im thinking about reading infinite jest
anyone here read it? what did you think of it?
im thinking about reading infinite jest. anyone here read it? what did you think of it?
im thinking about reading infinite jest
anyone here read it? what did you think of it?
It’s memed hard here but it’s really very entertaining. Let the shitflinging begin
I have probably read it more times then everyone currently on IQfy combined, not a fan but well worth reading and if you are into structure it is absolutely amazing.
Why would you read it so much if you’re not a fan of it?
Think the last bit of my post should answer your question? not exactly deeply buried subtext, not even subtext. From a technical standpoint IJ is daunting to say the least and TPK is the only book I have read so far which even comes close to the pure technical feck of IJ.
wtf man, are you autistic? it was just a question to present an opportunity for you to expound on what you wrote beyond one sentence. it seemed like you might have an interesting insight into the book, or at least some personal experience but
nevermind, just go have a nice day you autistic moron
lol. I did answer your question, did I not? Just busting your balls and by IQfy standards I really only gave them the most fleeting brush of a feather.
The Pale King.
What is your problem?
What is TPK?
>loves the "technical" structure of the book
>but isn't a fan of it
????
It's pretty good. Actually fairly easy to read just from the perspective of the prose. The tone often borders on conversational. However it's huge and there are a few parts that you will probably find boring, a few characters you're going to hate, etc. It was worth reading and only took me a couple months
A novel is more than its structure and as a novel I have a fair amount of issue with it. The conversational quality of the narration is his use of free indirect speech which is one of the really interesting things about the novel and part he absolutely nailed.
What are your issues with it?
The big thing is the endnotes, they do not offer much beyond distraction and are a large part of what allow people to see a 1000 pages of suffering as hilarious. The structure of the endnotes—as in how they relate to the main body—is that of the narrator himself, we see the narrators emotional/mental state through the sort of information he provides us with the endnotes and when he gives us endnotes; in the highly emotional sections we see the footnotes drop away, the narrator is fully engaged in his job as narrator but in more mundane/banal parts the endnotes can get downright excessive and useless. For the most part he accomplishes this better and with more nuance through his use of free indirect speech with the possible exception of Gately in the hospital where the downright useless and excessive endnotes tell us a great deal about the narrator, he is bored out of his mind and has lost all concept of what is important to the reader; he is failing as a narrator and through this and the erratic/confused use of free indirect speech the wraith is called into question.
The endnotes do tell us a great deal about the narrator but I think the use of free indirect speech gives us all we really need to know and find it difficult to see the endnotes as anything but pointless obfuscation. The few actually useful bits of information we get from the endnotes could easily be moved into the main text and are already mostly there, so why have the endnotes? For me they ultimately detract from the novel and do so in a major way because they don't just break concentration, they break that emotional human connection which he does so well and is something much harder to regain than the more academic train of thought which was derailed by that long silly endnote. Sure we can call it a reflection of reality and how it is broken up and constantly interrupted but he does not really develop that aspect in the novel which leaves that idea kind of limp and forced. So what do they really offer?
Famn, that’s amazing. Are you studying literature? Or maybe even a teacher/professor? I’m a college drop out who only recently got into lit after frying my brain with years of vidya so I don’t think I’ll ever be able to analyze to this depth.
Also a college drop out. You just need to put in the time to develop the analytical skills. Reread IJ and pay attention to the narrator, you will get there. The narrator is his primary structure (as in most important for understanding) in both IJ and TPK.
Nah, there’s college dropout who are intelligent but drop out for various reasons, like you probably, and then there’s idiots like me. But thanks anon. It does give me some little ray of hope. I’ll read it again and see if I can dig deeper.
It just takes some time and effort, you can get there. There are some absolutely cringe and hilariously wrong posts by me on IJ in years past, I was one of those people who would sit in the threads plotgayging away speculating on what happened to Hal.
To me the narrator has always seemed to narrate in the style of the character whom the current chapter is the focus of.
>Hal’s chapters get written with more flowery, advanced language and the footnotes go into depth on topics like drugs and academic topics. Uses a lot of footnotes
>Gately’s chapters are written in plainer language and use fewer footnotes. The footnotes are usually about how things work at Ennett house
>Wardine be cry
>In Lenz’s chapters when he gets high the sentences get long and rambly and there are few footnotes, if any
That is what free indirect speech is, narrator taking on speaking patterns of the characters. One of the important things here is that as the novel progresses he screws up in his use of free indirect speech, things like French syntax get used outside of the Marathe sections. The times when the free indirect speech get muddled are also those times when we get excessive and pointless endnotes. Compare to the early chapters like Erdedy, there is no free indirect speech here, its use evolves as the novel progresses which tells us a great deal about the narrator and parallels what Hal is going through. A big thing here is the realization that first person narration is free indirect speech taken to the absolute extreme from the standpoint of a third person narrator, they are not just taking on aspects of the characters speech they are just literally being the character, the narrator has functionally ceased speaking.
i've seen people here say the point of the end notes is that bouncing back and forth to the end of the book is supposed to be reminiscent of a rally in tennis. i doubt this was the intent but it's so hilariously moronic i choose to believe it
nah that's me.
i'm the guy.
Currently halfway through. Took a bit to get in the groove of the story, but so far it's pretty hilarious.
Yes, I have read it. I liked it. It's so large that while I could pontificate on what makes it so great it's really something that needs to be experienced for yourself.
It's one thing to go on and on about how great the maximalism of this book is, but experiencing it yourself is superior in every way.
It's also difficult to get across just how hilarious, poignant and sincere the book is. Especially on IQfy where sincerity is mocked.
If you are interested then pick it up.
>pontificate
Thank you. There's a nice word. Thank you.
I'm glad somebody got the reference heh
If you haven't read Wallace before, go for the essays and The Pale King first. Once you're done, you'll know whether you'll want to read Infinite Jest.
Now, in my opinion Pale King is actually the superior work, but there's something to be said for navigating your way through IJ at least once.
What do you mean by navigating? At worst, you'll need a couple bookmarks for the annotations, but it's not that hard to follow. It's not like House of Leaves where the annotations send you in a fricking maze
Why would you harm yourself in such a way. Just read it on a ereader. There you go.
What about the footnote in the footnote chapters?
I liked it. Took me a long time, and there were periods I didn't want to touch it, but it has a unique charm. Very hard to explain why, but it just feels nice reading it most of the time. I don't really *get* the structure, and other lit-theory stuff and I still liked it.
I wouldn't recommend it if you're a plotgay though.
>What about the footnote in the footnote chapters?
After reading House of Leaves, Infinite Jest's footnotes were a cakewalk to follow.
>What about the footnote in the footnote chapters?
Three bookmarks
>wouldn't recommend it if you're a plotgay though
I knew it. Same as Joyce. Someone who has all the time in the world to say absolutely fricking nothing. The fact that you think those of us disgusted by this are in the wrong shows how braindead and moronic you are anon.
All he said is that if you are a plotgay you will not get much from it. Most literature from the modernist on use structures other than plot to carry theme. Nothing to get angry about.
A novel says a lot more than just its plot
Do you not know what plot is? Why do you think having an unconventional plot means the author has nothing to say?
a book not being heavily plot-centric doesn't mean it says nothing. in fact it's kind of the opposite, books and movies that are heavily plot-centric are usually seen as low brow because there is nothing beneath the surface. just telling a story to entertain you with no enrichment beyond that
I've tried to start it twice. Well with not much effort I have to admit. I'll probably try again this week.
after having bought it nearly a decade ago, i finally read it earlier this year
i took me a little longer than what seems to be the norm, but i made it. thought it was good.
a certain annoying morons have made reading this book their entire personality and so other morons malign it. it's an enjoyable read if you aren't put off by it's length or hostile structure
Reading it for the third time now, really lives up to it's name. It's extremely entertaining book after you've read it once. It's my comfort book.
Really struggle to see how he's got the reputation he has almost solely off this book.
a large proportion of the humour could be described as >raises spork
No it couldn't you idiot