/lit/ - Literature

The few. The proud. The readers of footnotes.

>>5997984

Yes, but I'm not like, super proud of it or anything. It was just a book. I've read longer books, The Stand and IT for instance.

>>5998030
Meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-irony

>tfw I've finished it twice

>>5998162

>mfw I was serious

Working on it, page 850 now.

where's that statistic from

>>5998229
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11142901/Top-ten-most-famous-books-we-never-finish.html?frame=3063080

Stopped at page 300

I HAD to finish it because I never dropped a book in my entire life and cannot understand the people who do so. You can't judge any book unless you have read it all.

It wasn't bad.

>>5998262
I took like two months to get to page 300 because it wasn't cohesive and I just wasn't feeling it, but then it hits a sort of critical mass and I devoured the rest really quickly. I'd recommend pressing on if you like DFW in general (essays etc).

>>5998257
>according to data gathered from kindles
something tells me these numbers are gonna be skewed

>>5998257
This strikes me as a problematic statistic because I know of a few people who read on ereaders when traveling or whatever but also own physical books.

>>5998294

Please elaborate. On what basis are you making this claim?

>not finishing a book
>ever

plebs mate

Yes, and I enjoyed it very much. I'm thinking of rereading it this year. It's been four years since my first time, and in the meantime I have read everything else that he published plus a bunch of other shit that may enrich the experience of a second go.

>>5998308
>kindles

Few people finish IJ not because it's hard or even long. It's because it just becomes apparent during their reading of it that they're not going to get anything out of it.

IJ's pay-off is first with the buying of it (merely having it is rewarding and a materialistic self-suck for the possessor) then with the "reading" status of it. It is far better to tell people you are reading IJ than that you've read it. When you are reading it, you're noted as a someone who devotes time to it and it supposedly says something about you, whereas having read it says almost nothing at all. It's like a video game in that regard; telling someone you play a game is different from telling someone you beat a game. The latter is a throw-away line. Something barely worth mention.

So, too, is having read IJ barely worth mention. Not even people who like DFW will care. But if you're reading it currently, it's quite different. Most people realize this at least subconsciously and try to hold onto this status of "currently reading" IJ by reading other books while "tackling" IJ.

It's all a show, basically.

>>5998308
just speculation, but i imagine there is a higher number of completed readings in the case of physical copies, more committment to the novel etc., not to mention the book was published a decade and some change before the kindle ever existed, to much acclaim and as such probably had its greatest number of readings done before these statistics could ever be gathered

>>5998335
> It's because it just becomes apparent during their reading of it that they're not going to get anything out of it.
wow

>>5998337

>the book was published a decade and some change before the kindle ever existed, to much acclaim and as such probably had its greatest number of readings done before these statistics could ever be gathered

This is a valid point

>but i imagine there is a higher number of completed readings in the case of physical copies, more committment to the novel etc

This isn't

>>5998342
once again, speculation, but i'd bet money on it being true. digital copies cost less money and are far more susceptible to impulse buys than physical copies regadless

page 150, stalled out. I think i'm going to start listening to the audiobook at work.

>>5998349
>audiobook

jesu

>>5998351
yeah whatever

>>5998335
i'd just like to point out that none of those (questionable) claims necessarily tell us anything about the actual content or 'merit' of the book itself

>>5998308
A lot of people open the first page and then exit, and it would still count even though they didn't actually start reading.

>>5998347

>digital copies cost less money and are far more susceptible to impulse buys than physical copies regadless

True, but you have to consider also that ereaders increase the average amount of read books per year (at least they did for me), which can include IJ.

I speak from personal experience so it's all anecdotal, but I used to read barely three or four books a year and ever since I bought an ereader it's gone up to 50+

>>5998349
it's not bad.
The readers voice is great.

>>5998355
The first page means one started to read. IJ has a particularly ridiculous first page.

>>5998373

Still not as ridiculous as Gravity's Rainbow. The whole first chapter is like, what the fuck is even going on. At least it was for me, I understood only later.

>>5998373
it'd be interesting to conduct an experiment and see how many people out of a large sample size stopped reading a difficult or dry book, or even just one that isn't immediately attention-grabbing, and at what point, on both e-books and physical copies. i wouldn't be surprised if the nature of e-books encourages the same kind of attention span deficit with books as netflix and webseries have caused with film and television

not to say e-books are bad, but this is probably a natural byproduct of their increasing prevalence

>>5998386
If one is not getting fulfillment out of something, they certainly should change up or quit. It's some sort of say Baby Boomer mentality that because you bought a book you should slog through to the end. Not so.

You quit, learn your lesson, and buy more intelligently.

In this regard, e-books are really liberating. You can drop it and probably never see or talk about it again. With a physical copy, you've got to either get rid of it or it'll sit on your shelf till one of your bonehead friends notices it and goes, "oh (taking IJ down off the shelf) Infinite Jest. I'm reading this. (adjust glasses) Don't you just love how Hal's body is consciously congruent to his hard chair? Beautiful book."

Why does he wear that bandana all the time? Is he hiding something underneath there?

>>5998432

He had excessive sweating problems, the bandana helped with that.

>>5998432
Yes, acne.

>>5998432
Hides the extensive brain surgery scars which unfortunately left him with no discernible talent.

>>5998455

Harold pls go

>>5998455
He did have ECT, for his depression.

>>5998432
Maybe he found his forehead gross. after all he was full of tics

>>5998480
This explains a bit.

How do people have trouble reading a book of 1000 pages?

It's not like you're constantly carrying those pages, the weight getting more and more until you finish. It's the equivalent of reading two 500 page books. What exactly is the challenge? IJ is super easy to read too.

>>5998513

>>5998335

>>5998257
What in the holy fuck is "semi-satire"?

>>5998335
You wear a black trench coat out in public, don't you?

yes, I went there. also, I've never read IJ, you just seem too concerned with how people outwardly appear.

>>5998583
>you just seem too concerned with how people outwardly appear.

left the house lately?

>>5998594
Everyday, man. Being a shut in doesn't pay the rent.

>>5998619

It does if you deal drugs and have your clients come to you.

>>5998373
The first page of IJ is some of the best writing in the entire novel.

>>5998583
DFW fans are highly obsessed with their image

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1669516-what-to-read-after-infinite-jest

>>5998650

It really is.

Personally I also liked Gately's flashbacks into his childhood and drug-related shenanigans, that chapter with JOI's dad rambling to him, and a thousand other little things.

>>5997984
We are the top 6%!
In saying that I liked the book, but it's not my favorite.

>>5998650
>The first page of IJ is some of the best writing in the entire novel.

That doesn't speak very well for the rest of it.

>>5998640
I'm not about that life anymore.

>>5998668

Good for you. Incidentally, this book deals (hue) heavily with the topics of drugs and addiction.

Also, tennis. Lots of tennis.

>>5998658
>implying people don't do this with other authors
>implying people don't do this on /lit/

>>5998659
Gately's flashbacks killed me. He's probably one of my all time favorite characters.
It's been a while since I read it, is the JOI rambling bit you're referring to when he's going on about John Wayne? That was a trip.

>>5998673
>tennis
I'm sold.

>>5998665
I can't tell if you're trolling or not but...
The rest is still mostly great prose, the beginning is just exceptionally well done.

Who here finished IJ, GR, and Ulysses?

Master race.

>>5998692
IJ and GR. I was going to start in on Joyce after finishing GR but got sucked in to The Recognitions by Gaddis.

>>5998675

>is the JOI rambling bit you're referring to when he's going on about John Wayne? That was a trip.

Yes, that.

Also the telephone conversations between Orin and Hal were so good and full of wit I didn't want them to ever end.

And the Eschaton chapter, my god.


>>5998692

2/3, I have yet to tackle Ulysses. They tell me it's the shortest out of the three though.

>>5998683
>The rest is still mostly great prose

Depends on what impresses you. More discerning men could (and actually do) find the prose artificial and lacking.

If it's good enough for you, have the decency to acknowledge that it's good enough for you. Dont pretend there's some universal goodness of it all when there isn't.

>>5998712
you sound upset friend :)

>>5998750
seems pretty normal to me

>>5998692
Congratulations, you have graduated from /lit/

>>5998765
>>5998743
Help!!!>>5998552

>>5998361
I'm happy for you, then!

Somehow, my reading retention goes way down with e-readers. I'm not exactly sure of the reason, but every single book I've read through my Nook, I don't remember as clearly as the books I've read with physical copies.

>>5998225
working on it too, page 194 scrub tier atm

Finished Don Quixote, I'm sure I could finish Infinite Jest

>>5998692
I had finished all 3 of those before /lit/ existed B-)

I love it when some pseudo-intellectual vocal minority tries to enforce its little uppity (and completely deluded) vision of what is literature and what /lit/ should be. Many tier charts suggest that /lit/ should be a very close circle of "patricians" (concept stolen from /mu/) collectively circle-jerking about Ulysses, Finnegans Wake and Infinite Jest. In reality, no one has ever read FW, maybe three people have read Ulysses and IJ is mainly used for trolling purposes. It's also funny to watch how /lit/ used to love ASOIAF back in the days and then started hating it with all its guts because it was adapted in a "popular" (!) TV show. Those who remember the shitfest that was early /lit/ (the same shitfest that made mods create an artificial rule 3 about Ayn Rand) can't and won't ever take /lit/ seriously.

Statistic sounds like shit and yes I have read it.

>>5997984
whenever i recommend it to anyone they get really hyped and go buy it, literally 0 of them have finished it

feels good to be the most well read 18 year old on the block
i promise im not that much of a faggot irl, i swear, please accept me

>>5998404
you seem like an unreasonable person, but i'll still try to argue the point. there is value in sticking with a book you don't yet find interesting, at the very least past the first fucking page. have you never read a book you were initially unimpressed by, stuck with regardless, and were ultimately glad you did? just speaking anecdotally, but maybe 30-40% of my favorite novels began by boring me for the first few pages. in the case of infinite jest, i found it tiresome and obnoxious for the first 200, only occasionally appreciating clever use of syntax or diction. it's now one of my favorite novels

>>5998712
what the hell is wrong with you

yes but im still a virgin so