Response Paper 10

In Preparation of Session 11
Denis Telofy Drescher
June 22, 2014
Summarize and assess either Giless or Hayless argument. Did it enhance your
understanding of the book? Did you nd it convincing?
Giless argument eludes me to a degree. I recognize the trope of introducing a topic, giving
a pertinent albeit terse or cryptic quotation, and then explaining it and its pertinence. In his
case, however, the quotations are usually clear enough with the explanations being opaque
to me. Hence Ill rather stick with Hayles.
Her argument is that Wallace rightly critiques exaggerated perceptions of autonomy and
disregard for interconnectivity. e laer term is mine, mostly, because my understanding
of recursion seems to be narrower than hers.
To me, recursion describes a self-similar repetition usually caused by repeatedly nested
self-reference. e special case of mutual recursion, which comes closest to how she uses
the term, widens this loop. Here, two (or more) entities reference each other in a repeatedly
nested fashion. Hayles, however, seems to also apply the term to situations that I would
describe merely as reciprocation or reaction, maybe mirroring. She also oen applies it in
situations that seem clearly recursive to me.
Similarly, her use of paradox is more encompassing than mine. To me, a paradox has to ac-
tually contradict itself, like is sentence is false. Her rst example, Macphersons critique
of Hobbes and Locke, doesnt seem paradoxical to me at all but rather an example of circular
reasoning. Cronons example seems like it could be converted into a paradox (though I dont
have a specic idea how), but as it is, I would rather describe it as catch-22.
It is likely that these terms are used dierently in dierent disciplines, so I tried to read
the text with her more encompassing understandings in mind.
Nomenclature aside, she tackles an issue that I have long found to be maddeningly con-
fused in our culture. At some point in my life I noticed that many peopleme included on
some levelunderstand natural and articial as opposites rather than the rst as hypernym
of the second. I could never make sense of the distinction, could never draw the line be-
tween the categories. Was a computer natural? A book? A piece of industrial soap? A piece
of homemade soap? A sharpened int? Only many years later did I realize that this was but
one symptom of a fundamental, millennia-old aiction of our self-perception.
1
Hayles couldve helped me speed that up a lile. She nds numerous examples of the theme
in Innite Jest, some tenuous, most substantial, and many eye-opening even, not merely be-
cause I havent reached the respective pages yet. Finally, she concludes with the important
insight that We escape from Entertainment not by going to the woods but by recognizing
our responsibilities to one another. (Hayles 696) Wallace wouldve been proud of her for
speaking an urgently important truth even if it might sound trite.
What were your problems with the text(s)? What passages, ideas or concepts did
you nd unclear, unconvincing or otherwise problematic?
For the two secondary texts, see above. What I nd confusing about Innite Jestapart
from all the things that are clearly meant to confuseis that I would aver that it is impossible
to have a storage device that can be read (or viewed) but not copied. Even if all viewing
devices are programmed to refuse to record anything agged read-only, and the police is
strangely ecient at breaking up any black-market producers and modders, one could still
just point a camera at the screen. Maybe the A.F.R. nds that to be an unconscionable crime
against HD.
Ive only read a lile more than half of the book so far, so Id prefer to refrain from further
comments, wait, and see how it all turns out. e book has a climax, Ive heard, its just
outside the text. Ill feel more comfortable commenting when Ive found it.
What did you nd interesting about the text(s)? What aspects of the text(s) would
you like to know more about?
Giless quotes fromConsider the Lobster promise a great read. Especially the comparison
Is it not possible that future generations will regard our own present agribusiness and eating
practices in much the same way we now view Neros entertainments or Aztec sacrices?
is much more strategically viable (though more specic) than many other illustrations of
speciesism that I have heard.
I also wonder whether Wallace was suering from unipolar depression or from manic
depression. e laer would help explain the existence of such a book as Innite Jest. My
online search produced rather contradictory results.
Works Cited
Giles, Paul. Sentimental Posthumanism: David Foster Wallace. Twentieth Century Literature
(2007): 327344. Print.
Hayles, N. Katherine. e Illusion of Autonomy and the Fact of Recursivity: Virtual Ecolo-
gies, Entertainment, and Innite Jest. New Literary History 30.3 (1999): 675697. Print.
Wallace, David Foster. Innite Jest. Lile, Brown Book Group, 2011. Print.
And then living up to these responsibilities with maximal eectiveness.
2