[Insert New Post Subject Here]

Well, shoot.

Because I’ve read Infinite Jest (ahem) a couple of times before, I’ve been looking forward to writing about the whole Lyle and do-not-underestimate-objects scene for a few weeks.

Thanks Mark. I gotta say, you nailed it.

If you’ve read Mark’s post, it’s probably going to be pretty clear that I had to toss my original plans to talk about how I start my day with my physical, actually-bound copy or Infinite Jest out the window. Also, all the object-oriented ontology stuff that’s hashed out in the comments.

And in the spirit of total honesty, I don’t know what else to post about, now.

Here’s a couple other object-related things that’ve been kicking around my head this week:

  • Hal calling out Orin for actually meaning the obverse when he refers to his (Orin’s) seductions’ Subjects.
  • Ennet House’s neighbouring objay darts.
  • That Mario’s annually screened film’s subjects are, in fact, socks – surely something in the tip-toppest tier of domestic objects. (Oh: and hey, while we’re on it, notice the difference in the ways socks “signify” in Mario’s film and the game of Eschaton that precedes its screening by a few hours? I don’t know what it means, but – cool.)

The ways objects can denote/signify a subject (by which I really mean a person (or, really, a character): but I’m almost obliged to keep up the subject/object rhetoric here. It’s like mandatory) – or at least, a facet of one – is something I’ve become increasingly drawn to with my Drawing on the Infinite project. Here’s a few of my own favourites.

125/1079 "U.S.S.M.K.'s hairbow became detached and fluttered down through Mario's sightline like a giant crazed violet moth."
125/1079 “U.S.S.M.K.’s hairbow became detached and fluttered down through Mario’s sightline like a giant crazed violet moth.”

I wrote about this a few weeks ago, but I found, on my last read-though, a lot of tenderness and sweetness to the “romantic” scene between Mario and the USSMK, despite the grotesquerie of its humour. The image of Millicent’s bow fluttering captures this perfectly for me.

167/1079 "the way a slouching Brando would just rip a letter open with his teeth and let the envelope fall on the floor all wet and rent and torn?"
167/1079 “the way a slouching Brando would just rip a letter open with his teeth and let the envelope fall on the floor all wet and rent and torn?”

(Maybe I should have written about this during the week we covered Jim’s father’s lengthy monologue on objects and bodies and Brando etc etc)

182/1079 "and gets a Millennial Fizzy out of the vending machine in the sephenoid sinus"
182/1079 “and gets a Millennial Fizzy out of the vending machine in the sephenoid sinus”

I just like this one because I had so much fun coming up with a logo for the Millennial Fizzy (it’s a Narcissus flower).

Which brings me right to this week’s new pic: an object and a subject whose confluential consequences we now know all too well, and which needs basically no introduction at all:

IMG_3202

Till next week – keep coming back!

Share and enjoy!Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on Reddit

6 thoughts on “[Insert New Post Subject Here]”

  1. Sorry about all the comments! Re-reading them again just now, I’m a little embarrassed. That I should just keep quiet in about 99% of situations is a lesson I seem to have to keep learning over and over. Seriously: apologies.

    1. Hey Rob,
      Is the in response to moi? Or is it for Nathan?
      Regardless, I feel the same way, and am also embarrassed. Even though I am v. reserved irl, being online with IJ friends makes me feel similar to the six-coffees-in-two-hours feeling, and so lots of gushing forth!
      If that was not meant for me, argh, well, here’s to another embarrassment.
      Yrs truly,
      Rien de bonk!

      1. It’s to both of you, really. To Nathan re: unintentional thunder-stealing by way of “all the object-oriented ontology stuff that’s hashed out in the comments,” and to you: re: well… all the object-oriented ontology stuff that’s hashed out in the comments!

    2. Gee. I agree with all the comments on this page. Though probably won’t dial back on my own pontifications re IJ — they’ve been backing up for ten years since I’ve never had anyone to talk about it with.
      P.S. The Clipperton image was really powerful and disturbing…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *