| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Wednesday Poem | Main | split brain »

January 06, 2010

When Lit Blew Into Bits

Aughtsbooks091214_560
It seems significant, somehow, that Infinite Jest—the big buzzy signature meganovel of the nineties—was set at the end of the aughts. Most of the book’s action appears to take place in 2009, which means that we’ve all just survived the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment. It also means that David Foster Wallace’s prophetic window has now (at least in the most literal sense) closed forever, in the same way Orwell’s did when we reached the actual 1984. And in fact Infinite Jest’s vision of the future does, these days, look slightly dated. One of the book’s nightmare scenarios is the existence of an entertainment so addictive that people watch it until they die—a film they access via a machine Wallace calls a “teleputer,” which turns out to be some kind of ungodly hybrid of HDTV, computer, telephone, and VCR; it crunches data on “3.6-MB diskettes” and plays films off actual physical cartridges. All of which carbon-dates the novel’s creation precisely back to the early-to-mid-nineties (it was published in 1996)—before the rise of iPhones or even DVDs, when the Internet was just beginning to percolate on our dial-up modems. (In mid-1993, there were only 130 websites, and most people didn’t even have a browser to visit them.) The DFW generation’s primary technological bugaboo was TV, a rival narrative engine that both attracted and repelled. (See Wallace’s classic essay “E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction,” in which he calls TV “both medicine and poison.”) Novelists in the aughts, however, had to contend with a very different bugaboo. The technology that infinitely distracted us this decade, sometimes even to the point of death—the entertainment that tore us away from work and family and prevented us from immersing ourselves in complex meganovels from the noble old-timey decades of yore—was not a passive, cartridge-based viewing experience but largely a new form of reading: the massive archive of linked documents known as the World Wide Web. TV, in comparison, looks like a fairly simple adversary: Its flickering images lure readers away from books altogether. The Internet, on the other hand, invades literature on its home turf. It has created, in the last ten years, all kinds of new and potent rival genres of reading—the blog, the chat, the tweet, the comment thread—genres that seem not only to siphon our attention but to change the way our brains process text.
more from Sam Anderson at New York Magazine here.

Posted by Morgan Meis at 11:43 AM | Permalink

Comments

what's the old saying?
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY ALTER...or something.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 6, 2010 7:33:58 PM

The immersion experience of stories won't disappear, because it's based on satisfying human hunger. I look forward to seeing storytelling forms in all areas of new technology - and old.

Posted by: JMT | Jan 8, 2010 5:37:49 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Pierre on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

chris on Race Is Not Biology

Dave Ranning on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Sumiran on Friday Poem

prasad on Race Is Not Biology

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

G on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Erich on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on Race Is Not Biology

Raza Husain on Race Is Not Biology

Raza Husain on Race Is Not Biology

Josef Stern on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Colette on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Dana on A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Dredd on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on Race Is Not Biology

prasad on Race Is Not Biology

JF on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Sundar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

musafir on Loneliness, isolation and desperate yearning

carlos on The Gut-Wrenching Science Behind the World’s Hottest Peppers

Dredd on A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

Dredd on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed