Wallace:David:Infinite Jest:Character:Charles Tavis

From the Quicksilver Metaweb.

Charles Tavis, Ed.D. (p. 64). Half-brother of Avril Mondragon, and successor adminitrator of James Orin Incandenza at Enfield Tennis Academy. p. 64. Upon assuming his duties at ETA, Tavis is "a former engineer most recently employed in Amateur Sports Administration at Throppinghamshire Provincial College, New Brunswick, Canada, p. 64.

dfan@[omitted] writes: "The situation with James dying and Tavis usurping his role and taking up with Avril is directly analgous to Claudius and Gertrude in Hamlet."

Chris O. writes: "However...wouldn't this analogy require Tavis to be a self-serving bum? If I remember my Hamlet, Claudius is in cahoots to be king AND hot for Gertrude, whereas I don't think Tavis has the same ambition. Any malevolence present in Tavis? I mean, he's the ANTI-bum, what with all his apologizing and extrapolating and paralysis from fear of offending. What do you think?"

I think Tavis is a lot more insidious than you give him credit for. For the sake of analogy, let's take the difference between 1984 and Brave New World. Hamlet's world is full of overt power, like 1984; Tavis is not this kind of villain, but more like the pleasure drug in Brave New World--so disarmingly pleasant as to make you want to be manipulated. Does Hal say as much about CT himself?

As for parental upbringing being an influence, I agree that a lot of the characters' qualities are meant to represent larger movements than those occurring within the orbit of the family. However, at the same time, you can't deny that DFW is concerned with such issues. Orin is a perfect example of experience determining behavior. And what about Madame Psychosis' strange rearing?

Also at the same time, I think perhaps DFW is having his way with us w/r/t this type of interpretation. Take the chapter (or footnote, whatever it was; it had appeared earlier as a short story) with the title "The Beginning of My Interest in Annular Systems." The connection between the title and the narrator's story is spurious at best. What it reveals about the narrator's life is everything; the story just begs to be interpreted psychologically. But where does this lead us? (Wondering what my point is here, most likely.)