Just a thought

Infinite jest – a tennis-allegory, where the sum of passing lines of words between footnotes and in the footnotes as well, serve as images of the type of serve or response correlating to the sum; the higher the sum the higher (probably) or at least slower the arch the ball describes. This is made real with the reader’s actions of bouncing between the text or narrative itself and the appendix (these constituting the whole – the game and set – while being a part of the narrative, contributing with fact and depth, much like the way(s) a ball is returned over the net). Lets say twelve lines pass between two footnotes, that’s maybe a slow ball and that the footnote consists of two lines – that’s a fast return ball. The dance of the text and the notes form the complexity of the game being played. Does this make any sense at all? I’m obviously not Harold Bloom but all men have the right to reflect over their reading.