Postmodern novels and the use of footnotes

In the last few years I have been lucky enough to begin reading for pleasure again, more so than I ever did while in grad school. That is certainly one of the reasons that I could not stick with grad school forever was that I could not see myself continually reading stuff that I wasn't supremely interested in--at least not interested enough.

So, with the help and advice of friends I have read many interesting books in the last few years and been exposed to some very interesting authors. The people that I am discussing today are David Foster Wallace, Mark Danielewski, and David Markson.

Wallace's most famous work is infinite Jest, a book that is best and most accurately described as "sprawling." It certainly is large--over 1000 pages. Some of the book' particulars I won't even try to explain in part because I can't and in part because that's not what I am here to do. It IS an interesting, if challenging read. If you can commit yourself to the time it takes, you will be able to think about corporate branding, tennis, prep schools, drugs, and many, many other things.

Danielewski's book House of Leaves was my most recently finished book. Another book that is complicated and "sprawling" in its own right--if more contained and tightly focuses than Infinite Jest. This book is a horror story set within a discussion of metaphysics, personal demons, and not a little bit of science--echo reflection, photography, etc. It is very challenging to read--as I will describe momentarily.

Currently I am reading Markson's Reader's Block. This book is harder to describe in part because I am just getting started and because it is intentionally written to defeat description.

And THAT is what this post is really about--the structure of these books.

I call these novels postmodern, and I hope that I am right. Each is written self-consciously, with the goal of breaking down the divide between the author and his finished product and the reader. If that isn't postmodern, then please educate me.

DFW uses a great deal of footnotes in Infinite Jest, but they are there in more of a traditional sense. They provide asides to the reader--even if some of these asides are pages long. The book could exists on its own without them. Diminished, certainly, but the story could be there.

Danielewski goes a step further. His book uses footnotes to tell two parallel stories that follow each other and feed off of each other. The two stories are like Siamese twins that would not be able to survive without each other. On top of that, Danielewski uses footnotes and the structure of the book itself to mimic the convolutions of the story being told. It is extremely difficult to follow at times and very much breaks the barrier between author's text and reader passivity. I enjoyed it.

Markson goes even further than Danielewski, in that it appears like his whole story is made up of asides--the entire story seems like footnotes. Small bursts of information. Seen at book level, these seemingly random statements don't have cohesion, but I am guessing that as the story progresses, a clarity of sorts will emerge. If I could pull back out of the book, I am sure that a pattern would be visible when the totality is viewed.

Each of these books has their challenges, but I think you would enjoy (at least some of) what they offer.