Infinite Summer

[edit: didn't realize links wouldn't work, replaced with url]

Infinite Jest's wikipedia page:



describes Michael Pemulis as "very proficient in mathematics." No one in the book seems to question this, and certainly his enthusiasm for math is evident, as when he tries to convince Possalthwaite that math constitutes truth in endnote 324. However, the two times (if I remember correctly) that we observe Pemulis doing math, he gets it wrong.

In endnote 123, Pemulis incorrectly applies the Mean Value Theorem. I don't want to get too far into the math, but it does not follow from the Mean Value Theorem that "You just skim the highest and lowest ratios off the Eschaton records the Beanie-man keeps on each time." This would imply that only the highest and lowest values affect the average, which is obviously not the case.

In endnote 321, Pemulis incorrectly explains how to take the derivative of a function.

(and no, now that I think about it, I don't think those endnote numbers are a coincidence)

Ominously, on p. 852 (of my version), Hal states, "Pemulis had poured a terrific volume of practical pre-Boards math into my head for two weeks, taking his own time and not asking for anything in return, being almost suspiciously generous about it."

And of course we learn in the first few pages that Hal did poorly on the SATs, though it is his verbal score that we learn is "just quite a bit closer to zero than we're comfortable with." (p. 6)

So this raises the question - is Pemulis intentionally sabotaging Hal's SAT score (and not just by giving him DMZ)? Or is Pemulis actually not as good at math as everyone assumes? Do his enthusiasm and charisma blind everyone to his deficient math skills?

And if Pemulis is trying to sabotage Hal, why?

For 1063 ("Just write this on your wrist or something"), although I respect both the "undermining Hal" theory and the "DFW fucked up" theory, I like this idea much better: we constantly see narrators screwing up, not understanding grammar and words or completely misunderstanding what they're seeing, because of their own imperfections. When Hal is narrating, though, we never see screw-ups in grammar and spelling, because he's a sort of vocab savant. But Hal's weakness is math, which is why Pemulis is tutoring him (and even encourages him to cheat). So Hal hears Pemulis say something like:

"Function x, exponent n, the derivative's going to be n multiplied by x and x raised to the n minus one power."

And then Hal writes down, from memory:

"Function x, exponent n, the derivative's going to be nx + x^(n-1)",

which slightly screws up whatever it was that Pemulis said, because Hal just doesn't know basic calculus and even though he has near-perfect recall (p. 1023: "dictating to Inc, who can just sit there making a steeple out of his fingers and pressing it to his lip and and not take notes and wait and like inscribe [sic] it anytime in the next week and get it verbatim, the smug turd.") Pemulis cannot speak the formula {nx^(n-1)}.

Oh, and I just reread the penultimate sentence of n. 123 on 1025: "It's going to be interesting to see if [sic] Hal... if Inc can transpose [sic?] the math here without help from his Mumster."

That, I think, clinches it for me. Pemulis is guessing Hal won't be able to coherently transpose the math he's heard, even though Hal'll remember the words he heard, without help from someone who understands math much better. And presumably Hal doesn't try to get help, since he isn't sure whether transpose is an appropriate word in this context (it is). (He certainly doesn't get help from Avril, because Avril would realize that "[sic?]" implies uncertainty about whether the original word really was thus, not uncertainty about whether the original word was a mistake.)

Wow. I think you just grounded that theory so well in the text as to pretty much close the issue on at least that math error. Leave to to DFW to embed a bad math joke inside a syntax joke.

eta: and the "Pemulis sabotaging Hal" theory just doesn't work for me at all, especially as the description of Hal's score points to his verbal score being low, and I don't think Pemulis could mess with Hal's verbal abilities in any organized fashion (inadvertant sabotage by DMZ is, of course, a whole different thingummy).

The main thing that I think argues for Pemulis not being as smart as he thinks he is, is that he is the analogue of Polonious from Hamlet. In Hamlet, the court jester (the "fool") is actually really wise and always speaks the truth (=Mario), while the King's supposedly "wise" counselor, Polonious, actually gets everything wrong. Almost everything he thinks and does leads to bad outcomes - he is seductively fun, ironic, clever, and likable. But he tries to electrocute someone, spikes his opponents water with drugs, can never actually play tennis up to his potential, and tries to talk Hal out of quitting drugs. I think his counsel to Postal-Weight ("you can always trust math"), is like, exactly the wrong thing to tell someone who is having an existential crisis ("Nothing is true.") Meaning, it's technically correct but totally unhelpful.

So, I think the Pemulis math errors are there for a reason - you can't trust Pemulis even though you like him.

One of the real letdowns of the end of the book for me was never finding out what Pemulis wanted to speak with Hal about. One of the topics, I assume, was Pemulis' getting kicked out of ETA, and possibly Avril's relationship with John Wayne, which I don't think Pemulis is aware that Hal is aware of. But maybe he wants to talk to Hal about the missing DMZ? Maybe he suspects something? And I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't the narrator of the last tennis scene mention that someone had seen Pemulis lurking around looking worried? Pemulis' manner in the last hundred pages feels like he has a premonition of doom.

You can't trust that fool much either! Damn lazy bastard refuses to show up for all five acts of Hamlet (save as a skull!), probably because he's too damn busy slumming off with that crazy Lear fellow! Who does he think he is fucking up a reductive one to one correspondence of characters like that?