Topic: what are you going to do to celebrate infinite jest's 20th anniversary next year, fora?
hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs started this discussion 11 years ago #42,190
you can never plan too earlyi, for one, will buy the inevitable reprint of the book because mine is battered up and covered in coffee stains. it's still readable but it looks ugly
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #560,321
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 37 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #560,325
i dont know who or what that is
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #560,326
Tell us about the book, Hamfist. Why is it a big deal, and what is it about?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,327
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
it's david foster wallace's opus. it's post-postmodern lit, and it is very much not an easy read. it has as many footnotes as it has body text.
it's david foster wallace's opus. it's post-postmodern lit, and it is very much not an easy read. it has as many footnotes as it has body text.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,328
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,329
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,330
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,331
@560,329 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
it's all in english, so it's not finnegan's wake difficult, more like Gravity's rainbow but instead of highly details descriptions of rockets and BDSM it's full of highly detailed descriptions of tennis practice and avantgarde movies.
it's all in english, so it's not finnegan's wake difficult, more like Gravity's rainbow but instead of highly details descriptions of rockets and BDSM it's full of highly detailed descriptions of tennis practice and avantgarde movies.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,332
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,333
@560,331 (squeegee)
Okay but what KIND of avant-garde? With shit like this, you need examples. Are we talking like, the first Tron where it enraptures itself in its style and it works or like, Moulin Rouge?
Okay but what KIND of avant-garde? With shit like this, you need examples. Are we talking like, the first Tron where it enraptures itself in its style and it works or like, Moulin Rouge?
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,334
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
it's a movie that kills people who view it. you'd have to read a couple of hundred pages of foot notes to really understand what "the entertainment" is, but it's a movie made by an avant garde film maker (the father of the protagonist) and basically you watch it and become so enrapt in it (or something) that you die from basically exposure and starvation.
it's a movie that kills people who view it. you'd have to read a couple of hundred pages of foot notes to really understand what "the entertainment" is, but it's a movie made by an avant garde film maker (the father of the protagonist) and basically you watch it and become so enrapt in it (or something) that you die from basically exposure and starvation.
hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,335
infinite jest is actually a relatively easy read if you pay attention. nowhere near gravity's rainbow in terms of difficulty
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,336
@560,334 (squeegee)
oh thats actually what its about and not a snarky remark at the nature of writers
oh thats actually what its about and not a snarky remark at the nature of writers
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,337
@560,335 (hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs)
just scope, but also in detail. quite a lot to remember, i read it and had to take notes to keep it all straight. not only that but wallace tend to write very complex sentences and it is not a breezy read at all.
not a curl on the couch and veg out kinda book. you have to pay close attention.
but, also there's so much detail you can ignore a lot of what isn't important, so it becomes an excercise in figuring out what is relevant or not to the story.
just scope, but also in detail. quite a lot to remember, i read it and had to take notes to keep it all straight. not only that but wallace tend to write very complex sentences and it is not a breezy read at all.
not a curl on the couch and veg out kinda book. you have to pay close attention.
but, also there's so much detail you can ignore a lot of what isn't important, so it becomes an excercise in figuring out what is relevant or not to the story.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,338
hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,339
@560,337 (squeegee)
i think i skipped a chapter but i cant remember which one... it was just about something really boring and pedantic. there are parts in there that are pretty hard to get through
i think i skipped a chapter but i cant remember which one... it was just about something really boring and pedantic. there are parts in there that are pretty hard to get through
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,341
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,342
okay, but what is the book about?
does it involve a jest?
does it involve a jest?
hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,343
@560,341 (squeegee)
:o
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
the name is a reference to a line of dialogue in hamlet
:o
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
the name is a reference to a line of dialogue in hamlet
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,345
@previous (hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs)
okay but what is the book about?
is it at all possible to summarise?
okay but what is the book about?
is it at all possible to summarise?
hamfist !t5TYQ9eJPs (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #560,347
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 53 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #560,376
@560,345 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
it's actually really hard to summarize, there's lots of POV characters and it's really difficult to distill the book down to a "this is what IJ is about" kind of statement. Probably someone has done their thesis work on interpreting IJ, but maybe not yet, it's still actually pretty new as far as lit goes. one of these days someone will sit down and really dissect it and maybe then we'll be able to say, "this is what IJ is actually about," but probably not until then. you'd kinda have to look at IJ through a lens made up of all of David Foster Wallace's work, because to understand his work you have to understand his style and understand why he writes the way he does and what he tries to accomplish.
he kinda has his own theory that has influenced him since basically he was an undergrad. he really refined his style with IJ though, previous works, such as Broom of the System sort of pave the way to IJ, but his earlier work is way, way more readable and accessible. Also his earlier work has a much more singular and easily identifiable plot.
So, even today i don't really know what IJ IS, but one could talk ad nauseam about "what happens" in the book. i suspect that much of IJ is an experiment, it's a style of writing that doesn't really lend itself to being read. it's meant to be studied, if that makes any sense. some of what he pulls of is fucking brilliant, like the way he writes is meant to emulate what goes on in the mind. not merely Stream of Consciousness, but it's more like constantly interrupted and redirected stream of consciousness that works as a closed loop. Like, how you might be thinking something, then get busy and focus on something else, and then return to what you were thinking about and having a sort of continuity between those periods of thought despite being interrupted by something entirely different. so it's all about focusing, unfocusing, refocusing and maintaining a kind of internal continuity.
Wallace would say you don't wake up and eat breakfast, then go to work, then eat lunch, then work some more and then go home. Your life isn't actually punctuated like that, not in your mind, it all flows together as a singular stream of time, and in wallaces work that translates into an unbroken stream of consciousness.
i don't really have a better way to explain it, because not all of his work is overtly stream of consciousness style writing, it's just merely one tool he uses throughout his writing. it can be difficult to read, not always because it's hard, but like hamfist said some of it is just boring. but, it's meant to be!
And i'm sure some english major somewhere could explain how and why everything i said is wrong, but i kinda doubt we'll ever have a single "this is what IJ is about and it's about nothing else" kind of theory on it.
it's actually really hard to summarize, there's lots of POV characters and it's really difficult to distill the book down to a "this is what IJ is about" kind of statement. Probably someone has done their thesis work on interpreting IJ, but maybe not yet, it's still actually pretty new as far as lit goes. one of these days someone will sit down and really dissect it and maybe then we'll be able to say, "this is what IJ is actually about," but probably not until then. you'd kinda have to look at IJ through a lens made up of all of David Foster Wallace's work, because to understand his work you have to understand his style and understand why he writes the way he does and what he tries to accomplish.
he kinda has his own theory that has influenced him since basically he was an undergrad. he really refined his style with IJ though, previous works, such as Broom of the System sort of pave the way to IJ, but his earlier work is way, way more readable and accessible. Also his earlier work has a much more singular and easily identifiable plot.
So, even today i don't really know what IJ IS, but one could talk ad nauseam about "what happens" in the book. i suspect that much of IJ is an experiment, it's a style of writing that doesn't really lend itself to being read. it's meant to be studied, if that makes any sense. some of what he pulls of is fucking brilliant, like the way he writes is meant to emulate what goes on in the mind. not merely Stream of Consciousness, but it's more like constantly interrupted and redirected stream of consciousness that works as a closed loop. Like, how you might be thinking something, then get busy and focus on something else, and then return to what you were thinking about and having a sort of continuity between those periods of thought despite being interrupted by something entirely different. so it's all about focusing, unfocusing, refocusing and maintaining a kind of internal continuity.
Wallace would say you don't wake up and eat breakfast, then go to work, then eat lunch, then work some more and then go home. Your life isn't actually punctuated like that, not in your mind, it all flows together as a singular stream of time, and in wallaces work that translates into an unbroken stream of consciousness.
i don't really have a better way to explain it, because not all of his work is overtly stream of consciousness style writing, it's just merely one tool he uses throughout his writing. it can be difficult to read, not always because it's hard, but like hamfist said some of it is just boring. but, it's meant to be!
And i'm sure some english major somewhere could explain how and why everything i said is wrong, but i kinda doubt we'll ever have a single "this is what IJ is about and it's about nothing else" kind of theory on it.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #560,377
here's a breakdown of the plot, but really it's just the major events that happen. the book is about a lot more than this:
The plot partially revolves around the missing master copy of a film cartridge, titled Infinite Jest and referred to in the novel as "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film, so entertaining to its viewers that they lose all interest in anything other than viewing it and thus eventually die, was James O. Incandenza's final work. He completed it during a stint of sobriety requested by its lead actress, Joelle Van Dyne. Quebecois separatists are interested in acquiring a master, redistributable copy of the work to aid in acts of terrorism against the United States. The United States Office of Unspecified Services (U.S.O.U.S.) is seeking to intercept the master copy to prevent mass dissemination and the destabilization of the Organization of North American Nations. Joelle and later Hal seek treatment for substance abuse problems at Ennet House Drug and Alcohol Recovery House [redundancy sic], and Marathe visits the rehabilitation center to pursue a lead on the master copy of the Entertainment, tying the characters and plots together.
so as you can see, even the last line says "plots." there's a lot going on.(Edited 1 minute later.)