3 Comments

  1. If you consider that the book is not only full of bad French but also of sloppy, funnily inaccurate German (the “Bröckengespenst”) and that the explanations given to the respective phenomena (e.g. “Bröckengespenst”) in the endnotes are usually slightly misguiding, it seems likely that DFW is very carefully playing with the limits of not only what the novel’s personae let go uncriticized in their conversations but also what the average complacent US-american reader might be willing to believe to be accurate. Thus, I think that the mistakes are deliberate and that it’s as a very funny if somewhat cheap critique of a widespread ignorance towards other languages/cultures etc.

  2. It’s probably silly to add a 3rd comment to a 10-year-old thread, but here I go anyway, having only started to read IJ now (after owning it for 20 years): I found the book to be full of smaller and bigger “errors” like those you describe above every time it touches a subject I know enough about to notice.
    I am 99% sure this must be deliberate – if not, the sloppiness of the writing would be beyond belief.
    One purpose it may serve is to give a wink to the reader, as a reminder that the whole story, even in its most gripping moments, is entirely deliberate, as hinted by Christian above.
    The Bröckengespenst scene on the hilltop is a good example: not only is this natural phenomenon spelled and described slightly wrongly, it is also in reality tied to moisture-saturated atmospheric conditions which are unlikely to be found in Arizona – and completely contrary to the conditions described in the scene.
    This shift from reality is reinforced by the way the two guy on the mountain play with their shadows, affecting the light conditions in an entire suburb – impossible in the physical world, but comparable to the powers of the writer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *