# What is the point of "distancing effect" in literature?



## cinderblock (Apr 15, 2016)

The footnotes in Infinite Jest is said to be there to create a "distancing effect," to remind the reader that they're reading a book. Why would a writer aim to achieve this with a reader, when it's rare enough for a reader to come across a great book that makes them forget they're reading a book and immerse themselves into the experience?

Here's the Wikipedia summary of it:



> The *distancing effect, more commonly known (earlier) by John Willett's 1964 translation the alienation effect or (more recently) as the estrangement effect (German: Verfremdungseffekt), is a performing artsconcept coined by playwright Bertolt Brecht. Brecht first used the term in an essay on "Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting" published in 1936, in which he described it as "playing in such a way that the audience was hindered from simply identifying itself with the characters in the play. Acceptance or rejection of their actions and utterances was meant to take place on a conscious plane, instead of, as hitherto, in the audience's subconscious".[SUP][1][/SUP]*



I understand the techniques employed by theater. It refers to the breaking down of the fourth wall, which I have no problem with. But I disagree that breaking down the fourth wall necessarily reminds the audience it's a play. In fact in a lot of cases, it does the complete opposite. Take a Michael Moore screenplay he wrote in college for instance, which garnered him an award. I heard him describe on the WTF podcast that it's about the crucifixion of Jesus, where the character Jesus "stops acting" and starts lashing out at the audience for playing along with it, whereby other "audience members" start getting involved, until one "audience member" gets up on stage and fires a gun at Jesus and drags him to the cross. If anything, I would think an event like this makes you forget you're watching the standard play and applaud it for its innovation.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 16, 2016)

They're not footnotes. The publisher asked him to change them to endnotes. Ruint it, in my opinion.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 18, 2016)

Ah, see the initial confusion began when you opened up a copy of Infinite Jest.


----------



## Patrick (Apr 18, 2016)

I've not read anything by Wallace, but I suspect he's a very good writer judging by his interviews. He's artistically minded, as all the greats are, so I would suggest searching for his own comments on the intention of his footnotes/endnotes. They won't be there by accident. I think it's good that you're asking the question and doing some research.

People who don't invest the mental energy (which no author can demand of his reader, only entice them into spending) in difficult literature come way with the impression something has been done purely for its own sake and at random; that is often not the case, and I wince when I hear people dismiss Ulysses, for example, as a chaotic book. They simply don't know better.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 18, 2016)

DFW talks about the footnotes a bit on Charlie Rose.


----------



## cinderblock (Apr 19, 2016)

ppsage said:


> DFW talks about the footnotes a bit on Charlie Rose.



Will do. Thanks.



Patrick said:


> I've not read anything by Wallace, but I suspect he's a very good writer judging by his interviews. He's artistically minded, as all the greats are, so I would suggest searching for his own comments on the intention of his footnotes/endnotes. They won't be there by accident. I think it's good that you're asking the question and doing some research.
> 
> People who don't invest the mental energy (which no author can demand of his reader, only entice them into spending) in difficult literature come way with the impression something has been done purely for its own sake and at random; that is often not the case, and I wince when I hear people dismiss Ulysses, for example, as a chaotic book. They simply don't know better.



Haha, thanks, but I too, have not begun to read Infinite Jest yet. I actually found out about the "distancing effect" bit by reading about Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow. I don't think I'll crack open Infinite Jest until I first read those two. I know that I'd need the history of reading the aforementioned books to give myself a frame of reference by which to analyze Infinite Jest. I'd be very surprised if Wallace wasn't influenced by Ulysses and other light-on-plot/meandering/postmodern/intellectualist-exercise-type classics. 

I try my best to deconstruct what an author is shooting for and why. I think I'm pretty jaded with conventional/commercial storytelling, both from the perspective of reading it and writing it. 

As for Wallace, I have heard some of his interviews, and he's certainly a blast to listen to talk. It's probably why I enjoyed End of the Tour. I would've bought that script even if it wasn't true. That said, there are a lot of times a writer is a far better interview, so I'm also weary of that disconnect. Wallace claims he hates doing interviews and all the public stuff, posing as this anti-social introvert, but he's too good when you stick a mic in his face. I don't buy that you can hate doing that stuff when you're so gifted at it, to the point I find it hard to believe he's not indulging in it. Now I myself truly hate doing PR stuff, and if one were to come and shove a microphone in my face, I would freeze up and it would be very obvious I'm terrible at public speaking, and I fear people will get the impression my writings are just as bad. I have a recurring fantasy that I'll be in front of a live audience one day, taking questions from the audience, and they'll be throwing all these questions, and I won't have these naturally mesmerizing answers for them a la David Foster Wallace, Richard Brautigan, Philip K Dick, etc. If you hear those guys speak in public, they crush interviews. There's no tripping them up. The stuff I tend to write is pretty abstract and esoteric. It's hard enough to formulate a coherent permutation of my thoughts on paper. I can't help but feel some sense of manufactured fraudulence in not being equipped to elaborate on it if I was ambushed with questions about my writing.


----------



## Patrick (Apr 21, 2016)

Here are some of his comments on his footnotes, starting at 7.00.

[video=youtube;wDIVX7pNwGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDIVX7pNwGE[/video]


----------



## ppsage (Apr 21, 2016)

The stuff Wallace mostly talks about in this interview is what I remember him mostly writing about in _IJ_. A sort of fictional _Gutenberg's Galaxy_ approach to contemporary societal psychology. The media is us. ----------- I sort of think the contemporaneity of Wallace's allusion in _IJ_ argues for the reading of it as prefatory to the reading of _Ulysses_ where the allusion is so much less familiar, particularly when it's a matter of recognizing form.


----------



## cinderblock (Apr 21, 2016)

ppsage said:


> The stuff Wallace mostly talks about in this interview is what I remember him mostly writing about in _IJ_. A sort of fictional _Gutenberg's Galaxy_ approach to contemporary societal psychology. The media is us. ----------- I sort of think the contemporaneity of Wallace's allusion in _IJ_ argues for the reading of it as prefatory to the reading of _Ulysses_ where the allusion is so much less familiar, particularly when it's a matter of recognizing form.



I'm sorry, I didn't understand the last part of your post. Are you saying IJ is prefatory to the more dated Ulysses? Also, I don't know what you mean when you talk about "recognizing form." Form in what? Are you saying the allusions in Ulysses is less familiar to our contemporary world views? I would assume so, as it's far more dated than IJ.


----------



## Patrick (Apr 21, 2016)

You need to be familiar with a fair amount of literature to appreciate Ulysses, and you must also understand aspects of Joyce's life, because his work is very autobiographical. The key things to have read are: The Odyssey, The Bible, and Shakespeare (particularly Hamlet). Infinite Jest has a lower entry level because one only needs to understand something of contemporary culture. I think that's the point.

Joyce is the artist who has had the biggest influence on my own writing, so I will recommend you read both. I haven't read Infinite Jest, but Ulysses will, if you're lucky, change the way you think about the novel.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 21, 2016)

The contemporary reader is more likely to recognize the form of a character's comment if it mimics a TV advert for hamburgers than if it mimics the temperance slogan of a late nineteenth century prohibitionist.


----------



## cinderblock (Apr 21, 2016)

Patrick said:


> You need to be familiar with a fair amount of literature to appreciate Ulysses, and you must also understand aspects of Joyce's life, because his work is very autobiographical. The key things to have read are: The Odyssey, The Bible, and Shakespeare (particularly Hamlet). Infinite Jest has a lower entry level because one only needs to understand something of contemporary culture. I think that's the point.
> 
> Joyce is the artist who has had the biggest influence on my own writing, so I will recommend you read both. I haven't read Infinite Jest, but Ulysses will, if you're lucky, change the way you think about the novel.



Geez, that sounds daunting. I have read the Bible, so fortunately, I have that area covered, although somehow, I get the feeling his bible and mine are different. He'll probably be making references to "Lucifer" and "Beelzebub," right? Paradise Lost type stuff, in which case, I'm pretty oblivious to those mythological stories. 

I have read Hamlet, but it was so long ago, I wouldn't pick up any specific references or quotes. I'm thinking of picking up the Ulysses annotations. 

Odyssey was assigned to us in the 9th grade, but I didn't read it. I was pretty rebellious with school books. Really regretting that now, but then again, something tells me I wouldn't've understood it even if I read it then. 

Thanks for the breakdown. I have much to consider. 



ppsage said:


> The contemporary reader is more likely to recognize the form of a character's comment if it mimics a TV advert for hamburgers than if it mimics the temperance slogan of a late nineteenth century prohibitionist.



Gotcha, thanks!


----------

