hara had done such a swift job of sticking around. Has he? He's still read some, sure, but who working today would cite him as an impacting influence on their own writing craft? I'd argue that enough time has already told the story for Wallace, though it's just the iceberg's tip of the story, and that Wallace has already eclipsed the staying power or influence of John O'Hara.

I think more along the likes of a Dostoyevski or Melville whenever I project into the future the comparable possibilities of Wallace's long-lasting influence. Go ahead and laugh. Make my day!

Yeah, I wanted to hurt Lenz too!

I was sure when I read IJ, and that feeling was confirmed when I read Every love story is a ghost story, that the addiction/12step program/depression descriptions were not only accurate but autobiographical.

I picked the names of Dreiser and O'Hara out of a hat with slips of paper with once famous, now remembered, not likely to be remembered as great authors regardless of their merit names to express where I thought Wallace would end up (this sentence doesn't parse, but I think you can understand it). I mentioned to a few well read people this morning at church that I had recently finished Infinite Jest, and they all wondered what that was -- these are people who listen to the NPR talk programs for heaven's sake. John O'Hara was admired by the Algonquin Round Table era folks and certified by The New Yorker; yet yes, his influence nowadays seems faded. I wonder what influence Wallace has had and will have. I suspect what will be remembered if anything is more like the tenor of the work, as a cluster, of Vollman, Pynchon, and Wallace, among others I suppose, rather than the work of any one of them, although Gravity's Rainbow to my mystification is holding its ground so far. My interest in this subject is limited, and I'm more interested in my other questions.

It is now a given that Wallace was depressed and alcoholic or addicted. It is further given that he was studious, although not always entirely accurate, in his writing. And boy could he craft a sentence when he tried, and I mean by that that the sentence was expressive and good. So we have the argument from authority. But there are other writers with equal qualifications, except the sentence craft one perhaps. And I have some intimate knowledge of alcoholism and recovery and of depression. My knowledge of addiction is serious but limited to what I have been told, what I have read, my extensive experience with caffeine and nicotine, and my limited experience with speed, LSD, marijuana, and cocaine (maybe the last wasn't the real thing). I found his depictions of recovery remarkable even if it was the specialized circumstances of Boston AA, and the traps of substance dependence seemed real. On the other hand in one depiction, I can't remember what now, of the inner workings of a depressed mind I found it didn't match what I knew.

I was talking with Andrew Dunedin who can't seem quite to get started on the book or this group Saturday night and said that often the person who experienced these things becomes something of the best resource there is about them, and then we together said, "But not always." Wallace hid himself from his pathologies well enough that, as I remember from news reports, he was not medicated for depression at the time of his suicide. And the bald fact of his suicide seems to me to indicate that he had not come to terms with his depression -- it is true that perhaps he did, that he was accepting of it, that he took it to be congruent with truth, and that he decided that death was a true act.

People in recovery are constantly reinventing their recovery, so it may be asking a writer to nail Jello to a post to ask him to capture recovery, but the way that Gately found God strikes me as much like the way of approaching God that doesn't ask for a proof of God's existence I have once or twice tried to convey in the Pro and Con (Religious) group. I hope to get back to Gately's life including his recovery if I explore whether the book was a novel.

Robert

Beautiful post, Robert.

"reinventing their recovery" - yes, very much so, even exactly so, though, and I think Wallace would agree and this leads to some of the recursive nature of his depictions. I think the "reinventing recovery" comment is brilliant and perceptive and worth talking about alot.

Remembering and how writers are remembered changes over time, and I suspect there are ages and place that Wallace will not speak to; there are things about his work that I hope are narrowly culture bound and that we can get past. But to our age he speaks.(1)

(1) Though I am not sure it listens.

Also, I want to hurt more than just Lenz.

Was DFW a secret abuser of animals?

You guys, I have to confess a liking for Pemulis in spite of the fact he is a complete sociopath. But Lenz is way way beyond the pale. I also find Orin singularly unlikeable.

I don't feel, as others seem to, that Wallace captured depression well in Infinite Jest. I thought that the Oscar nominated short film Curfew was masterful at it.

Robert

I think those of us who have never actually been diagnosed with depression, like myself, would not know if it is a good description or bad. How would we know? But it was certainly thought provoking and striking, especially the character Kate Gompert.
*spoiler alert if anyone else has not finished*

I was happy for her when the Assassins got to her and gave her the "entertainment". She wanted to die, anyhow, and this was going to at least make sure she died while not depressed.

Did you find evidence that Kate actually watched the Entertainment? If so, what page was it on? I had the impression that she got po'd at Marathe and didn't go with him after the drinks.

BTW, how funny (sad?) that after all that Bob Hope withdrawal and serious depression, she perked right up after a few cocktails.

No it never said she watched it. I inferred that she would. I did read it two years ago, possible that this detail is wrong. I am rereading it now but less than a half of the way through.

The reason I asked is because Wallace creates so many moments in the book where readers invent and infer and guess about events based on where he leads our logic. It's a really amazing trick! I've discussed this book on a few different forums and this kind of thing comes up all the time. He was a crafty lad, that DFW...

Yes, that is true... One of the reasons for my reread. I have a thread on this group; I will try to remember to keep notes on that issue.

Almost missed it, but February 21 is David Foster Wallace's birthday. Thanks to Garrison Keillor for reminding me on The Writer's Almanac.

Robert

Thinking about your uncertainty over his depiction of depression it strikes me that depression is always unique and that that may be more so of severe depression, yes it has a whole heap of symptoms that may allow diagnosis but the feeling for it may be very different between two people even with very similar symptoms. The details, their social and cultural context may also be different and they may also differ as indviduals, as we are all alike and also different. So I think it is a bit unfair to talk of depiction of depression as though it is one thing, its tempting to speak like that though.

...the Common Cold of Mental Illness...

19> Well, I certainly can't speak for the inimitable Mr. Durick, but I did notice from his first post that he was asking about "how true are the depictions of depression" -- plural (emphasis mine) -- and I noticed, Tony, you're saying "depiction of depression".

Infinite Jest is replete with more than a dozen depressed characters who present with that "whole heap of symptoms" and come from dissimilar "social and cultural contexts," as you say rightly about the wide ranging symptomatology of depression that inflicts its suffering in people rich or poor, east or west. Wallace's ability to get in there inside the heads of such a diverse array of depressed people, none of whom, mind you, present the same type or intensity of symptoms, and each one coming from varied ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds, is an astonishing achievement in fiction. Pull out a DSM for kicks sometime, and diagnose Infinite Jest's characters criteria by criteria (and for differential diagnosis), and see just how authentic and multivaried a depressed populace Wallace crafted along its continuum of nuanced moods.

I only just now re-sped-read the thread, but I didn't hear anyone claiming that Wallace's depiction of depression was monolithic. If they did, then they haven't read the book. Hal presents differently from J.O.I. presents differently from Kate Gompert presents differently from Erdedy and on and on we go....

Point taken. I have read the dsm on depression many times. I definitely find it (infinite jest) authentic. What the dsm does not do, like Kate Gompert's doctor, is have any inkling of how it feels to feel like that, and DFW does. I have no interest in differentially diagnosing them. I prefer not being policed like I am at school.

And I didn't think my comment was a policing one. Plus I never suggested that DFW depicted depression monolithically (excuse me for commenting having only read a third) or that that was being suggested by others, it was a response to that language, how I read it.

he did not say depictions of depressions. But point taken.

I think I won't waste my time in this group further.

I thought the discussion was interesting, Tonyh. Are you still reading IJ? I do not think anyone wants you to go.

23> I was responding to your "unfair" assertion in post 19. No one in the first eighteen posts said anything that was unfair. No one was talking about depression as "though it is one thing" (i.e., "monolithic"). Why are you upset?

I saw the "unfair" comment as just general musing on how tempting it is for most of us to do that, not as a response or call out of the earlier comments.

I appreciate these discussions a lot and want to point out that we cannot hear tone on the Internet and ask everyone to give each other the benefit of the doubt so that we can minimize these misunderstandings? I hope we can all continue to have the conversation about both depression in general, and how it is explored as a theme in IJ?

Something went sour in a conversation starting about here.

Robert

I don't see the sourness that you suggest Robert, certainly no sourness was meant. I just responded to the points you made. Perhaps hurriedly. (I then followed your link and thought I was responding to one of your questions, just my opinion.)

I think anna has heard what I said here as it was meant. Maybe the word unfair sounds more loaded than it was meant - and no I had not read the whole of this thread, so if it seems to refer to anything else that was not intended, I have still not read this whole thread.

Usually I follow anna's wise advice about how tone and misunderstanding and I'd suggest the limitation of language can be misunderstood in this medium and act accordingly. I guess my lack of time at the moment caused me to react more quickly. I didn't think I had said anything that was having a go at anyone, but you live and learn, later I reacted to what felt like a school teacherly telling off and responded.

I overreacted. I'm sorry for being so condescending, Tony. I thought you were communicating something I see now you weren't. I'd of been a lot wiser to slow down and ask for clarity first.

EnriqueFreeque, thanks - and I think I reacted, which was not helpful. Something I learn and try to put into practice is the importance of showing love/care even under threat or at times when much is being juggled, it is hard (for me, anyway as usually its not an issue). I can understand how what I said seemed harder than it was I think.
Whilst I have enjoyed freewheelin' posts this year, this puts them in perspective. We all care very much for what we each have opinions of.

Dodey do-doh, here comes ol' Sandy dawg, finally.

I finally finished! Every Freeque-in word of it, as well as concurrently of course, Elegant Complexity.

Too tired to comment, though.

Congrats, Sandydawg! Was Elegant Complexity helpful for you?

Elegant Complexity was invaluable! Well at least 2 1/2 pages were. There is absolutely no way in Boston I could have read IJ in the format as written. I cheated, cheated, and cheated and read IJ chronologically.

This is not the kind of book that just falls in place for me. Now War and Peace, THAT fell into place for me. IJ is just a wee bit different.