Sign in or 
Share this
Dialogizing Postmodern Carnival: David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest
Summary
In this critical essay, Catherine Nichols examines the history of the carnival literary mode as conceptualized by Russian critic Mikhail Bakhtin and similar devices in the works of other literary theorists. Nichols establishes the parameters in which both Bakhtin and David Foster Wallace invoke carnival elements. Nichols demonstrates the apparent differences in their portrayals of the carnivalesque and also comments on truth, irony and escapism in Infinite Jest.
Analysis
Catherine Nichols’ critique is a comparative analysis of “carnival” elements within David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest, and Mikhail Bakhtin’s Rabelais and His World. Defined as “a literary mode that subverts and liberates the assumptions of the dominant style or atmosphere through humor and chaos” (Wikipedia), carnivalesque was first introduced by Bakhtin in the 1920s.
Nichols’ argument begins with an historical literary context. The form, she contends, began with Nietzsche’s post-structuralist precepts, but consistencies may also be found with Foucault (in the realms of identity, sexuality, science, madness and medicine) and Derrida’s “linguistic interrogations of stable meaning.” Nichols suggests carnivalism parallels feminist theory in that it “disrupts patriarchal symbolic order.”
For Bakhtin, Nichols maintains, carnivalism involved a suspension of order that allowed for a creative mixture of symbols within the context of culture. The postmodern form, however, subsumes the earlier one, and tests previously held notions of identity, language and truth. Infinite Jest embodies the post-modern form on many levels: its composition resists the idea of a single, non-partisan language; more than 300 footnotes “blur the distinction between…errata and material central to the story;” acronyms and jargon are prevalent.
According to Nichols, Bakhtin’s milieu is in sharp contrast with Wallace’s. While Bakhtin uses carnival to “negate unitary interpretations of reality,” Wallace’s characters are paralyzed by the prospect of “a wider scope of human vision.” Bakhtin’s grotesque bodies have “apertures that allow the human form to become an open conduit for change,” while Wallace’s characters are terrified with self honesty and seek only to numb themselves with drugs. Lastly, Bakhtis describes the usage of masks as “connected with the joy of change, transition and metamorphoses…” whereas Wallace’s characters conceal identities that are already grotesque (perhaps best illustrated when consumers wear masks while video telephone conferencing).
Nichols argues that truth, irony and escapism are all carnivalized in Infinite Jest. While Orin’s womanizing helps him to deny his emotional transparency, in actuality he hides openly to his “subjects” under the guise of being forthright and honest. Nichols states, “Physical and philosophical openness can also become a way of perpetuating emotional closedness.”
Nichols cites James Incandenza as a glaring embodiment of postmodern irony. Developer of the country’s annular fusion and founder of the Enfield Tennis Academy, “Himself” embarks upon an avant-garde film-making career. Although he is essentially a member of the popular media, Incandenza remains an “intensely sealed” character. He is also the creator of the eponymous “Infinite Jest” cartridge, a lethal form of popular entertainment.
Suppression is the modus operandi for virtually all of the characters in the novel, the only exceptions being Hal and Don Gately. Hal’s attempt at transformation fails when he tries to verbalize his emotional concerns at a college interview. Nichols states “the degree to which this transformation poses a threat to the values of Infinite Jest’s dominant culture is underscored by the terror his spoken sentiments incur.” Similarly, having struggled with his sobriety, Don Gately is shot attempting to save someone’s life and left in a virtually non-communicative state. Nichols observes, “Wallace associates a commitment to experiencing the world without the deliberate alterations of perceptions – drugs, veils, disguises, entertainments – as itself a subversive foray into the no man’s land of human experience.” Hal and Gately are not exactly rewarded for pursuing righteous paths.
Linking Nichols analysis back to the text, it might be useful for the reader going in to know that Wallace is all about challenging the veracity of accepted truths. Marijuana, though largely viewed as a "soft" drug in contemporary society, is portrayed as highly addictive in the novel. Cliches, viewed as fodder for the dull-witted in the academic world, are essential to the recovering addict in Alcoholics Anonymous. And entertainment, the opiate of the masses in America, has the potential to be lethal.
Works Cited:
Nichols, Catherine. “Dialogizing Postmodern Carnival: David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest.” Studies in Contemporary Fiction 43 (Fall 2001): 3-16.
In this critical essay, Catherine Nichols examines the history of the carnival literary mode as conceptualized by Russian critic Mikhail Bakhtin and similar devices in the works of other literary theorists. Nichols establishes the parameters in which both Bakhtin and David Foster Wallace invoke carnival elements. Nichols demonstrates the apparent differences in their portrayals of the carnivalesque and also comments on truth, irony and escapism in Infinite Jest.
Analysis
Catherine Nichols’ critique is a comparative analysis of “carnival” elements within David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest, and Mikhail Bakhtin’s Rabelais and His World. Defined as “a literary mode that subverts and liberates the assumptions of the dominant style or atmosphere through humor and chaos” (Wikipedia), carnivalesque was first introduced by Bakhtin in the 1920s.
Nichols’ argument begins with an historical literary context. The form, she contends, began with Nietzsche’s post-structuralist precepts, but consistencies may also be found with Foucault (in the realms of identity, sexuality, science, madness and medicine) and Derrida’s “linguistic interrogations of stable meaning.” Nichols suggests carnivalism parallels feminist theory in that it “disrupts patriarchal symbolic order.”
For Bakhtin, Nichols maintains, carnivalism involved a suspension of order that allowed for a creative mixture of symbols within the context of culture. The postmodern form, however, subsumes the earlier one, and tests previously held notions of identity, language and truth. Infinite Jest embodies the post-modern form on many levels: its composition resists the idea of a single, non-partisan language; more than 300 footnotes “blur the distinction between…errata and material central to the story;” acronyms and jargon are prevalent.
According to Nichols, Bakhtin’s milieu is in sharp contrast with Wallace’s. While Bakhtin uses carnival to “negate unitary interpretations of reality,” Wallace’s characters are paralyzed by the prospect of “a wider scope of human vision.” Bakhtin’s grotesque bodies have “apertures that allow the human form to become an open conduit for change,” while Wallace’s characters are terrified with self honesty and seek only to numb themselves with drugs. Lastly, Bakhtis describes the usage of masks as “connected with the joy of change, transition and metamorphoses…” whereas Wallace’s characters conceal identities that are already grotesque (perhaps best illustrated when consumers wear masks while video telephone conferencing).
Nichols argues that truth, irony and escapism are all carnivalized in Infinite Jest. While Orin’s womanizing helps him to deny his emotional transparency, in actuality he hides openly to his “subjects” under the guise of being forthright and honest. Nichols states, “Physical and philosophical openness can also become a way of perpetuating emotional closedness.”
Nichols cites James Incandenza as a glaring embodiment of postmodern irony. Developer of the country’s annular fusion and founder of the Enfield Tennis Academy, “Himself” embarks upon an avant-garde film-making career. Although he is essentially a member of the popular media, Incandenza remains an “intensely sealed” character. He is also the creator of the eponymous “Infinite Jest” cartridge, a lethal form of popular entertainment.
Suppression is the modus operandi for virtually all of the characters in the novel, the only exceptions being Hal and Don Gately. Hal’s attempt at transformation fails when he tries to verbalize his emotional concerns at a college interview. Nichols states “the degree to which this transformation poses a threat to the values of Infinite Jest’s dominant culture is underscored by the terror his spoken sentiments incur.” Similarly, having struggled with his sobriety, Don Gately is shot attempting to save someone’s life and left in a virtually non-communicative state. Nichols observes, “Wallace associates a commitment to experiencing the world without the deliberate alterations of perceptions – drugs, veils, disguises, entertainments – as itself a subversive foray into the no man’s land of human experience.” Hal and Gately are not exactly rewarded for pursuing righteous paths.
Linking Nichols analysis back to the text, it might be useful for the reader going in to know that Wallace is all about challenging the veracity of accepted truths. Marijuana, though largely viewed as a "soft" drug in contemporary society, is portrayed as highly addictive in the novel. Cliches, viewed as fodder for the dull-witted in the academic world, are essential to the recovering addict in Alcoholics Anonymous. And entertainment, the opiate of the masses in America, has the potential to be lethal.
Works Cited:
Nichols, Catherine. “Dialogizing Postmodern Carnival: David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest.” Studies in Contemporary Fiction 43 (Fall 2001): 3-16.
|
randoni |
Latest page update: made by randoni
, Aug 23 2009, 10:55 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by randoni
12 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
carnival
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
