Infinite Jest – David Foster Wallace discussion
This topic is about
Infinite Jest
General Group Threads
>
General Chit-Chat
Ali wrote: "I wasn't criticising it. It doesn't matter to me if you want to be off-topic or not, especially since you're not even close to starting the book, although it might when you begin. She thought she was behind on the discussion, and I wanted to let her know what to expect. The fact that half the messages are pointless and off-topic is neither good or bad. It just is. ."All is well. I think because there's a lot of advanced notice that these general discussion threads are likely to be pretty stream of consciousness, and they will still be here when we all start IJ. (Those of us reading IJ and Proust simultaneously are likely to get pretty punchy, anyway!) But as Mary said, we'll definitely have more specific threads for IJ discussion as we start reading in December/January.
Stephen M., you are still in charge of general merriment.
Pretty punchy indeed! I can't wait!!The other thing that makes be salivate in both groups is all the other recommendations for extra credit reading...I think that is "resources" here and "auxiliary reading" in Proust.
Marieke wrote: "Pretty punchy indeed! I can't wait!!The other thing that makes be salivate in both groups is all the other recommendations for extra credit reading...I think that is "resources" here and "auxilia..."
I feel the same way, Marieke - I've been filling up my tbr shelf and ordering books as quickly as I can.
Stephen M wrote: "I take responsibility for off topic discussions and other pointless, witty banter that makes Goodread's comment threads the delight they are."Hah, I think he was referring to me, since I was message 51.
I wasn't criticising it....."two-line pointless joke messages" is fairly critical. As well as "pointless and off-topic."
Moira wrote: "Hah, I think he was referring to me, since I was message 51"*Slaps Moira's wrist* See what you did?!
Mary wrote: "Moira wrote: "Hah, I think he was referring to me, since I was message 51"*Slaps Moira's wrist* See what you did?!"
It's always nice to be considered pointless and off-topic.
Ali wrote: "Not taking into account differences in editions, the minimum is 8588 pages. Proust is 4211, RIARD is 3298, and IJ is 1079. If you read 24 pages a day, you will get it done in one year, unless you finish IJ before beginning Proust Et al, in which case we would subtract IJ'S pages from the year's quota, leaving you with 7509 pages to read, which can be finished with twenty and a half pages a day for one year. If you want to be really lazy and only read Proust, assuming you want to read the Modern Library six pack which does not include the Davis translation (4211 pages), you can finish him off in one year by reading twelve pages a day. "This is reassuring! No need to only read Proust. I bet we could also add in some Gaddis too.
OK, time out on the discussion of pointless and off-topic. (moderator mode on!)This is a general thread, and the group read is quite a way off. I think we can combine humor and focused conversation in this group, and participating should be fun (dammit!), not a chore for anyone.
Since this is a general thread, I think it's hard to be off-topic on it, especially given the fact that we are still in prep mode for the IJ discussion.
Ali, you've stated that you didn't mean anything critical by your comment. I take you at your word. A number of people have gone on the record saying that they like the tenor of the conversation here, and Mary and I are trying to preserve this thread as a space for general conversation among group members.
I'm hoping everyone continues to make this atmosphere fun and welcoming for everyone - I've loved the tenor of conversation so far, and it's so good to see that many people who have never read IJ before are comfortable being here.
OK, moderator mode off - let the general merriment continue.
Didn't mean to cause a stir, my comment was only in jest.Let us not get too serious lest we forget the value of entertainment.
Sometimes I feel like certain comments can get quite addicting. They are a tough habit to break.
Sometimes I leave so many comments, they just seem infinite.
Stephen M wrote: "Didn't mean to cause a stir, my comment was only in jest.Let us not get to serious lest we forget the value of entertainment.
Sometimes I feel like certain comments can get quite addicting. They..."
Well done!
Moira wrote: "Stephen M wrote: "I take responsibility for off topic discussions and other pointless, witty banter that makes Goodread's comment threads the delight they are."Hah, I think he was referring to me..."
I was referring to message 103. Message 51 was actually great, not off topic. Personal experiences are invaluable to a book like IJ.
Well, whether or not he meant to be critical with the "pointless" comment, this is really personal and attacking me:Off-topic is just logically true since we haven't exactly been discussing IJ or the process of reading it in a while, and the fact that you are taking that as a criticism says more about you than my message. Your later accusations after that message are just ridiculous, and I won't even respond to them. But fine. You both appear to be determined to demonize what I said even though I didn't mean any malice by it. Thinkk what you want. I will be moving on, since I know this discussion is going to lead nowhere and none of it matters. It wouldn't be the first time you've made unfounded assumptions and refused to rethink them after logic was presented to you. Or the second. Or...
So no, I am sorry, but this does not feel like a particularly fun or welcoming spot for me right now.
I guess I'm more interested in what would be considered on point for a thread named "General chit-chat."
Moira wrote: "Well, whether or not he meant to be critical with the "pointless" comment, this is really personal and attacking me:Off-topic is just logically true since we haven't exactly been discussing IJ or..."
I can see that, Moira, and I'm sorry - I should have referenced that comment in my last message as well.
Group rule -- to be added to the rules for the discussion group - no personal comments criticizing other group members. Discussion needs to be respectful. You can disagree with others' interpretations, but no personal attacks.
I'll message you separately, Moira. I'm sorry about this.
Kris wrote: "I'll message you separately, Moira. I'm sorry about this. "Thank you - I do appreciate that. I will admit I was pretty taken aback.
Jason wrote: "I guess I'm more interested in what would be considered on point for a thread named "General chit-chat.""No comments at all ever by me? I am guessing.
I hereby announce that general chit-chat is general. Please feel free to comment on anything at all.
Generally speaking, that general comment about general comments was general in both tone and content Kris. Good job.
Moira wrote: "No comments at all ever by me? I am guessing."Ha! Your entire existence is off-topic, Moira!
Stephen M wrote: "Didn't mean to cause a stir, my comment was only in jest.Let us not get too serious lest we forget the value of entertainment."
HAH
....http://dfan.org/jest.txt picks up the Hamlet references (if you scroll down they're about 1/3 of the way through the text I think). Of course, if anyone has a digital copy, they might be easier to find than flipping through the behemoth....I forgot what a monster that thing is while rereading parts of it the other day. The paperback is actually sort of hard to hold open!
Moira wrote: "Stephen M wrote: "Didn't mean to cause a stir, my comment was only in jest.Let us not get too serious lest we forget the value of entertainment."
HAH
....http://dfan.org/jest.txt picks up the Ha..."
Excellent - I love nothing more than some good references. :)
Kris wrote: "I hereby announce that general chit-chat is general. Please feel free to comment on anything at all."
I don't think anyone needs to worry about a lack of on-topic IJ analysis, seeing it's one of the most consistently over-reviewed and over-analysed books on this site. We haven't even started yet and already I'm overwhelmed.
Jason wrote: "Ha! Your entire existence is off-topic, Moira!"....THIS EXPLAINS MANY THINGS
It also does seem a little weird to complain about things getting off-topic in a discussion of Infinite Jest of all books. I mean it's pretty much got EVERYTHING in there, that's why I love it. Sort of like Hamlet! (Well, IJ has no pirates. Or at least I don't remember it having pirates. Are there pirates? Do the Wheelchair Assassins count as pirates?)
Stephen M wrote: "Kris wrote: "I hereby announce that general chit-chat is general. Please feel free to comment on anything at all.""
Ha!
When I wrote that, I felt like I was channeling a Monty Python skit.
Kris wrote: "Excellent - I love nothing more than some good references. :) "And IJ has lots of them!
I remember other people mentioning maybe less obvious references/parallels - Hamlet opens with "Who's there?" and IJ responds "I am," Gately can be seen as Horatio I think it was, Joelle is sort of like the Player Queen?, things like that. I don't remember offhand DFW talking directly about Hamlet a lot elsewhere, though.
Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Moira wrote: "Well, IJ has no pirates. Or at least I don't remember it having pirates. Are there pirates?"It ain't got swords either. Or does it? If you need swords, A Naked Singularity's got s..."
If it doesn't have swords or pirates literally, is there any way we could add them in symbolically? A new maritime interpretive frame?
Stephen M wrote: ""Puns = great
Puns + dogs wearing glasses and reading a book = priceless
Nathan "N.R." wrote: "It ain't got swords either. Or does it? If you need swords, A Naked Singularity's got s..."Oh great, now someone else says IJ is "carefully patterned on the Brothers Karamazov." http://independent.academia.edu/Timot... I join MJ in feeling overwhelmed.
Stephen M wrote: "[spoilers removed]"I know! Yeah, the book doesn't have "spoilers" per se, but I don't want to ruin (view spoiler) for first-time readers.
Kris wrote: "A new maritime interpretive frame? "NOW you're talking, I bet there hasn't been a thesis written on that yet. "Cankers Away: A Literary Consideration of Hal's Dry Mouth As It Relates to Scurvy in Moby-Dick," or something. (I kid because I love, I went to grad school for about six years)
Stephen M wrote: "Message 51 was actually great, not off topic. Personal experiences are invaluable to a book like IJ."Aww thanks - yeah, I was just actually talking about 'the AA narrative' and narrative theory in general with a friend of mine who's training to become a trauma therapist, and apparently encouraging people to try to kind of create a new narrative for their own lives is part of treatment (AA does this specifically: "Our stories disclose in a general way what we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now" which seems to fit in with IJ's structure of stories and messages). And with AA, the 12-step movement in general, you are really encouraged to fit in the general narrative framework (to the point where people complain about memoirs of addiction all sounding the same - Lidia Yuknavitch even complained in The Memory of Water that she couldn't write about addiction in a way that didn't fit that narrative, it wasn't acceptable). -- I certainly don't think people need to know about AA to understand IJ, but if you know its culture a little bit, it can open up some things.
Stephen M wrote: "One of my favorite parts! Going back and rereading that first chapter."It is pretty wild, yeah - and Hal also says, what is it, the Kekuléan knot in the tie, and that's like the structure of the book - the snake biting its tail. Not quite a perfect loop, like Finnegans Wake, but recurring (also the notion of "addiction as circular" is pretty common in the recovery movement). (view spoiler)
Also (view spoiler)
I think (view spoiler) ....haah, this comment is nothing but spoiler tags, whoops.
I can't wait to have this discussion with everyone else when we all finish. I love the (view spoiler) But that still leaves the question of the last line, which I'm making it a project of mine to read for this time around. I really want to make sense of it, even though it is so damn beautiful and maybe my inability to "interpret" it makes it beautiful. For any Jesters, thoughts on the last line?I'm definitely on board with you about the "loop" of addiction. It is also the infinite loop of entertainment—or at least our insatiable desire for entertainment—that carries significant thematic weight throughout the book.
Stephen M wrote: "I can't wait to have this discussion with everyone else when we all finish.I KNOW, RIGHT
I love the (spoiler) theory of yours.
I will seriously believe forever that (view spoiler)
But that still leaves the question of the last line, which I'm making it a project of mine to read for this time around. I really want to make sense of it, even though it is so damn beautiful and maybe my inability to "interpret" it makes it beautiful.
It's definitely sort of....haunting and at the End of Everything-ish. It reminds me a little of the deserted beach the guy sees in the H.G. Wells book (a far-fetched reference, I know. But hey, DFW read Carrie and Westerns! Why not?). Maybe also a little of the famous bit at the end of Gatsby with Nick by the shore thinking about the flowing past.
I'm definitely on board with you about the "loop" of addiction. It is also the infinite loop of entertainment—or at least our insatiable desire for entertainment—that carries significant thematic weight throughout the book.
Oh, yeah. I have heard (view spoiler)
I just created a spoiler discussion thread, so anyone who has already read all of Infinite Jest should feel free to engage in spoiler-filled discussions there to your heart's content!
I've decided not to read the endnotes upon my re-read. I'm happy to be whipped for my negligence, but they added nothing to the book for me.
(This in reference to Moira's kindle status re endnotes)
MJ wrote: "I've decided not to read the endnotes upon my re-read. I'm happy to be whipped for my negligence, but they added nothing to the book for me."Well I'm certainly happy to whip you for your - oh dear, that came out wrong.
Kris wrote: "I just created a spoiler discussion thread, so anyone who has already read all of Infinite Jest should feel free to engage in spoiler-filled discussions there to your heart's content!"I'm a glutton for punishment. I poked my nose in that thread and the first thing I saw was "who thinks so-and-so died in the the end?" eeeek! Reverse. I need to stay outta there!
I'm going to miss reading the posts with spoilers. Only because the spoiler tag made a bleeeep noise in my head. It was very funny to read the posts that way.(the spoiler thread will make things much easier. I am totally in favor of it. Just to be clear.)
I poked my nose in that thread and the first thing I saw was "who thinks so-and-so died in the the end?" eeeek! Reverse. I need to stay outta there! OH DEAR. I'm sorry, did I ruin it for you??
Infinite Jest – David Foster Wallace
Books mentioned in this topic
Women and Men (other topics)The Quincunx (other topics)
Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story: A Life of David Foster Wallace (other topics)
A Suitable Boy (other topics)
The Devil's Details: A History of Footnotes (other topics)
More...
Welcome aboard, Melody! And there's plenty of time to catch up.