But I think I another thing to note is that the closer one gets to the heart of the action, the central characters like Hal and Gately, the less cartoonishly they are portrayed. I think this ties in with Wallace’s perception that our experience of others is by nature cartoonish, that we can never identify with them and their history as strongly as we do our own. It reminds me of “lords of our little skull-sized kingdoms” line in the Kenyon College graduation address. Also of the old “tragedy is when I stub my little toe; comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die” line. I am also reminded of the figurants thing a little while on.

And I suspect this ties in with the endnotes. It is my impression that one of Wallace’s projects in the book was to “break down the fourth wall.” I see the endnotes as one tool towards that end; they mirror the digressiveness of thought. I think they make you aware of the author’s voice in your head, but in such a way that it sounds like your own thoughts.

Empathy is important.

Okay, on tone:

To me, Infinite Jest is a tragic story written in the form of a comic novel. That is to say that the language, even during the most tragic scenes, remains funky, jargonish, playful. And, since it’s a comic novel, there are going to be absurdities and cartoonishness riddling every chapter, no matter what else the chapters are about.

I’d compare this to the experience of your funniest friend telling you about her most miserable year. No matter how many times you say, “Oh no! Oh, that’s terrible!” while listening to her story, you’ll still find yourself laughing out loud just because of the way the story is told. And sometimes you’ll have to cover your mouth with your hand and say, “I don’t know why I’m laughing, it’s awful!”

This brings me to the footnotes. The entire novel seems almost like it’s told to you by someone, a real person who can’t help exaggerating and joking through the awfulness of it, just as your funniest friend does. But and so then the footnotes add a second authorial voice, presenting the tales told in the book as actual facts backed up by a wider world of facts and documents. Which one is DFW? Both, of course, but this gave him a chance to be both your goofy-ass friend and the scholarly documentarian who’s compiled this masterwork.

“Having no choice now not to fight and things simplify radically, divisions collapse. Gately’s just one part of something bigger he can’t control… He says he’s responsible for these people on these private grounds tonight and is part of this whether he wants to be or not, and can they talk this out because he doesn’t want to fight them.”

In my opinion, he smiled strangely and felt the warm surge of adrenaline because it was familiar behavior. Like he was relapsing and using drugs. But I think the reason he perpetrated this violence was changed – instead of for his own gain, as it always was in the past, this time, it was for someone else.

Then again, to play deil’s advocate, I’m not sure that those reasons justify his actions. But I think his intentions were different than in the past, and certainly different from Lenz’s motives.