Writing Machines is the course website for English 170L at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
More thoughts on Infinite Jest and the like--
Submitted by Frabby on 25 September 2006 - 3:06pm.
I have read both Infinite Jest and Gravity's Rainbow (though "read" is a bit of a stretch for what happened with Gravity's Rainbow, I'd say it was more like a desperate run to the finish). And I'm definitely not arguing that these books have some neat conclusions. However, when I read Infinite Jest, I feel like I'm not getting something due to my own idiocy. I feel like all the clues are there, and I just can't figure it out because I'm not well-versed enough in philosophy, literature, and history. BUT if I try hard enough, and keep on reading it, I'll figure it out. Now, I guess this isn't true, Infinite Jest won't ever resolve itself, no matter how smart you are. But that was still the emotional reaction I had reading it.
I had a really different experience reading Afternoon. In that story, I felt like something was being deliberately held from me, and that Joyce was trying to provoke frustration and anger from me. I was being manipulated. Basically, I blamed Joyce for my problems, while Infinite Jest made me blame only myself. Of course, I love Infinite Jest, which also explains why I am willing to cut it more slack for being elusive…
I guess this has more to do with the gift of the writer (or your preference for a style of writing), rather then the medium. Perhaps DFW could pull off the same confusion, paranoia, and re-reading on hypertext, but I'm not so sure that Joyce could do the same in print.
rats. mazes. buffets.
I agree with you, Frabby. There is something very different between Joyce and the other two. Joyce was doing more than showing off--I felt like he was condescending. I was a rat running through his maze. I felt a direct and personal (and antagonistic) relationship with him. Maybe that's a sign that he's awesome at instilling paranoia. But I felt that it had to do with where the power lies in the reader/author relationship. We, as readers, were being offered this seeming control (i.e. yes or no buttons), but it was really just Joyce's piece of bait. It was his way of getting us to play in his maze--he just let us think we were in control while he was busy opening and shutting doors, directing us from point A to point B from above. Like you said: manipulation. It's also like going to a buffet--yes you have lots of options, but you also can't just order a la carte.
hypertext fiction, Michael Joyce, Wallace
There aren't enough literary hypertexts to feel we have a level comparison with books, but in my experience, the pattern overwhelmingly matches that of the class. But I suspect your love of Infinite Jest is not because Wallace made things obvious, right? One writing a novel does withold some information from readers, no?
Whatever Joyce's intentions, frustration and anger seems to be frighteningly easy to provoke in this medium. Any single lexia of Joyce's, it looks pretty simple, doesn't it? Do you not believe your frustration has something to do with the links and how they're used?
If so, what do do with the links causes that? Does it seem disconnected? And if so, how and why?
hypertext fiction, Afternoon, Joyce, books
Could hypertext indefiniteness be different?
Wallace witholds information in Jest. Would we want differently? Whatever Joyce's motives, it's easy to confuse everyone in hypertext while trying to be perfectly simple. Look how simple the language is in each separate lexia of Joyce's -- far simpler than Wallace's, BTW.
There seems to be some difference is in the indeterminacies, but I wonder what it is.