Skip to content
August 17, 2009 / Infinite Tasks

Orin’s Endless Fall

[This post is a follow-up to my earlier posts on Orin’s Dread and Orin’s Dread II. It is an attempt to track the dilemmas of becoming an authentic self in the one character – Orin Incandenza – who is portrayed as plagued by classic existential symptoms of anguish and dread. Resolving Orin’s existential crisis is an important feature of IJ, since it is one indication of whether there is a latent humanism in IJ, a hope that human will and choice can be directed for the sake of responsibility and ethical self-understanding. Most characters in the novel, to the contrary, are performing ordained roles in relation to Pleasure and Power, and face only pre-existential choices, for instance: whether to live or die as the Slave of a Spider; whether to join the Show or sink into Nothingness.]

As IJ progresses past its mid-point, Orin has emerged as a primary target for uncovering the mystery of the Entertainment – or at least, so thinks on the one hand the A.F.R. Wheelchair Assassins, who are following him everywhere, and on the other O.U.S. agent “Helen” Steeply, who pumps Orin for Incandenza-type information (without, well, pumping him, if you know what I mean). Caught between these two tidal geo-political forces, Orin remains oblivious, blinded by his passionate need for Helen. And now, when his loneliness and woe is greatest, a Swiss hand-model carrying a Schmeisser GBF miniature machine pistol in her handbag shows up to take him to bed (pp. 565-567 & 596-601).

The appearance of the Swiss hand-model, as Infinite Detox has pointed out, is a moment of “Pynchonian contraparanoia,” in DFW’s words. That is, he is living in a world in which he has every reason to be paranoid, but fails to connect the dots. Rather than suspect a plot around every corner, Orin takes it all well enough for granted without a single frisson of concern. The wheelchair assassins are shy football fans who idolize his powerful leg. The Swiss hand-model’s appearance is

as if the universe were reaching out a hand to pluck him from the rim of the abyss of despair that any sort of rejection or frustration of his need for some Subject he’d picked out always threatened him with, as if he’d been teetering with his arms windmilling at a great height. (p. 566)

Yet, rather than be suitably appreciative of this seemingly “unStrategized” sexual encounter, we get a glimpse of Orin’s contempt for his Subjects. I think we should be careful not to reduce this contempt to simple misogyny (though there’s no reason to think that misogyny doesn’t play a psychological role – Hal gets this right when he notes that “It’s poignant somehow that you always use the word Subject when you mean the exact obverse” (n#110, p. 1008)). Rather, it is yet another expression of his existential anxieties, here expressed by the failure of the Singular to achieve the Universal.

It feels to the punter rather to be about hope, an immense wide-as-the-sky hope of finding something in each Subject’s fluttering face, a something the same that will propitiate hope, somehow, pay its tribute, the need to be assured that for a moment he has her and is what she sees and all she sees… that for one second she loves him too much to stand it, that she must, she feels, have him, must take him inside or else dissolve into worse than nothing. (p. 566, underlines represent italics in original)

The emphasis on ‘must’ indicates here Orin’s strong desire to find an Absolute, a Same, that can quell the doom-laden feelings of his veritable contingency. He wants to be the sexual companion that results not from a deliberate choice, but from a deep and core metaphysical Necessity that will establish his permanence, his reality. He seeks to negate the Singular Individual who confronts him in vulnerability, and thus leave only the Universal; furthermore, he needs to find that Universal in himself, the One. Let me briefly explain this in philosophical-ese.

The route to the Universal, the Absolute, must always travel along the pathway of the Singular, the Individual. Philosophers, seeking the universal, have consequently and for so long negated the uniqueness of the individual, fearing that the finitude of the singular would prevent access to the the supra-individual heights of Reason or God.[26] Even the introduction, with Augustine or Descartes, of an “I” that exists and turns ever on the axis of its self-consciousness, turns out to be an “I” that must be purified of its singularity, its contingency.

Hegel tried, as he always did, to reconcile the Universal and the Singular, to find the universal sociality (community) that conditions and is conditioned by the individual: the “I that is We and the We that is I.” But Kierkegaard, discovering that Hegel had built a beautiful castle but could not live in it, revealed that singularity could never be negated, could never be identified with community, that we must pass through the travails of our finite subjectivity to face down – to construct a relation to – the infinite. The failure to retain or return to our finite and contingent existence is the source of all sorts of what Sartre later called “bad faith.”[27]

Orin is, to put it simply, frustrated that he is unable to establish the necessity of his existence for more than a brief and fleeting moment. He cannot admit that the path to an unstable (the only kind) resolution to dread lies in profound commitment to a Singular Individual, one which does not seek to be outside of all time and change, one which is real because it is finite, not in spite of that. As explained parenthetically,

(This is why, maybe, one Subject is never enough, why hand after hand must descend to pull him back from the endless fall. For were there for him just one, now, special and only, the One would be not he or she but what was between them, the obliterating trinity of You and I into We. Orin felt that once and has never recovered, and will never again.) (p. 566f.)

Orin’s need to be saved, if only temporarily, from his “endless Fall” is spent in the sex and leaves behind only the dry bitterness of contempt. He resents each Subject’s Uniqueness, which threatens his own capacity to be the One, the Everything – he blames them for their ontological inability to sustain his flight from truth. Orin hides this contempt, as he hides the fact that he does not receive pleasure from his Encounters with Subjects. He was, nevertheless, “resoundingly gentle and caring afterwards,” and apparently did not hesitate to explain to the subject that his “#2 favorite is this post-seminal interval of clingy vulnerability on the Subject’s part and gentle intimate care on his own” (p. 597; though misogynist, at least he is not also an asshole).

Perhaps a bit iannular/i, do you think?

Speaking of trying to save him from his “endless Fall,” let me point out some insights that come from The Fall, Albert Camus’ last published complete novel. The Fall bears an interest to IJ readers for its opaque and duplicitous narrator Jean-Baptiste Clamence. Clamence leads his voiceless interlocutor through a confession of his (Clamence’s, that is) life which, by his own eventual admission, is full of lies – all of which lies lead nevertheless and unerringly to the truth. Clamence keenly feels this Orin-like struggle to exist necessarily, and also recognizes what he calls the “dual-nature” of all human beings, the worm at the heart of all self-consciousness that makes its motivations untrustworthy.

At one point in his tale, Clamence has embarked on a series of Orin-like affairs (had he been asynchronously influenced by DFW, Camus could very well have used “Subjects”), with the added enhancement that rather than send them quickly away so he could bear out his night sweats alone, Clamence would drag them into the mud of his despair by keeping them attached, even feeling, for his part, a certain alarm and perhaps fooling himself into a bit of suffering at the threat of their abandonment. But of course it was just a mask. Here is Clamence’s most honest portayal of his circumstance:

No, it was not love or generosity that aroused me when I was in danger of being forsaken, but merely the desire to be loved and to receive what, in my opinion, was my due. […] Be it said, moreover, that as soon as I had re-won that affection I became aware of its weight. In my moments of irritation I told myself that the ideal solution would have been the death of the person I was interested in. Her death would, on the one hand, have fixed our relationship once and for all and, on the other, removed its constraint. But one cannot long for the death of everyone or, to go to extremes, depopulate the planet in order to enjoy a freedom that is unthinkable otherwise. [… ] On my own admission, I could live happily only on condition that all the individuals on earth, or the greatest possible number, were turned towards me, eternally unattached, deprived of any separate existence. […] In short, for me to live happily it was essential for the individuals I chose not to live at all. (The Fall, Everyman’s Library edition, 2004 [1956], pp. 311-312)

Note the similarity to Orin. Recall how he sought to lose himself in the natal rush of the stadium crowd, how all existence must be “turned toward him” in order to guarantee his tenuous purchase on life. To lose themselves in Him, of course, is of a kind with destroying themselves for His sake – or being destroyed by him, specifically.

Ahh, existential conflicts can seem so grand and world-shattering! Yet, they are so futile when taken to these extremes. Clamence ultimately resolves the deep truths of his lies, and achieves (apparently) a sort of Sisyphean, anti-heroic joy. And in an analogue to Meursault in The Stranger, he feels he will be “saved” in death, specifically in an execution, after which

… you would hold up my still warm head, so that they could recognize themselves in it and I could again dominate – an exemplar. (p. 356)

And thus are we led once more to the image of a Head, a reminder of JOI’s head which is yet-to-be-dug, and whose importance I have addressed in my recent discussion of Hal “the revenant” Incandenza. As I pointed out recently in comments at Infinite Zombies, we should not expect that all of our connections to things outside of IJ are ones that DFW studiously put there for us to find – but find them we must. The annular recurrence of squeaks, wobbles, heads, triangles, &c., that give IJ its fractal quality, evoke resonances not only in his fictional construction but in our world as well. To quote myself:

The more I read both your work and Detox’s, the more sense I have that it is not DFW’s imagination that is fractalized or Serpinskied, it is the human cosmos (if that looks like an odd phrase, I mean it intentionally) of which he is a part (an admittedly visionary one). He doesn’t have to think all the triangles within triangles; he just has to attend carefully to his own patterns and keep the lustrous description of phenomena flowing. The associations will emerge as we dig, as we attend to the myriad and expanding connections between his world and our own.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Paul / Aug 17 2009 12:57 pm

    When you first started the Orin’s dread thread, I thought it was interesting, but I wasn’t sure exactly what you had gotten yourself into. I mean, he seemed like a minor character in terms of screen time.

    When I finished the section with the hand model, the first thing I thought was “Infinite Tasks is on to something there.” Awesome foresight!

    I found this new section with Orin to utterly contradict what I thought about him previously. Even though you say “Though misogynist, he’s not an asshole,” I’m not even entirely sure he’s a misogynist either. [Depends on which part of the definition you want to use, I guess]. But I’ll get to that in a moment.

    I hadn’t really thought of Orin as a particularly deep character, but this one scene shows that his louche behavior is more of a front; and it seems to mostly be a front for Hal (in the way that its “okay” to make unPC jokes around close friends, who all know that you don’t really “mean” them.) But the whole post-coital section revealed Orin to be a very sad individual, clinging for love by offering “love” to others. Leeching off of the Subject’s pleasure by trying to be a good lover.

    And, knowing how he feels about the Moms, the Oedipal ramifications are pretty deep and disturbing there.

    So, yes, he is a misogynist because he uses women for his own pleasure, and yet his pleasure comes from ensuring that they get pleasure. So does that remove the stain of misogyny? I don’t know.

    And was he so lost because of Helen because he didn’t sleep with her? Or was it something deeper?

    You’ve made me think about this character more than I normally would have.

    Thanks.

    Now, imagine if you had chosen to focus on Mario!

  2. itzadrag / Aug 17 2009 5:58 pm

    Sensing Icarus in Incandenza, I sought parallels in Hal (recent revenant thread at this site). Yet– having read here of Endless Fall– I find the Orin blue-sky wheeling fall quotes more compelling.

    I had dismissed Orin somewhat, as a shadow for Hals’ perception (hard to see your own backside, much easier to assay another’s). Perhaps gave him such sort shrift for his tender misogyny, which could be a sort of addictive vampirism, beyond redemption by confession. Another revenenant thread?

    I adore being unconvinced by first takes, obliged to think again. Forgive an old woman, but does anyone else find Wallacian prose therapeutic? The dense layering is a relief. I feel “not alone” in being both dense and ambiguous. Even ambivalent. Bless you all. Such a delight to have discovered you.

  3. Dan Summers / Aug 18 2009 8:17 am

    I’m not sure exactly where in IJ this is, so this could possibly be a very mild spoiler, but Schtitt’s observations about Orin’s character are illuminating.

  4. infinitetasks / Aug 19 2009 11:40 am

    Thanks Paul, for pushing this further, especially the significance of the Moms, which opens up an existential-psychoanalytic vein I hadn’t really thought about.

    Dan, I think a Schtittian analysis of O. must be later down the pipe, though you obviously haven’t spoiled anything. Guess I’ll be expected to write Orin’s Dread, Part IV!

    And to Itzadrag, I Identify, we all do. The pleasure of the book is only increasing as I go along, as the “density” parses out our own world. The shared delight is a big part of it, now! I cannot yet accept that Orin is “beyond redemption,” and though confession is ruled out, there is a need for his coming to terms with death/finitude/intersubjectivity. I don’t know if the task is too big for him – I hope not.

  5. itzadrag / Aug 19 2009 3:41 pm

    Interesting that you see Orin’s task as “coming to terms with death/finitude/intersubjectivity.” This may be true for all IJ characters. Hamlet (the play) deals with coming to terms with death as fate’s project: everyone dies, we all know it is coming, and the antic quibbler Hamlet himself acts as fortune’s “scourge & minister” in bringing the inevitable to pass.

    Filling in my own blanks… Orin’s addictive vampirism (feeding on women’s pleasure) is beyond redemption– through mere confession to Hal. This is Hal’s objection to the “Subject” objectification seduction schemes: Orin has confused just who the subject is, and Hal doesn’t want to hear it. ” It’s poignant somehow that you always use the word ‘Subject’ when you mean the exact obverse.”

    In this phone call to Hal, Orin seeks opinions about Quebec Separatists. But he will not interface, will not break his pathological boundary of silence/separation to go to the source, a real Quebec expert– Avril Mondragon herself. Orin “Homewrecker” Incandenza is stuck in an abusive sucking-up-to-family-women-to-feed-personal-power-and-value behavior pattern, and he proclaims loudly (at least, his unconscious statement is in bold caps) his excuse: blame it on Mom.

    Over in the Forums, a vital conversation is engaged on “the Abuse Excuse.” This issue arises in IJ when the “poor me” Stripper blames her own substance abuse on her truly horrifying past personal abuse story. White Flag folk are unimpressed, with ANY excuse, ANY story because the purpose of AA is not just to confess (with self-pity, as victim by definition), but to find integrity: to become responsible for the change you need to be.

    I can’t put it better than in their own words:
    FORUMS quotes begin——
    from diaoramorama:

    “I think it’s one thing to tell your story and another thing entirely to be your story.

    … it’s just that creating justifications for your actions make recovery a lot more difficult. It’s not too big or uncommon a logical leap from “I’m an addict because I was abused” to “I can never change the fact that I was abused, so I am permanently damaged, so why try getting sober?”

    from OneBigParty:

    re: “I think it’s one thing to tell your story and another thing entirely to be your story.”

    “The people who can never revert from the latter to the former, if they have a story that hellish (and maybe even not so hellish) are lost forever, it seems to me, doomed to intractable loneliness. As well as pathologies of all kinds.

    This reminds me of the discussion of Wittgenstein and being trapped in language. The stripper “becomes used to describing herself to herself in a certain way”, you’re saying, she feels “as though there is some final truth about [herself] in those descriptions–a truth which cannot be violated.”* If I understand correctly, AA says that this, for one reason, is wrong because if she begins to change over time she either won’t recognize it because the change-language is not part of her vocabulary, or she will recognize it and feel that she is betraying herself. (her victimhood?)”

    End of Forums quotes—-

    O as victim (object) doesn’t quite wash. Clinging to his excuse (the Moms) maintains impediment to change. Orin’s mother-attachment is “anaclitic,” a leaning-upon, a dependency– even when expressed as the mother-denying opposite. Hal: “Disowns her – worse, sicker, tells himself he’s convinced himself she doesn’t even exist, as if she never existed… and has a rapacious fetish for young married mothers”. Hal accuses Orin of selective listening, when he refuses to recognize this behavior pattern. Orin’s pretty much defined, at present, by that which he denies. In this regard, see again the Camus you quote:

    “No, it was not love or generosity that aroused me when I was in danger of being forsaken, but merely the desire to be loved…
    …the ideal solution would have been the death of the person I was interested in. Her death would, on the one hand, have fixed our relationship once and for all and, on the other, removed its constraint….
    …I could live happily only on condition that all the individuals on earth, or the greatest possible number, were turned towards me, eternally unattached, deprived of any separate existence.”

    Orin once described Avril as the Black Hole of Human Attention around which the brothers circled, falling ever inward to her self-regarding, greedy vortex. Seduction Strategy 7 features gazing on the Subject in a “vacant intense way a hungry person watches somebody eating.” A fine anodyne to the misery of having been consumed, this seduction is a “never-miss” method of filling his own vacancy with the substance of another. This is his vampirism, of which he remains unrepentant. You are quite right that the misogyny is not simple. O is hollow at the core.

    Orin himself desires to be the center of this attention/affection whirlpool, the center of existence. Orin needs the true regard of his mother, not the creepy polite, solicitous and controlling care Avril actually gives. He needs to be needed, to be “valuable”– not “valued.” Avril has allowed all, absolved all, denied all (think: the dog: a nubbin’ but nuthin’ comes of it, and the dogbowl remains in the kitchen). The open arms and lack of consequences, the many competencies and demanding skills, create an image of Avril as a superior mother: valuing her children as a reflection of her own virtue. And incidentally, appearing as a sort of Kali-like monster, maybe. No wonder he analyzes Hal as the one pathologically trying still to please the Moms; the pain of Orin’s own low value is too much for him fully to realize.

    Orin needs the honest love and pleasure of his mother, seeking it in every female “subject” he attempts to please. He will achieve either her total devotion (no attention-splitting compulsively controlled multi-tasking), her final recognition of him as the central beloved object. Or, the final solution: a serene stillness of relational death, no contact, no gravitational pull into the vortex; stop the whirl– he wants to get off.

    I had commented earlier that I saw Orin as Jungian “shadow” to Hal. Now I see him also as foil: that bright thin sheet wrapped around the paste gem to make it appear to shine from within. And also as the the rapier which prods Hal into such brilliant repartee.

    Thanks to Paul & to IT, for the prompt to delve more into Orin’s development. We may need an “Orin’s Dread & Final Fall” sequel.

  6. itzadrag / Aug 20 2009 2:29 pm

    And but maybe that was too much grim.

    Simpler: the dynamic relational triangle of brothers plus the Moms, and their boundary issues: Imagine Whirled Peas. See the centrifugal Black Hole circled by 2 boys Out There in the wide-deep-blue infinite. Avril Mondragon is the vortex at center, with “enclosure issues”: open doors, open arms, open wide. Hal, according to D. Rusk, PhD, has “space issues” and a Coatlicue complex; he’s skating the gravitational drag by hiding secretly underground, dissipating. Orin kicks completely out of bounds, employing distance and an avoidance strategem– a Moms-denying wall to create safe stasis, to resist falling ever in– while conducting extramural family affairs, re-enacting the family drama.

    At the moment, the Incandenzas have lost their JOI– but they blaze a dazzling constellation across our skies.

    I, too, can’t wait to see what you have to say about Mario. He seems to carry his happy safe place wherever he goes.

  7. Aaron / Aug 31 2009 7:00 pm

    What about Bain’s thoughts on Orin? (Though that may fall into what itzadrag calls “the abuse excuse,” in this case, the abuse being the abuse of simulacrumized over-interest.

Trackbacks

  1. Mitsu on Mitsu

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: