Wallace on different communication techniques to get at the root of things—to figure IT out. [pgs. 528 – 567, to include EN # 234 ( Don’t skip this one.)]
In the pages referenced above, there are four conversations happening between four sets of two people each, or dyads. They are listed below with a brief, very brief, synopsis, as the conversations themselves aren’t the point of this analysis – Wallace’s overarching inquiry is, along with his motivation, maybe. Simply, my thoughts for consideration w/r/t to the novel Infinite Jest.
1) Joelle van Dyne (aka madam Psychosis; PGOAT) double-talking Don Gately (Staff counselor) about hiding out of shame and side-ways talking to avoid self-analysis and discloser. (see also, ‘Second order vanity’ in The Broom of the System.)
2) Cocaine induced yammering. Randy Lenz (Anti-social personality) explaining to Bruce Green, the ways of the world, to include Rush Limbaugh & wacko right-wing conspiracy theories.
3) Dr. Dolores Rusk analyzing Ortho Stice (The Darkness) w/r/t “magical thinking” and possible sleep-walking, via Freudian theory & Inner Child theory concerning Mother/attachment issues.
4) Hugh Steeply (of U.S. Special Services undercover) using the lure of media/magazine exposure, a person’s own vanity, and the promise of sex; and Intelligence services’ interrogation techniques (silence) – to get a subject, professional footballer Orin Incandenza, to open up and talk about things OI doesn’t want (but really does) to talk about. (Mother/Attachment issues.)
And all things point to the Freudian precept that “Childhood Decides,” especially the relationship to the mother (Attachment.); and Wallace depicts all mothers, and but especially Avril Incandenza (OCD, and/or OCPD) unfavorably as she is caught acting out sexually w/ John Wayne (no relation to the movie star), the star tennis prospect of the Tennis academy.
This all comes after great action and violent scenes with a very humorous brief interlude. (pgs. 400+/- 500+/-). The humorous interlude is the huggy scene in NA (pgs. 503-507) btwn Roy Tony (a huge black man) and Ken Erdedy ( a white ‘“James-River-Traders-wearing-Calvin-Klein-aftershave-smelling-goofy-ass motherfucking ass.’” person.) Also a communication dyad that followed a triad communication scene, somewhat humorous, within a family in 1963: Father, mother, & son [James O. Incandenza Jr. as boy, (Orin’s father) and his father ( JOI Sr.) & mother] situation where it’s as dysfunctional as any of the dyads that follow in the year 2009. (pgs. 491-502)
So what Wallace does is demonstrate four types of interpersonal communication between two people – all of which are dysfunctional w/r/t forming honest, healthy, and loving relationship. I, myself have been engaged in all four in my life (many times) and have functioned in seven of the eight positions, the only position I haven’t been in is that of Don Gately, the extremely overmatched and dull and out-witted staff counselor, who has only the clichés of The Program (AA) to rely on. There are power differentials in each dyad with no real communication going on, but personal agendas and egos are being served, only. Manipulation is the agent to get agreement and affirmation rather than full-honest and truthful and heartfelt disclosure (aka, in other words, as vulnerability in relationship) – because there is no trust. Of course, Wallace wasn’t out to demonstrate health and wellness here, he was critiquing American society and culture w/humor and precision. And he did it brilliantly. (What else was going on w/r/t his personal relationships remains an unknown.) And also, I think, the four dyads he shows are far more common in everyday American Life than the one I proposed – of honest disclosure and then affirmation. (The distinction between the interpersonal dyad & the sharing/Iding in AA is just that with the tete-a-tete there is true vulnerability. There are no “rules.” It is an egalitarian relationship and the possibility of being hurt is always there. It resembles “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” in game theory, where at any point a Player can sell you out for personal gain.)
I think, at this point (a little over half way through my second reading); I think what Wallace was attempting was to figure out why—why do people treat each other and themselves so badly. Why are we (humans) so messed up. Why can’t we treat each other more kindly, with more compassion and respect? Why can’t we love better?
One more thing – there is one line (A habit of Wallace’s – he just drops these one-liners in): “Not and never love, which kills what needs it.” (m. p. 566) This idea, as I recall resurfaces a couple more times. Hard to determine if that is Orin’s thought, or the narrator’s, but it does come back through other characters also … as I recollect. This one line then discloses the inability to trust – that if one does trust (a belief that if one discloses, no harm to self will come of it) you are in essence, killing yourself. Trust just doesn’t exist. Love kills.
I reserve the right to change my mind, as more evidence presents. This is merely food for thought – brainfood.
PS
Please keep comments, and please do comment, within the context of pages 0 – 567. I’m sure we’ll revisit after we’ve finished.