Class: Brief Interviews with Hideous Men
Everybody posts three questions. Pack supporters will use these questions among others for discussion.
posted by Michael | 2/01/2007 06:48:00 PM
Contributors
- Paper Proposal 3 (of Possible 3)
- Paper Proposal 2 (of Possible 3)
- Paper Proposal 1 (of Possible 3)
- Welcome
12 Comments:
Brief Interviews With Hideous Men
1. What function does the Q serve in the interviews, specifically accompanying those interviews which have the longer responses? Although the responses seem to contain the question, what does keeping the actual wording of the question obscured serve to do on the anecdotal, structural and analytical levels?
2. Analysis of the sexual relationship is a theme that is present in the interviews of the ‘hideous men.’ It is commonly concerned with criticism of the self or of others, specifically the “Great Lover” in B.I. #31; and (self) B.I. #30, pg. 27. On the analytical level, what does doubling back in #30, or the long analysis in #31 accomplish?
3. The excerpt on page 36 is not an interview, and is not labeled as such. What does the contrast of this man’s humanity to the hideous men who surround him in the text? The relationships between the sections called “Yet Another Example of the Porousness of Certain Borders” all reflect an element of humanity, what does this imply about the meaning of the title? (Is this implication really what the title means anyways?)
Brief Interviews Questions
1. What is the deeper purpose of the “Q” throughout our readings? While on the surface level, one might assume the Q represents the author’s interruption in a monologue via questions, I am interesting in knowing what type of interview questions were being asked, or what type of discussion was occurring. For example, interviewers are supposed to be objective, in essence, distancing themselves from the items being discussed so as not to lead on or influence the answers. Is this the case in B.I. #14 08-96 St. Davids PA? On page 18 the subject never mentions the term “embarrassing” until he first posed the following question at the interviewer: “What do you say if you just shouted ‘Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom!’ right when you came?” It is then that the “Q” is written and the interviewed man responds, “It wouldn’t be so embarrassing . . .”
2. In B.I. #31 03-97 Roswell GA the interviewed person is breaking up his thoughts with tangents about Evian bottled water. What is the significance of this being inserted into the interview? How can we apply this inclusion of bottled water that is aimed at upper class society into a discussion about so-called “Great Lovers” and “on-and-off pigs?”
3. On pages 211 and 212, there is a reconstructed transcript of an end of marriage. The dialogue occurs in fragmented sentences that cover the beginning of a divorce. We read that one partner initiates the conversation by stating a lack of love, which is reciprocated by the partner. The writing rambles through the dividing of ownership, including disputes over the rights to the double-wide trailer, the truck and a child. While the adults were able to decide quickly who would get to have the trailer and the truck, they seem to be pawning off the child on one another. Their dispute is ended with a coin flip, which is disputed by who gets to make the call. It is obvious that the child is extra baggage that neither parent wants to deal with, both preferring material ownership of the trailer or truck over being a parent. What can we assume after reading this? Specifically, we could talk about materialism and it’s affect on the nuclear family.
1. In B.I. #31 03-97, what is the significance of the continuous comparison of the woman to an automobile, particularly a Porsche? Does this work as criticism of the materialization of relationships or not?
2. On page 29, how does the author's message of not taking things for granted relate to American society and capitalism in general?
3. On pages 200-217, what, if any, is the significance of the placement of brand names and their offshoots with the random stream of consciousness style of the narrative? How can we transpose this coupling to materialism?
1.In B.I. #31, what comparison is being made to a “fag”?
2.In B.I. #72, was the speaker a male or female? If male, could it be assumed that he had female qualities?
3.In Suicide as a Sort of Present, would it be correct to believe that the life of the unborn child by the mother will be significantly dramatic once the child is born?
1 - What exactly makes these men hideous? Some of the views that
they seem to hold are pretty common among American males (going on
the hunt for hippie chicks, telling what they want to hear, women
not knowing what they want "so many of them are nuts" etc). Are
most men, in fact, hideous?
2 - The interviewer is not David Foster Wallace, as we can see she
is a woman from the Men's responses. Why are we left to
interpolate the questions of the interviewer? Is the interviewer
the same in each piece?
3 - I don't understand the "Porousness of Certain Borders" pieces.
How is the dream about being blind related to the twins and the
divorce argument?
on behalf of nina:
1. On pg. 17 the interviewee explains that every time he is about to come with a woman, he involuntarily yells “Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom!” He then explains on pg. 18 how the women are not surprisingly freaked out but ultimately say to him “I think I could love you anyway.” Is this remark truly uncontrollable? Why does he specifically say this phrase? Does the association with political ideas take away from the physical and emotional connections of sex? Could it be an intentional test to make conclusions about his lover?
2. On the interview between E and K (pg. 225-234) and what women want from men, the two discuss what they believe women want in terms of their social roles in history and modernity. How would feminists react to their assertion that the modern women really want is to unconsciously let down their guard of the modern alpha-female notion in exchange for the responsibility and passion? Do the interviewers believe feminism is a façade for modern constructs of what is “right”?
3. Why does the interviewee (beginning pg. 2287) feel differently towards her after his “pick up” explains the horrific rape that happened to her? Does pity spark the feelings of love? Is it love?
on behalf of maria:
1) What is the point of capitalizing in Brief Interviews #40 as the man with the 'asset'is consoling the ladies discusted by the arm? (p82-86)
2) Is the definition of history in B.I #72 and p230 the most useful for the purpose of the interview? Is it right to link it with biology?
3) In B.I. #20, is the man somehow jealous of the interaction between the 'granola cruncher' and the psychotic killer? Is he jealous of their connection being somehow deeper than his with the 'cruncher'? is he really 'in love'?
What point is Wallace trying to make in his shortest piece about postindustrial life? Does he believe this “courting” is all that is left?
In B.I. #14 is he more embarrassed that he is yelling something at the moment he is coming or embarrassed at what he is yelling. What is the significance of what he is yelling at the time?
Why in “Yet Another Example of the Porousness of Certain Borders” does Wallace not use the story to give a lesson on being thankful for what you have been blessed with. He cries and cries after dreaming about being blind but never mentions being thankful for his sight. I story ends in him going to bed because he is so tired from crying about his dream.
1. I also want to know what is the purpose of keeping the question hidden? It makes it difficult for me to understand many of the interviews because I don't know what questions they are addressing. It seems as if each person is just ranting on whatever they think is important.
2. What is the purpose of putting an interview of a woman in these interviews (B.I. #72 08-98)? Is this a real woman? Is she a lesbian? I just want to know how she fits in with the rest of these men.
3.Is there some sort of hidden meaning behind the fact that the woman being discussed in the last interview (#20 12-96)is a rape victim? Does this man's love for her somehow thrive off the fact that she was a "helpless victim"? Does he feel he can dominate her?
1. In B.I. #1 (pg. 1-4), in what way do the footnotes contribute to the piece as a whole? Why does the author place the footnotes where he does in the interview?
2. In B.I. #31 (pg. 28-34), what kind of "Great Lover" does the speaker feel is the worst kind and what kind of man truly makes a "Great Lover"?
3. In B.I. #40 (pg. 82-86), does the speaker's manipulation of the girls through the use of his "asset" appear less shady because of his deformity?
1. In B.I. #31 is the guy hitting on the female interviewer and what implications does this have on how he responds to her questions?
2. In B.I. #40 What possibly did the interviewer say to make the arm guy so defensive?
3. In the Example of the Porousness of Certain borders (VI) on pg. 211, is Wallace trying to make a specific critique of the social values surrounding divorce or simply showing yet another "hideous" situation?
on behalf of natasha
1) In brief interview #36 (pg. 33)the speaker says that he likes
himself, and the response is "Who?". How does this fit in with the
other brief interviews? It doesn't have the crude tone that some
of the other sections have. What was the editor (?) thinking by
including it?
2)In Brief Interview #40 (pg. 82-86)The speaker keeps referring to
his malformed arm in a detached sort of way, as though it is
acting on its own without his knowledge or contribution. He keeps
saying that "it does this" or "it does that", yet he is the one
who reaps the benefits. Does this removal represent the isolation
of the individual from the leadership of the state in some way?
3)In Brief Interview #20, the speaker speaks differently the woman
involved than some of the other speakers have. He doesn't treat
them as contemptuously as the speaker in Brief Interview #40, but
he seems callous in his own way. The events of the girl's story
are twice removed from the speaker, but he doesn't show any
concern over the events themselves. What does this concern over
narrative as opposed to the content of the story itself represent
in postmodern literature?
Post a Comment
<< Home