Infinite Jest
discussion
does anybody want to talk about Infinite Jest?
I just finished (and started again) and I just have to talk about it somewhere :). Before reading about this DMZ theory, I had wondered if the totally absurd nature of every main story except Don Gately's, meant the whole thing was somehow his hallucination - or maybe Hal's since he's the only 1st person pov - but that was just based on the overall feeling of reality in the settings and events, rather than concrete clues. It's really interesting to see it analysed for those things in this thread. I sort of hoped, though, that there would be no answer, and that the book was just arranged to tell the story of drug addiction from top to bottom (or more bottom to middle, back to bottom) and that the absurd story lines (including a toxic wasteland created by an inability to deal with problems, an infinitely addictive entertainment, and a tennis academy with a lot in common in terms of discipline and despair with a drug and alcohol recovery house) are just ways to tell that story. I thought of Hal's and Don's stories as being two halves of a descent to the bottom (they both contain a rejection from college on academic grounds, which might be some sort of hand over point), with maybe their difference in social class meaning just one couldn't tell the whole thing and deciding what particular bottom each of them will reach.
Jerome: that happens to me with a lot of books; although, since it's usually something one would only notice when it does happen, it's kind of hard to credit certain books with triggering it. For example, in 7th grade I was in a big spelling bee and lost on the word "brigand," which I had never heard before. Within a month, I was reading Lord of the Rings, in which it appears several times. These coincidences are one of the things that make life interesting, regardless of where they turn up.Also, as Wallace said, re IJ: "Nothing is in there by chance." He's in your very soul!
Somebody sent me the book while I was in jail for a DUI. Couldn't have possibly been a more appropriate time to read it.
I wonder how many of us who love this book have had own battles with chronic depression and substance abuse/addiction?
Sarah: and, as DFW stresses, anything can be an addiction, even 12-Steps, until one "end[s] up sitting in a bare chair, nude, in an unfurnished room, not moving but also not sleeping or meditating or abstracting, too advanced to stomach the thought of the potential emotional escape of doing anything whatsoever, and just end up sitting there completely motion- and escapeless until a long time later all that's found in the empty chair is a very fine dusting of off-white ashy stuff that you can wipe away completely with like one damp paper towel."Anyone interested in further explorations of IJ readers who are working out some form of substance abuse might enjoy the Infinite Detox blog.
Morgannah wrote: "DFW had a self professed addiction to watching t.v. and movies. If you guys haven't already read [book:Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself: A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace|691696..."There's a movie coming out based on this book, starring Jason Segel as DFW
Kirk, great blog. Thanks.I don't recognize the quote, "end[s] up sitting in a bare chair, nude ..." Is that from IJ? If so, can you help me find it? If not, what is it from?
Sarah, it is indeed from IJ: footnote 70 to the long section which begins, "If, by virtue of charity or the circumstance of desperation, you ever chance to spend a little time around a Substance-recovery halfway facility like Enfield MA's state-funded Ennett House, you will acquire many exotic new facts." I don't have a copy in front of me, but from memory that was somewhere around page 150-200. One of my many favorite passages. In my Goodreads "review" for IJ I have more quotes from that passage, although I'm not good about noting page numbers, unfortunately.
I love how IJ's chapter and narrator rhythms resemble the relentless serves and volleys of a tennis match! Cool blog, Kirk.
Let's cast our own movie - whom do we see playing David?
Sarah wrote: "Let's cast our own movie - whom do we see playing David?"Sarah wrote: "Let's cast our own movie - whom do we see playing David?"
I'm actually working on a screenplay based around A Supposedly Fun Thing, using both the state fair and cruise ship things. It's just something i'm kind of doing on a whim. I have no idea how to shop it around or get the rights or anything. But I have a friend from high school (David Furr) that's had numerous TV parts, a few commercials, some film, and some Shakespeare in the Park-type things. I think he'd be a perfect Wallace. He's kind of got the look and definitely the attitude--that sort of balance of introversion/humility and competitiveness and easy-going conversationalist.
@ Spenser. I don't understand, you mean to include the author in portraying his fiction from BIwHM? Wouldn't that violate certain (rules, oh gosh) ppl's idea of lit. a la Barthes? And were you aware that a movie was made for BIwHM?
I don't know what you mean by BIwHM. I'm trying to write something akin to Fear and Loathing or The Rum Diaries with Wallace as the main character using two nonfiction essays. Well--mostly nonfiction. I think DFW gets pretty "creative" at times.
Oh sorry, I'm not sure why I thought I read Brief Interviews in your comment. My mistake. Since you're using the essays I'd say first of all 'wow', that shld be tough so I commend the effort. Getting the permission from the magazines though would be smthng else altogether.
The magazines, the book publisher, the widow.... Lots of hurdles. Plus, I'm kind of stuck right now. The cruise ship essay isn't exactly chronological, so it's hard to know how to structure the thing. I'll get on a good streak and then just stop dead, but I'm making slow progress. It's really more of an exercise in trying to adapt a literary work for the screen, but if I ever finish it, i may try and send it out to some people. I'd like to see Brief Interviews sometime--I watched the trailer on youtube.
Sarah, I've been pondering a suitable actor for DFW and drawing a blank. None of the stars come to mind. It's difficult to come up with somebody who embodies both the physical and mental qualities. Surely there's someone out there who looks just like him, but would they be able to convey the right balance of intelligence and humility? Or speak large words without it sounding like a bad Woody Allen film? Most likely, some lesser-known actor or a complete unknown would be required. Had you anyone in mind?
I like David Furr's looks - wonder if he's got the voice, though. I think that's essential.
trying to envision him with a bandana...
Christian Bale is chameleonic enough to play DFW. Eddie Redmayne could also pull it off. Bale is the better age range.
Kirk wrote: "trying to envision him with a bandana..."Some stubble and a Spiderman hat and he'd ace it.
definitely a great book; not simply because i like it, but in the wider world of literature. LLOTR is not such great wriiting. Yes it gets you emotional and enjoying the struggle but that makes the book all about you. we ask writers to do more than that.
I came across a passage in The Broom of the System that reminded me of one of Orin's seduction strategies: Orin: "Tell me what sort of man you prefer, and then I’ll affect the demeanor of that man." (1048)
Rick Vigorous to Lenore Beadsman: "List the features on the basis of which you love me, and I will exercise them unmercifully, until they grow and swell to fill the field of your emotional sight." (286)
If anyone happens to be floating around, this is perhaps a crafty wink at Hal being the narrator, although nothing concrete of course: "It's going to be interesting to see if [sic] Hal, who thinks he's just too sly trying to outline Eschaton in the 3rd person tense [sic]" etc., etc. That would be endnote 124. This may refer to Hal's role as the writer of the Eschaton handbook, but it does offer an aforementioned 'crafty wink.'
Also, endnote 127: "A lot of these little toss-ins and embellishments are Inc amusing himself," and this footnote is referring directly to something from the text itself. Again, this isn't concrete, certainly, but offers some possibility.
I remember taking those footnotes as coming from the Peemster, because isn't that the same section where Pemulis is explaining Eschaton or something and it uses the chart and "Halsadick" or something like that as the x/y axis?
It is, except that Penisless via Hal says something like "Hal is sitting there not taking notes because he knows he can write down word for word what I'm telling him later," suggesting that it's a transcript by Hal of Pemulis describing the math behind Eschaton, etc.
Crap, I'd forgotten how heavily layered that was. Okay, if Hal is the narrator, how then to account for the sections where he's not present and wouldn't have been told the story later on, like when Orin is held by the AFR?Another question, how does knowing the narrator's identity affect the story? In other words, does it matter who is narrating? Maybe I'm just getting lazy about not trying to figure it out now.
Kirk wrote: "Crap, I'd forgotten how heavily layered that was. Okay, if Hal is the narrator, how then to account for the sections where he's not present and wouldn't have been told the story later on, like whe..."There is a theory that I once read in a well-thought out essay (this was years ago-- I'll have to see if I can still find it) that Hal is narrating the sections he does not appear in because those sections are the movie "Infinite Jest" that Hal happens to be watching. There is a line near the beginning about how Hal and John Wayne "dig up my father's head." I'm paraphrasing-- been a long time since I've read both the novel and the essay-- but at the time it made a lot of god damn sense.
I haven't seen the DFW movie out yet, but heard from a friend in NYC that it was worth it...any of you guys checked it out?
PS - am in southern Virginia, so may have to drive to DC or another major city to catch it.
I saw the movie around the time it came out. It's ok for what it is but they played up DFW's more eccentric qualities and turned him into a bit of a caricature of himself.It's a movie though so I can understand why they'd want to spice things up rather than being 100% accurate.
That's hard to answer. I haven't read Dalgren, but I did find IJ more accessible than Pynchon. And much more rewarding. But I think you really do need to read it at least twice. Last time that I read it, I couldn't wait to get home from work and let my mind connect with the mind of IJ. I felt a kind of withdrawal when I finished. Sarah
In general DFW's style isn't complex compared to Pynchon's or that of anyone who writes in a comparable way. Infinite Jest is massive, and going back and forth between the main text and endnotes can be disorienting if you're not used to things like that, but the individual parts themselves aren't hard to understand. Most of the difficulty just comes from the length itself and actually remembering little details that you would've glossed over 300-500 pages ago that in retrospect suddenly become relevant. The narrative itself isn't 100% linear but a lot of it follows a fairly logical progression.Authors like Pynchon (at least the Pynchon of V. and Gravity's Rainbow anyway) use more heavily disjointed narratives and/or go on long metaphysical reveries that are more symbolic/abstract than what DFW typically did.
I actually prefer the more abstract style myself because it opens up all sorts of aesthetic possibilities that a more lucid style precludes due to the more rigid structure it imposes on writing, but I can see why most people would find it hard to relate to or connect with on a personal level since it can be thought of as being detached from reality as it's experienced by them.
IJ is about addiction, recovery, loneliness, depression, solipsism, and how "They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you."That's about all I can handle.
Sarah
If that works for you, that's fine, but writing doesn't necessarily have to be about concrete themes or characters. Personally, I'm always more impressed by books that create unique aesthetic experiences or touch on ideas beyond the obvious or universal.One of the best examples of this is Finnegans Wake. It's the sort of book 99% of people would call incomprehensible gibberish but I got more out of it than I got out of countless books that are considered relevant, meaningful, entertaining, or accessible by most people.
Yeah, the "Wake" offers unexpected nuggets of pleasure, particularly when read aloud. I love DFW's sentences, but they're not always delicious when spoken...ah, the beauty of books.
On the last two posts, y'all mentioned the words "aesthetic" and "beauty" - and isn't that the reason art exists in the first place? We can talk about themes and "meaning," of what's relevant and of social value until the cows come home. But what separates the artist from the english teacher is the creation of something beautiful. Thomas Aquinas knew it, Joyce knew it, and apparently Wallace knew it.
Nice!...Nabokov (and his ruthless pursuit of aesthetic beauty) would have loved DFW and he did love Ulysses but then hated FW, called it gibberish (Strong Opinions). Eye of the beholder, Phil - I love the Wake. I just read the unfinished Pale King not too long ago, and it's great - wish DFW had lived on and finished it.
What'd he call FW? A misshapen Christmas pudding or something? Haha...I liked FW for the reason you mentioned - the unexpected nuggets - but Ulysses is like...fully constructed from those nuggets. I actually read Infinite Jest because I heard so much trash talked about it - I went into it expecting not to like it and was pleasantly surprised.
Who do you guys think is the greater writer between DFW and Sam DelanyInfinite Jest vs. Dhalgren?
I haven't read Dhalgren - I'd never heard of it until a few weeks ago, but it is on my list now, so guess I will get back to you on that one...
Marcus wrote: "Who do you guys think is the greater writer between DFW and Sam DelanyInfinite Jest vs. Dhalgren?"
Which Delany work do you recommend I (we) read, Marcus? (Not familiar with Delany's work.) Crash
Phil wrote: "What'd he call FW? A misshapen Christmas pudding or something? Haha...I liked FW for the reason you mentioned - the unexpected nuggets - but Ulysses is like...fully constructed from those nuggets. ..."That's a great experience - going in expecting one thing and then getting blindsided by the terrific train! And I forgot about that misshapen pudding line, hahaha.
DFW definitely the better writer!
I finally read Dhalgren. DFW is hands-down the better writer. Forget Delany. Read every word ever written by DFW. At least twice.
I'm reading it right now. I still have around 400 pages left and I must say I haven't enjoyed a book that much for a long time.
This is my experience of reading Infinite Jest: It took me 43 days to read it; I've divided the book into 9 sections and between each section I took a 1-2 day break in which I read short stories or plays by other writers. The experience was very enjoyable and I'm sure I'll repeat it with other long works.As mos of you know, the book was published in 1996 but it depicts a futuristic dystopian period in the year 2009. In the book, The US, Canada and Mexico have become one large country under the name of O.N.A.N. or The Organisation of North American Nations (note how Wallace plays with acronyms in the whole book), each year is subsidized by a specific corporate sponsor. 2009 is Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment (Y.D.A.U.). The novel appears at first to be very fragmented but there are three major plots going on and as you read the relations between the three becomes clearer: 1-The Enfield Tennis Academy 2-Ennet House; a Drug and Alcohol Recovery House 3- The AFR or the Wheelchair Assassins,a Québécois separatist group. The three main plots are connected by 'Infinite Jest' a lethal movie that is so entertaining that anyone who sees it will be compelled to watch it over and over without doing anything else till s/he dies.
The novel goes back and forth in time and the narrators change all the time. There are long end notes which have important details and this technique is used to disrupt the linearity of events and to "fracture the narrative."
If you've read other works by Wallace you'll realise that he is interested in some ideas like how entertainment and TV are corrupting culture.This idea is discussed elaborately in the book.Another idea is that Wallace sees irony and black humour, a tradition started with the 1950s literature, as should be replaced with what he calls 'sincerity' or direct honesty because "irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself ...Irony’s gone from liberating to enslaving." So in Infinite Jest, there is something different like a redeeming quality. He achieves this by making the reader empathize with the characters and feel for their pain and think of their weaknesses without judging them.
Wallace was very anxious in all of his works to depict the difficulty of being a human being and I believe this is why he chose to make his book long and complicated and so full of small, seemingly unimportant, details.
The most enjoyable thing in reading Infinite Jest, for me, was that warm feeling of communion and empathy towards the characters. Wallace's characters are human beings,sometimes fragile or damaged, and yet beautifully and intricately human and I think that this was his aim all along;to make his readers feel that sort of compassion and empathy.I believe in Infinite Jest wallace is saying what he said few years later in "This Is Water," only in a more artistic and complicated way.
It may help understanding the book more if you read, or have an idea, about these two articles by Wallace:
“E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction,” from his essay collection A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again.
"This Is Water," Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion,
about Living a Compassionate Life.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
V. (other topics)
Gravity’s Rainbow (other topics)
The Broom of the System (other topics)
DMT: The Spirit Molecule (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Finnegans Wake (other topics)V. (other topics)
Gravity’s Rainbow (other topics)
The Broom of the System (other topics)
DMT: The Spirit Molecule (other topics)
More...
Consider two things.
1 - In the center of your brain a very, very, very minute ch..."
DMZ seems like some sort of cross between DXM and DMT. DXM in the sense that people high on DXM have some part of them that is totally conscious and aware of what's going on, but can barely walk or talk. And their demeanor is almost Hyde-like. DMT is also said to become highly active in the life-to-death transition. There's a pretty good book about DMT called DMT: The Spirit Molecule.