Infinite Jest
discussion
No One Should Read Infinite Jest more than Once (Making Sense of IJ)
date
newest »
newest »
I do agree with some of your points, Zach. But here's why one should read it again, as you said: "Infinite Jest can be opened from any page and enjoyed as if the book were a series of short stories that happen to have common characters." I enjoy picking random sections (in between the helpful little squares if there are no chapter headings), and dig in to the amusing and/or tragic prose when I have a few moments to spare.
Couldn't finish it the first time. Why would I read it twice? #theresmoretolife
Alas, poor Yorick!
Zach said: " IJ is a massive novel (seemingly Infinite during one's immersion) and it is all a joke (Jest)."
That's one explanation of the title's meaning. Another is that it is a reference to the character Yorick in Shakespeare's Hamlet:
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? Your gambols? Your songs? Your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?" Act V, scene 1
This is the scene where they are examining a scull. It happens to be Yorik's, and Hamlet expounds upon the impossibility of reconciling the joyous nature of his friend when alive and the grimness of what is left: a scull. DFW is by no means the first person to take up the thread of this sort of existential angst in Hamlet. Tom Stoppard made a whole play out of the doomed comedic pair Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from Hamlet. None of this necessarily contradicts your interpretation since this emphasis is based upon the seeming impossibility of the fact we do all we do, we laugh, love, and work and for what? To end up a scull and skeleton? It makes it seem as if existence is just some giant unceasing joke.
Zach write: "The concept Wallace intended to confer with the title is that the entire plot is a meta-joke in that the plot is a phantasm that can only be interpreted to make sense once an individual internalizes the book and theorizes what could have happened."
I'm not sure what that means regarding IJ that wouldn't apply to any book.
But as for your other points, there isn't anything very concrete or specific that suggests that you are supposed to re-read it and even if it were so, for what? If you're going to suggest that the whole point of Infinite Jest is to get the reader to reread it, you might postulate what the point of that might be. Further, drawing a parallel between Infinite Jest and the Samizdat seems like it should require that you fit into that comparison the fact that people would watch the Samizdat and become so engrossed as to abandon all other activities (including eating) and die. That's parallel with a re-reading?
Zach wrote:" Wallace wrote IJ with the sole intention of making the reader believe that the story must be reviewed to be fully understood...."
That was his sole intention? Arguing from author's intent is tricky enough without boiling down all of their motivations to your one interpretation: reread it.
As for the "hidden key" for the plot, you seem to use "plot" and "point" and "meaning" interchangeably. The plot, which was actually a collection of sub-plots, was not enigmatic to me. While rendered out of order and containing a few gaps, they were still pretty straightfoward as to what happened. I won't sum them up here because there are summaries of the various subplots all over the internet that you could look up. Or you could re-read it. :P
The allusion to Hamlet is even more apparent in the last paragraph of the first "chapter" when Hal says he dug up James Incandenza's skull with the help of Don Gately (and someone else? I dont have the book on hand...)
Really?! I don't remember that at all! I guess I'll have to re-read it (his plot all along) :D
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Unsurprisingly, the Samizdat (J.O.I.'s Infinite Jest VI) was a blatant metaphor for Wallace's Infinite Jest. Neither the plot of Infinite Jest nor the plot of the Samizdat are ever fully explained. The novel's symbolism is overt and the themes are heavy handed (abuse, addiction, annulation, depression, entertainment/mass media, solitude), just as J.O.I.'s films are described as having a thematic bluntness (depression, entertainment, grief, infidelity, pain, solitude) by the fictitious critics of the novel's universe. Both Wallace and J.O.I. use anti-confluentalism and are regarded as virtuosic in their respective arts. Trying to make sense of IJ's expansive realm and to formulate a fitting conclusion is tantamount to writing an ebullient review of Incandenza's “found drama.” DFW's prose is technically golden, but he is an ineffective storyteller; just as Incandenza was a technical genius with optics, but was criticized for his plot development. Infinite Jest can be opened from any page and enjoyed as if the book were a series of short stories that happen to have common characters. This is why Wallace seemingly makes errors with dates and certain near-homophones that do not appear to be on character's behalf; it makes no difference because the abundant details and incongruities serve only as an elaborate ruse formulated for confusion. The readers are supposed to believe that they missed some hidden key to unlock the meaning of IJ; this inspires a rereading. This book is simply too long (and let's face it, silly) for more than one reading.
In the novel, individuals that view the Samizdat are consumed by its euphoria-inducing properties and become trapped in a cataleptic state continually re-watching the film until they slough their mortal coils in front of the screen. IJ was designed to dupe the reader into believing that it needs to be reread. The Wraith is a red-herring deviously concocted to allow the mental gymnastics, on behalf of the reader, that make this book the genius achievement that it is. The Wraith functions as a deus ex machina to be contemplated by the reader. Wallace wrote IJ with the sole intention of making the reader believe that the story must be reviewed to be fully understood, yet all the reader must understand is the hilarity of IJ; it is little more than a series of crudely linked jokes within technically superb sentences.
What then of the various theories that claim to unify the 1,079 pages of brilliant and excruciating detail under a decisive conclusion? Under close examination, none of the theories that I have encountered are complete. Even the best theories that I have read lack the elegance and lucidity required to properly explain this novel. Thanks to all of the poor souls that hashed out absurdly esoteric theories regarding the novels denouement, I was able to devise this theory with only one reading under my belt.
The concept Wallace intended to confer with the title is that the entire plot is a meta-joke in that the plot is a phantasm that can only be interpreted to make sense once an individual internalizes the book and theorizes what could have happened. However, there is too much missing information to confirm any plot theory that fills in the gaps.
Readers should understand from the start that IJ is a massive novel (seemingly Infinite during one's immersion) and it is all a joke (Jest). I believe that DFW crafted the novel as such to instill the feelings of isolation experienced by most of the characters. The book is analogous to a drug that beckons the user back with the illusion that something more will be experienced upon the next use.