Could it be that one of the issues 'Infinite Jest' is freedom of choice, which in reality is so limited that practically is just an illusion? Maybe. Do not think it's just that I have read too much theater of the absurd lately and I see what I see. Children Enfield Academy faces two possibilities when you finish your stay: 1) Try to enter the professional circuit, vaccinated and touring side tournament for third world countries hoping to climb in the rankings, or 2) Leave the tennis as a career and confined to college tennis. Both are equally harmful to the pride and does not depend on themselves to choose. Similarly, all the routines and schedules squared Academy will leave little room for freedom of choice. Even so it is a rebellion, drugs, nor choose: it is the only outlet they have.
addicts Ennet The House of course are not free: the first being enslaved by the material and if they can overcome their addiction will be slaves of philosophy full of platitudes of Alcoholics Anonymous. And the routines and schedules Ennet House are as stringent as the Enfield Academy. Not really choose anything. As much choose the substance you are addicted. And none of us choose the entertainment that we do. We
passive beings who accept what they kick us out. So when a character is the samizdat, the famous film shot James Incandenza and supposedly provides such a pleasure ecstatic one dies, no one can resist it, come and see her again, and die happy anesthetized, misled to believe that they have used their freedom of choice. That is why the radical Quebec wheelchair urges us to step out of line and we really choose something, not the person we fall in love, or entertainment that hooked us, nor the substance to we get addicted, because this is not really a choice: the choices are too limited to be considered a real choice. But I doubt that any character in this novel can really get to choose something. All they can do nothing more than letting go.
And look like I have subtly related drug addiction and entertainment. Could this be like another key theme of the book? Maybe.
addicts Ennet The House of course are not free: the first being enslaved by the material and if they can overcome their addiction will be slaves of philosophy full of platitudes of Alcoholics Anonymous. And the routines and schedules Ennet House are as stringent as the Enfield Academy. Not really choose anything. As much choose the substance you are addicted. And none of us choose the entertainment that we do. We
passive beings who accept what they kick us out. So when a character is the samizdat, the famous film shot James Incandenza and supposedly provides such a pleasure ecstatic one dies, no one can resist it, come and see her again, and die happy anesthetized, misled to believe that they have used their freedom of choice. That is why the radical Quebec wheelchair urges us to step out of line and we really choose something, not the person we fall in love, or entertainment that hooked us, nor the substance to we get addicted, because this is not really a choice: the choices are too limited to be considered a real choice. But I doubt that any character in this novel can really get to choose something. All they can do nothing more than letting go.
And look like I have subtly related drug addiction and entertainment. Could this be like another key theme of the book? Maybe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment