vimes

Infinite Jest

Recommended Posts

Infinite Jest was the first David Foster Wallace book I read. Now that I'm almost done with Vonnegut, I think I might as well go ahead and read every book in his woefully short bibliography. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as was already mentioned before, re-reading the first chapter after you have finished the book is basically mandatory. God damn that one sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a solid 6-8 months of incredible and thrilling reading momentum (sparked, as it happens, by the Idle Book Club), my decision to take on Infinite Jest ground it to a complete halt.  

 

For the first 200 pages, it had the perpetual feeling of finally-starting-to-stop-feeling-like-a-chore, without ever fully crossing that threshold. Kind of the literary version of being on the verge of a sneeze.  At some hazy point after this, however (for me, somewhere between the video phone essay and the Elder Incandenza's garage monologue), it actually stops feeling like a chore.  The little vignette-like scenes begin (though this may be an illusion from simply adapting to the style) to feel more confident, swaying more wildly between overtly comedic and empathic/heartbreaking.  The uncomfortable sensation of missing out of something vital, of not getting it, of enduring based purely on the recommendations of readers you trust: all gone.  After 200 pages or so, reading it suddenly takes on a frantic urgency.

 

I'm not convinced this stumbling block was strictly necessary.  DFW made the deliberately challenging choice to introduce us to characters who would not appear until hundreds of pages later (i.e. most of the Ennet House residents), while parading around other characters who only get a proper introduction and context much further in (i.e. most of the ETA students and faculty).  It makes me wonder if it was an Umberto Ecoey trick to weed out all but the most attentive.  Either way, the feeling of passing that early endurance test - of being trusted to make connections yourself - is certainly a powerful one.

 

I've been treating it as a multi-month writing course, with extensive, increasingly blunted, sometimes borderline-incoherent pencil notes scrawled on every page.  This book is making me a better reader, a better writer and a more empathic human being.  This book.  Seriously, you guys.  This book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on being annoyed by the plot showing up towards the end of the book. To me, the book's best when it just dwells on the lives and personalities of Emmit House residents and Academy students—the middle 300 pages or so. DFW clearly loved Pynchon, but I think he's best when he shies away from that mode. The Entertainment may be an initial hook for readers, but it eventually drags down the novel.

(The middle 300 pages seem ripe for television adaptation, though Orange is the New Black is probably the closest we'll get and that's fine by me.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for digging this up nearly a year later, i just needed to vent a bit.

 

I'm only about 70 pages in (though getting that far has taken me the best part of a month) and all I can say for certain so far is that it's forced me to reorganise how I approach reading, at least from a logistical standpoint - I can't go near the thing unless I've got a notepad, a dictionary and access to wikipedia at hand for starters. It took me maybe 3 sessions just to get through the catalogue James O's filmography and even then I can't say how much of that I really digested. 

 

What's your guys' thoughts on the abundant use of jargon and gleeful spattering of footnotes? Do you think it's just a test of commitment, "an Umberto Ecoey trick to weed out all but the most attentive", like Alastair suggests? (Pleb alert: I haven't read any Eco, sorry! I'm very poorly read in general.) Did you meticulously research every word or term you didn't recognise? For me, that's proving to be at least a handful per page.

 

Otherwise I'm enjoying it, especially the parts which appear to be focalised through Hal. I feel like it does an exceptional job of demonstrating how his mind works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Infinite Jest was a key step for me in redefining how I expect to process media. I now basically never look up a word I don't understand or attempt to research references that I don't get in a book - I just let it wash over me, and take whatever I can out of the in-context use of the word or reference. I feel a bit like I was hung up on a definitive reading of a book, where I "got" whatever the author was intending. These days I see my experience of reading a book as just being what it is, without an expectation that there's a reference point for a definitive reading that I'm closer to or further from.

 

I'll still look up something if if it piques my interest in some way, like if it's used over and over again - e.g. "annular" in IJ - but when you do that after ascribing your own meaning to it, that's a cool experience in and of itself.

 

This all said, my point isn't that not looking things up is better than doing so (as I said, I don't think there's a definitive reading or that one way is better than the other) - but just that, if the sole reason you're looking these things up is that you're worried you're going to miss something and not read the book "properly", don't worry about it IMO. There's no definitive reading, just your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the footnotes do not serve to test the commitment of the reader. They act as a tool to flesh out the world and branch out the story in a way that wouldn't have be possible if Wallace was limited to the main body of text. The footnotes felt a bit awkward at first but I learned to appreciate them once I realized what the author was going for. Some of the footnotes are a bit pointless, but as I recall, most of them can be justified. By the way, it helps a lot if you don't jump to the footnote the second you come across it in the text.

 

As for the words that I don't recognize, English is not my primary language so I'm quite used to skipping words that I do not understand unless I really want to know the definition or suspect that they might be integral to the experience.

 

Oh, by the way, if you have a Kindle or similar, you might want to consider the ebook version of Infinite Jest. While ebooks definitely have their issues, I found the format to be ideal for this book for many reasons, including weight, durability, built-in dictionary, built-in search and ability to jump to a footnote instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have read close to twenty books in the time it's taken for me to read half of IJ.

 

But that's okay because even though I may never return to it the book was a wonderful piece of fiction. For me its one of those rare books that I don't need to complete to get what I need from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response Jason, it's very comforting to read you outline what I suppose has been an unexamined anxiety about reading inadequately, if that makes sense. I do feel like I worry way too much about, as you say, being too far from an imagined "definitive reading". Still, I can't help but feel frustrated with myself when I get to the end a piece of media and find that I haven't formed a conclusive and useful understanding of what it "means" to me.

 

I find this stuff much easier to deal with when listening to music - like, maybe composing is a more intuitive process wherein meaning can be conjured organically/accidentally as a result of trying to represent something abstract and therefore open to interpretation on both end, whereas writing seems much more deliberate. Or something.

 

And no Nappi, I don't have an eReader, but considering the number of eBooks I've accrued recently from StoryBundles etc (and the Campo Santo Quarterlys of course!) I think it's only a matter of time. Had no idea that some of them had built-in dictionaries - pretty much an instant selling point for me. Which do you recommend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no Nappi, I don't have an eReader, but considering the number of eBooks I've accrued recently from StoryBundles etc (and the Campo Santo Quarterlys of course!) I think it's only a matter of time. Had no idea that some of them had built-in dictionaries - pretty much an instant selling point for me. Which do you recommend?

 

I only have experience with Kindle Paperwhite, but I have been very happy with it. You can search for a word both in a dictionary and in Wikipedia. The former is offline while the latter, naturally, requires an internet connection. I'd imagine that most modern eReaders have some sort of a dictionary. I'd recommend buying one with a touch screen, though, because it allows you to search for a definition simply by touching and holding a word in the text. I get so used to the feature that when start reading a physical book, I occasionally find myself thumbing an unknown word hoping for a definition popping up. Not even kidding.

 

Kindle also has an X-Ray feature which might be useful in some cases. Sadly, it is not available for all ebooks, including my Kindle edition of Infinite Jest. Again, I don't know if other eReaders have similar, or better, exploration features.

 

The biggest difference between the Kindle and other eReaders is the format support. Kindle does not support some of the common copy protected ebook formats, while other eReaders don't support Amazon's format. Converting non-copy protected ebooks to a different format should be relatively straightforward, though, and I have understood that there are even tools for removing the copy protection before the conversion. Still, doesn't hurt to do a bit of research before deciding to purchase one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been tweeting about this a bit, but I've gone ahead and dived into Infinite Jest. I'm about a week (or so?) in, page 168, which is actually very fast for me, I tend to be a very slow let-it-all-melt-in type of reader.

 

It's been a long, long time since I read a novel that anyone could really call 'challenging' in any significant way. I got really into greek and roman mythology last winter and starting reading old translations, and there are some aspects of that that feel familiar while going though IJ.

 

I'm really loving the experience for the most part, but I am definitely hate-reading some sections. And some footnote sections. There's no doubt that DFW was an insanely talented writer, but there are many parts of this book that feel... I don't know, weirdly gendered? The Wardine stuff threw me off, and the fact that, thus far, there has been one woman character that I felt anything for kind of feels bizarre to me.

 

That, and some of the elements that are so absurd that they cry out for laughter are messing with my head. The sheer volume of bathroom humor, next to the wheelchair assassins, next to the heartfelt psychiatric examination... I *think* I know what DFW is going for with this, but maybe I'm too early to really tell.

 

Going to go back and give this thread a nice, hearty read now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an incredibly masculine book. Only Mme. Psychosis felt real to me.

I'm glad to see you're getting enjoyment out of it at any rate. It's still one of my favourite books. There's a lot of payoff for various things. Please do pop back in later, I'm very curious to hear your opinion once you've read more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really fair to call this book masculine? It does have a disproportionate number of male characters, true, but if we're using the words masculine/feminine in the traditional way, I'd describe this book as the latter. DFW's writing has such a strong self-reflexive, emotional component; contrast that with something like Hemingway or Updike and its clear that DFW tends more towards the traits that we stereotypically associate with women.

 

Maybe male-centric is the better word. I really hesitate to use that as a criticism though, as I'm not convinced that it's inherently wrong for a story to predominately feature men over women, if the author justifies that decision. If someone has a counterargument, I'd love to hear it, as I think this is an interesting topic. Or we can keep talking about the challenge of reading this book. I don't think it clicked with me until after the 200 or 300 page mark, but once I got used to the rhythm of it, the remainder of the book was a breeze in comparison to those first few hundred pages.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gender stuff, Argobot put it better than I would...so yeah, what she said. Also, I thought Hal's mom was another well realized female character. Maybe the only other? It's been a while...

 

Danielle, I saw some of your tweets about the absurd stuff like the giant hamsters and feral babies. I don't think DFW was going for laugh out loud humor really, just establishing a world that's a bit absurd and unfamiliar to the reader. Do you think it comes across as trying too hard?

 

PS That Wardine chapter is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe male-centric is the better word. I really hesitate to use that as a criticism though, as I'm not convinced that it's inherently wrong for a story to predominately feature men over women, if the author justifies that decision.

I agree on both points. I was hesitant to put forth the second part as a guy though, because that part's inherently not something I feel qualified to say.

As regards the masculinity, I think it that's going to boil down to a definitions argument, but several of the things I find predominantly masculine about IJ are:

- the self-centered neuroticism of the Incandenzas

- the obsession with sports

- Basically everything about Don Gately

- the way everything circles around the few women without really understanding them, or relating to them on a normal, personal level

- the obsessive themes in general

I agree that IJ is more emotionally wise than the old-fashioned reductive sense of the word masculine but I meant more that it almost entirely made me think of men, and how they can be, and act. Think for example of the Silicon Valley type of guys where there is definitely masculinity/sexism issues but not per se the lumberjack variety.

I'm having trouble articulating this. Part of what I'm trying to say is the book caused me to reflect exclusively on the men I know, and how they and I relate to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm not a native English speaker, but at some point around 6 years ago I decided to try for it and ordered a paperback copy. The Wardine section right off the bat, and then the yrstruly section almost made me drop it enterily but boy, am I glad I didn't. 

 

For the amount of times I had heard this book described as "challenging", I've found the read relatively straightforward in terms of vocabulary at least (maybe having a maths/engineering background helped there, since DFW tends to borrow lots of words from that, just like Pynchon does). I'm now on my third read, this time reading the Brazilian Portuguese translation that just came out last year. I find it very difficult to articulate what exactly it is that I love about Infinite Jest; it just feels right.

 

That being said, yes, I'd say it's a male-centric book. Joelle and Kate Gompert seem to be the only female characters that get fully constructed. I would have loved some vignette from an Avril Incandenza POV, even though I understand why it is that we don't get any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book is pretty biased towards male figures. The footnotes on the Incandenza's father's (Him's) oeuvre are more nuanced, labored character development than pretty much anybody else gets in the entire book. It's worshipful and cathartic in a way that reminds me a lot of the kind of relationships most white, male authors have with their fathers in modern literary fiction as authority figures first but with human flaws esp. w/r/t things typically associated with masculine performativity ie worklife, competency, reservedness, and distance (see the neurotic father in The Corrections or the gang leader in Motherless Brooklyn).

 

With regards to the old flame war comment posted by Jake, it reminded me a lot of the behaviors described in Robin DiAngelo's paper on cognition by whites who are dominant in power structures of their privileges and the obeisance to whiteness as default. There's a black character, sure, but he's described in such an incredibly white, middle-class frame, almost as if he's a mythic demigod of self-assuredness and action. The same with the trans character. They're all approached with that heavy DFW overtone of neurosis and analysis that renders them academically sterile, almost as if you're reading a psychologist cum theorists diagnosis of their backstory and motivations.

 

Wasn't a huge fan of the book but people love themselves DFW in spite of DT Max's bio's unveiling of his attitude towards, in his words, 'audience pussy.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble articulating this. Part of what I'm trying to say is the book caused me to reflect exclusively on the men I know, and how they and I relate to the world.

 

Really great post, but I liked this part especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA wasn't a boys school was it? I'm wracking my brain, but I can't remember. Though as a sports academy the players would be a bit segregated by gender anyway, nevermind typical 80s adolescence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA wasn't a boys school was it? I'm wracking my brain, but I can't remember. Though as a sports academy the players would be a bit segregated by gender anyway, nevermind typical 80s adolescence. 

 

There are definitely girls there as well, they just (as of page 182) hardly get mentioned.

 

And yeah, I totally agree it's not a negative that the book focuses so squarely on male characters - if that's the story DFW wanted to tell, then by all means, it was his right to tell it. I suppose it's (very mildly) off-putting to me, on some level, as I think I'm primed to identify more strongly with women characters in fiction.

 

Maybe that's a failing on my part? I'm certainly not incapable of identifying strongly with male characters, just more prone to feeling mildly alienated.

 

As a little jock, though, I actually really love the tennis stuff, the grueling workout descriptions, etc. Because of course I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sarah, that means a lot coming from you :)

 

Danielle, I knew you'd get a big kick out of the sporty stuff. I assume you're familiar with DFW's tennis writing? I'm particularly fond of his Federer piece.

 

I can definitely empathise with having trouble with a book focused strongly on the other side of the gender divide. I remember Zadie Smith's NW in particular being tough for me in that regard. One of the amazing things I've found about Alice Munro is the way she manages to bridge that gap in her writing so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presence of DFW, Zadie Smith, and Alice Munro is making this my current favorite thread. (Danielle, please make the next Idle Thumbs episode a stealth Bookcast revival where you talk about Infinite Jest.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Danielle, please make the next Idle Thumbs episode a stealth Bookcast revival where you talk about Infinite Jest.)

Seconded!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirded! 

 

 

There are definitely girls there as well, they just (as of page 182) hardly get mentioned.

 

Yeah, it took a little googling, but there was a woman named Ann Kittenplan playing THE GREAT GAME. no spoilers. 

 

And to tag onto Osmosich's post, one of the first stories in A Supposedly Fun Thing is also an autobiographical narrative of his early jr pro days. That whole book is amazing, and super Thumbs Friendly, with an amazing section of David Lynch. (another point for Argobot's favdom?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now