Conclusion. Sober Futurity
At the end of the last chapter, I quoted at some length Rich Juzwiak’s renunci-
ation of his e=orts as a television recapper, in part because I wanted to contest
the renunciation’s account of the lack of value obtaining in those e=orts. An-
other aspect of the account worth considering in a less skeptical way lies in its
emphasis on the physical and mental toll that recapping took on Juzwiak: “I
want to be a normal person who’s watching TV, not some frantic note- taking
instant replayer. No more regularly scheduled forced digestion in a period of
time that gives my brain and writing cramps. It’s fatigue, plain and simple,
that comes from within but is informed from without. The limitless ubiquity
of recaps makes writing them a challenge.”1 While Juzwiak responded, as I
demonstrate, to the “challenge” of recapping with digressive ingenuity, any
reckoning of that response that doesn’t at least briefly measure the digest
made through its acts of “digestion” against the “fatigue, plain and simple”
that accompanied those acts would be a misleadingly incomplete one. Re-
calling what Chun writes in her resistance to the “dictatorship of speed,”2
I may likewise have the capacity to resist that dictatorship in my digressive
stroll to, with, and through fourfour (and linked assays), but Juzwiak didn’t
and perhaps couldn’t, even as a digresser in his approach to recapping,
perform such a challenge to speed’s hegemony; the demand of punctual di-
gressing in a “regularly scheduled” way whose regularity also constitutes its
“frantic[ness]” and near “instant[aneity]” comes with a cost—the debility
of exhaustion—that digressing in the rhythms of my scholarly pace did not
demand and that Juzwiak finally, reasonably refused to keep paying.
I linger over Juzwiak’s exhaustion not only to make my account of his
blogging less partial (in both senses)—nor even, more simply, to honor his
work in as fully textured a way as he honors the work of artists, particularly
Previous Page Next Page