Good Old Neon Analysis

The passages 14 and 15 in David Foster Wallace’s “Good Old Neon” have four major points: Firstly, the narrator’s continuing manipulation, secondly, the narrator’s sadness regarding Dr. Gustafson’s loss of mass, thirdly, the inability of words to convey the abstract, and finally the use of logic and math to convey the abstract and the destructiveness of logic.
The first section, from lines 1 through 10, summarizes the previous passage while demonstrating the narrator’s relentless manipulation. The narrator states here that he feels his inability to love was the root of his nature of fraudulence. The narrator says, “being fraudulent and being unable to love were in fact ultimately the same thing”(1-2). This quote clearly demonstrates his standpoint
He says that it has to do with numbers, that these numbers are so large it is hard to “describe numbers this big in words”. He explains that these numbers are so big it takes 20+ syllables to describe them. The paradox is to image “the very smallest number that can’t be described in under twenty-two syllables.” This of course, is a description of this number and only has twenty-one syllables, making it not the smallest number that can’t be described in under twenty two syllables, which then can’t be the smallest number again, and then the answer circles around until you realize it is a paradox. This number clearly demonstrates the failure of language. There is no such number, but there has to be, but then there is no number. There simply is no way to express this value, a clear demonstration of the fallacy of
Describing logic as abstract is an oxymoron and thus inherently contradicting itself. Logic refers to concrete evidence and typically proof based reasoning, whereas the very definition of abstract is of something not existing physically but rather in thought or idea. However, by describing logic as abstract he points out that logic is often beyond words or concrete description, similar to the idea previously stated of the failure of words to express ideas. He says that logical paradoxes “really drive people nuts”, and then goes on to say that historically “great logicians have ended up killing themselves”, and that “logicians with incredible firepower can devote their whole lives to solving these things and still end up beating their heads against the wall”. Here he demonstrates the destructiveness of logic. Putting all these quotes in context gives us insight into what the epiphany was that led the narrator to kill himself. The narrator has been hung up on this fraudulence paradox, and is a very logically/mathematically based thinker. By explaining how paradoxes drive people nuts, and how logicians end up beating themselves up over it, and by noting the amount of logic he uses to explain simple things, it is not unreasonable to assume that a large part of the choice to kill himself was