Are You Receiving Me? — The Annotated Boris (Day 2)
By Mike Faloon
Day 2,
part 1:
This
from Norb:
Mike:
You're a saint. I think the upper case "I" was just a typo --
autocorrect forced me to go back and change all the upper case I's to lower
case i's one by one. However, my rule is that, if the "I" in question
is part of me quoting someone else, then it's upper case, because it's them
saying the "I," which is different than me saying the "i."
I just do it because i like how the dot looks. Huzzah!
This
from me:
The
purpose of a book such as The Annotated
Boris is to clarify the underlying meanings, remove doubt as to what was
intended with the various lyrical offerings of Boris the Sprinkler. I’d just like to point out that I...
a) managed to come away with a misunderstanding, however
brief,
b) managed to pull off said feat on the back of the title
page
c) managed to accomplish a and b on the basis of a typo!
Day 2,
part 2:
We were
at our neighbor’s yesterday. Their
daughter asked if she could “watch one TV.” This struck me as a new way of asking to watch television,
thinking of tube time in specific units. She’s used to watching shows on DVD, one episode at a
time. It is in that spirit of
digital age “quantitative thinking is go!” that I focus on the footnotes in The Annotated Boris.
There
are 982 footnotes in The Annotated Boris. When I first saw a draft of the book a
few months ago I was hoping that the need could be found for 18 additional
footnotes. The prospect of a mini
“1000” at the base of the page was pretty cool. Kind of like watching my car’s odometer flick to 150,000 a
couple months ago—certain numbers in certain contexts are, to my mind, cool.
And
it’s on that basis alone—the accumulation of 982 footnotes that I could declare
Rev. Norb the King of the Footnote.
Most people would argue that this title should be bestowed upon David
Foster Wallace. I’ve never
finished a David Foster Wallace book.
I read bits of Consider the
Lobster but couldn’t finish it.
I liked it fine but another, newer book came along and I’ve yet to
return to The Lobster. Wallace’s essays were fine and his use
of the footnote impressive but at no point did he depose the previous King of
the Footnote, Nicholson Baker. A
number of pages in Baker’s book The
Mezzanine are more footnote that body text — check out p. 27, for
example. It could be taken as a
parlor trick—That lengthy footnote looks
cool! Such lengthy footnotes are
certainly not easy to replicate!
What’s the purpose again?—but I think it worked to pretty great
effect.
One
gripe, however, and it’s a gripe I wasn’t aware of until diving into The Annotated Boris. It’s this: Baker resets the footnote
count on each page. As a result of
this seemingly innocuous decision the book’s first footnote, on page three, is
labeled “1,” and the book’s second footnote, on page four — about watching a
straw rise in a can of soda — is also labeled “1.” Norb, on the other hand, yields to the quantitative
fun — makes the wiser choice — and lets the footnote count accumulate.
What’s
the point of having the all footnotes if you don’t keep track of them for the
reader? Surely the sheer number of
footnotes in The Mezzanine was
intended as part of the book’s appeal, why not keep a running tally? Someone must have kept track, either
Baker or his editor, but they kept the results to themselves. So it’s not just the total number of
footnotes that moves Norb to the top of the AP and UPI “King of Footnotes”
polls. That is but one
factor. The other is simply
keeping track. And this is the
next reason I highly recommend The
Annotated Boris.
http://www.bulge.biz/