/lit/ - Literature

>>7219267
I think it's ambitious enough that it would be ridiculous to hope for anyone to do much better with the concept.

I honestly think you have to come at it with your guard down for it to work. That's part of what the funny bits are for, but if you're determined to critique the book on your first read through then you're not going to get in the groove.

>>7219273
I didnt necessarily go in with a mind of a critic but considering it's status I assumed I'd blow me away.

However I do disagree with your first point; DFW (assuming he wouldnt off himself) had plenty of time to develop as a writer before tackling something this ambitious.

>>7219273
I think this is a vague apology for all mediocre-yet-celebrated art, and it applies especially to reverence of Infinite Jest.

I love Wallace's books, but I agree with you. They're not the best things ever written. Infinite Jest is uneven and not all that profound. But it's a very enjoyable, smart, perceptive book with a lot of great writing in it.

Since Wallace's suicide made him a lot more famous, the book has attained a mythic reputation for being one of the great, forbidding masterpieces of twentieth-century literature. So it's overrated in semi-popular culture, by people who don't know any better, but it's still great book.

Also, I want to add that, no matter how many comparisons people make to Pynchon or Barthelme, Wallace, to me, sounds like nobody else. His voice is on every one of his pages like he trapped his spirit between covers. So even if it's not the best stuff ever written, I continue to find something special about what Wallace achieved. Lots of writers I feel like their writing is graspable as Writing, if that makes sense, but with Wallace I continue to be impressed by how faithfully he was able to put a human voice on the page.

>>7219391
I couldn't agree more. DFW's writing is only good in so far as you are interested in Wallace as a person. Every single paragraph he writes is so distinctly his. I love IJ because I love DFW. I don't think IJ is the best thing he ever wrote, but I just think he is so perceptive and insightful, I read everything he wrote.

>>7219267

I enjoyed it precisely because I did not come into it expecting a masterpiece; I came into it expecting wankery, and got wankery, sprinkled with diamonds.

This isn't an apology for IJ though. Feel free to hate it. After all, I doubt the author had much love for the works of someone he went on to murder.

>>7220532
>I came into it expecting wankery, and got wankery, sprinkled with diamonds.
Yes
I don't think I'd read it again though

>>7219362
When I finally got a friend to read it, he pointed out that he thought the sci-fi plot of the entertainment was highly underexploited, and for all the literary value to be found in the exploration of the characters, and the occasional hilarity, he really says he would've liked the book more if it actually cared about showing Joelle, Gately, Hal in the Great Concavity in more than a vague dreamlike way. To have a supernatural film almost destroy the planet is something you do not drop at the last minute and still expect respect from your audience, essentially.

I agreed with him up to a point, but I find the more I reread, the less and less I care about the "big answers" like what's behind Joelle's veil or how the Entertainment crisis really gets wrapped up (although there's great fan theories).

And I more and more enjoy the meandering Tarantino movie dialogue. Shit like Pemulis tricking that blindfolded kid or Gately talking to Joelle at 4am, or The Brothers Loach side-story towards the end or the Looney-Tunes escapade Worker's comp email about D. Glynn (?) are all great things to reread, as independent scenes, without the context of the rest of the book.

It really achieves this bible-like feel where you can open to any page after you've read it once and walk away feeling like you got something.

>>7220543

Then don't. There's more books on Earth than you have time to read. Reading IJ again would be tantamount to masochism, for you.

>>7220564
It's not sci-fi, it's postmodern surrealism

And JVD's veil is explained

>>7220629

Actually it's metamodern post-ironic new-sincerity

Hi I have never read a book willingly, would this be a good book for me?

>>7220629
>It's not sci-fi, it's postmodern surrealism
Top kek, top cuck, top pleb. Looks like babby is a tad insecure.

>>7219267
It's a fun book, tragic as it is. I couldn't put it down. It works, pays off and is very original, so it's got that going for it. All further hype is noise.

>>7221836
terrific post my man

>>7221794
No. Read something easier beforehand. Otherwise this will be a slog and you'll never get anything out of it.

>>7220629
actually, it isn't explained; the book relies heavily on the 'untrustworthy narrator', and since whatever you think is under the veil is explained, remember that Orin was the source on what's under the veil. He consistently is the most untrustworthy narrator in the book (and the distributor of the entertainment). He lost Joelle, so why would he still admit that's she's beautiful beyond human qualities?

She actually tells Don G. that she's too beautiful while at the Halfway House. What motivation does she have to lie? It's Orin who is lying, in my opinion. I take all of Orin's sections with at least two grains of salt.

>>7219267
It reminds me of an acid trip. DFW talked about how the Sierpinksi triangle was a symbol of the book, in the way that with the footnotes and long asides in that it's sort of this endless fractal of thoughts and observations. He has too much to say in the book and couldn't find a good way to say it all concisely.

>>7222924
Holy shit I fucked up this post. I've been smoking some high-resin Bob Hope tbh

Hey, ya'll. I really, really enjoyed IJ. What are some similar books?

>>7222934

>>7222909
jesus youre dumb.
Orin stopped loving Joelle because she got disfigured, he is shallow, this is what makes him the villian.
He tries to pin it on his father's relationship with her but truth be told he didnt even find her that intersting until after she was disfigured.

>>7221836
It is sci-fi but thats used moreso as the vehicle for its post-modern surrealism.
Its genre-defying, which is part of the point.
Goddam do you guys even get what genre is? It's pure utility (heres the point goign over your head)

>>7222945
no need for anger, man

But to the matter we're discussing, I rely heavily on the untrustworthy narrarator for this book, and this is my first reading, so I'll concede that I may agree in later readings. However, I believe that Joelle's claim that there was no unprofessional relationship between her and Himself to be questionable (but mostly true). Why would she admit that to Orin? He's the only source that could comment on her and Himself's personal relationships.

Also ell oh ell at the fact that Himself is a cuckold.

>>7222987
Clearly she loved Orin, hence why she became Madame Psychosis and tried to kill herself after he left. If you recall any of the passages talking about their time together it was she who was far more dedicated to him (he always had a flair for narcicism and saw her beauty as a a reflection of his own worth and validatiion).
Once her beauty and therefore his self-validation was taken in the acid incident he found the easiest excuse he could find to leave (his father) and now, as his "Prettiest girl of all time" is ruined, he doesnt much care about real connection with women at all he just wants their unyielding adoration. They give him the validation he needs, but they're not horrifically pretty like Joelle was.

Its acknowledged multiple times in the book as well that Orin made up her relationship with his father.

>>7222945

The Medusa vs The Odalisque is constantly mentioned through out the book. This is not only an allegory for the Entertainment and paralyzing free-choice, but also very possibly reflective of Joelle, as in: was she so beautiful that her looks were almost corrupting (like Medusa)? That question is heavily hinted at but never answered.

And in the flashback about the acid with her father, I don't believe it ever explicitly says it hit her. And if it did, it was being recounted under duress by someone we'd never heard from before so their reliability (in a book abundant with unreliable narrators) is suspect.

The ambiguity is what makes it interesting. In case you couldn't tell DFW wasn't one for conclusions.

>>7223024
Yes I understand the ambiguity thing, from the meta-perspective that is indeed what he's going for. But from a story perspective Orin's character literally does not make sense unless she was disfigured.
The ambiguity of what "beauty" is is the real point, of UHID and the medusa/Odelisque. When she was pretty she was alone and abused by her father and in a sense, all potential love interests. Obviously Orin is shallow enough where we can predict his reaction to her disfigurement. What other reason would he have to leave her? He is a selfish liar and therefore we should expect him to act as such. Obviously he's gonna pin it on his father and he's literally his only idol and his losing her to him is flattering in its own right.

>>7223044

My main point is that no matter how long we argue the question can't truly be answered, nor is it meant to be. I was simply pointing out the alternative view which was barely mentioned yet.

However, in rebuttal, I feel that with how shallow Orin is, the entire experience on Thanksgiving at that house, coupled with tensions between her and Himself, is more than enough to cut ties, no matter how beautiful she is. Not to mention Joelle would most certainly be emotionally affected for a time, and Orin would have no way of dealing with that. So I believe there is enough evidence that he could ditch her even if she hadn't been hit with the acid. There's also the extrapolation that a massive fight could've ensued after O dodges acid meant for Joelle; could he really ever be there for her if he won't even be willing to protect her?

The strongest point FOR her not being disfigured is also the Entertainment itself. The rumor is that the last thing people remember seeing is the veiled woman/Joelle/death/matriarch removing the veil. This heavily hints at the beauty argument. Sure, it can be said that this is outright false (as in not what's in the Entertainment, after all, who can know besides Joelle and Himself?) or that the audience is enraptured by someone who is so disfigured, or maybe there's a cut-away to something else entirely. But who can really tell?

We could argue this infinitely and get nowhere - both theories have just as much merit and neither can truly be construed as straight up wrong.

>>7223091
not the guy you're discussing with, however, I'm the guy who replied to the first post and started the discussion.

Good post. It has merit, especially the fact that you're willing to concede. Keep it up, brother.

((and I agree with your interpretation))

>>7223091
It's the lense that makes the entertainment "the entertainment".
Those interpretations of the aftermath of what went down on Thanksgiving are interesting but utltimately the fact is the same, she was "changed" on that night and Orin wants out, obviously theres enough reason to assume the change was a radical disfigurement.
But yeah youre kinda right, after all it is supposed to be ambiguous, but the evidence definitely leans to the acid hitting her face.
It gets really complicated and into the meta-narrative but its pretty crucial that this is what happeneed imo.

>>7220564
>I find the more I reread, the less and less I care about the "big answers" like what's behind Joelle's veil or how the Entertainment crisis really gets wrapped up
>And I more and more enjoy the meandering Tarantino movie dialogue

I feel the same way. When I read it, I realized around halfway through that the plot was probably going to stay the same way and just focused on the characters and the side stories. My favorite was Eschaton, followed by pretty much everything Pemulis.

>>7223212
imo people who think eschaton is the hi-light of the book are porbably plebs.
Its almost the set-piece of the book, a tent-pole trick that really isnt that deep strictly speaking aside from Kittenplan and the map and the territory thing.

>>7223226
eh whatever, I don't ascribe much meaning to it I just find it really entertaining

Is this his real masterpiece lads?

>>7223212
Pemulis was great.
I personally enjoyed Lenz (well done scumbag) and being French Canadian myself the entire AFR had me chuckling.
Gately and Mario are obviously based aswell.

>>7219267

Read it again, and read it slower, and you'll understand.

>>7223247
well then i guess it worked and thats fine but yeah your type kinda gives the book a bad rep and builds up its memey-reputation (it deserves better than that imo)

>>7223249
kinda.
Its really similar to IJ in a lot of ways and imo its actually a thematic sequel.
Its like a less-fun, more mature/realistic, depressing version of teh same ideas.

>>7219267

Wallace's books aren't that great but they toutch on some very pertinent subject matter better than anything else

>>7223251
Wtf does this even mean. I never said it was shit I did enjoy reading it I just expected IJ to be the late 20th century Gravity's Rainbow considering how high people sing their praises.

>>7223264
Its actually very similar to GR, maybe better as I'd argue its more tasteful and less whacky (though its not perfect and commits many of the same sins)

>>7223249
Is this good even unfinished? Is the ending satisfactory?

>>7223252
I agree, which is why I don't really talk to people about it and when I do I don't talk it up too much. Not that I really know how to talk about the book as a whole to people who don't know much about it.

>>7223283
it was finished, technically no art piece is "finished".
When he died he intended for people to read it the way it was.
the unfinished thing is just a disclaimer/reminder that this was essentially a suicide note.
The ending is about as satisfying as IJ, but actually less so but that becomes the point as wel.

>>7223250
lenz is my favorite

>>7223301
No it wasn't. Shut the fuck up with your bullshit sophistry.

>>7223338
ummm he placed teh document on his garage desk and left the light on it illuminated right before he died.
He also clearly asked his wife in the suicide note to publish it (yes he had a note, and i obviously knwo more about this than you do).

favorite character?

I think I gotta go with Pemulis or Joelle

>>7223355
You only know about all that because D.T. Max reported it in a New Yorker article. The title of that article?

The Unfinished.

Another thing: The Pale King was not "a suicide note." He began working on it soon after finishing Infinite Jest, before the book even came out in '96. And the irksome fact that he was still working on it 12 years later is a huge part of what motivated him to go off his medicine, to see if it would make him a better writer. This is not speculation; this is what he said. If The Pale King were in any state resembling finished, then he most likely wouldn't have attempted what he did. So it wasn't a suicide note. His suicide note was his suicide note, the contents of which nobody but his wife has any idea of. So please don't act like you have any idea what was in it.

One more thing: the manuscript he "tidied up" and left on his desk in the garage was "illuminated" by "light on it." But it wasn't under a spotlight. Max says that the manuscript was "bathed in light from his many lamps," meaning there were lots of lamps on in the garage, everything was bathed in light. And there were only two-hundred pages there. They pulled tons of stuff he did not put in that pile to construct The Pale King. So the PK you read and considered "finished" and "what Wallace intended" is in fact a lot more than what he left on his desk.

Only Wallace I've read is Broom of the System. It's in my top 5 favorite novels. Jest seems boring though, I'm probably never going to read it.

Broom of the System the real MVP though

>>7223865
>>7223863
Is it really that good`/ I read and highly enjoyed IJ, and I'm kinda slogging through the opening of The Pale King at the moment; just feeling I'm not in the right place in my life for the novel to affect me.

What's the theme of Broom`?

>>7224066
Bump, i also wanna know.

>>7222973
Most new wave Sf is like that honestly. Le Guin, Lem, Dick, Wolfe. None are very sciency and use it as a vessel for whatever they want to experiment with.

>>7223283
It's very good. It doesn't really and, but it was always intended to be about something happening but never happening, which ties in with its theme of boredom.
Don't take >>7223301 too seriously.

I think it somehow tricks you into thinking it's ambitious but really it's quite an easy concept

>>7225893
It's okay. Nowhere near as self serious as Infinite Jest and pretty good at parts, but way too long, and occasionally overwritten. I don't see how anyone who's read both books could really prefer Infinite Jest to Broom of the System.

Pale King is the real hidden powerhouse. It's like Infinite Jest without any of the ego. A powerhouse of moral fiction taken seriously by the author, but without so much to prove. With the exception of some too-cute 'meta' stuff, PK is brilliant.

For those who have read all three of Wallace's novels:
How does Broom of the System compare to the other two? I've read IJ and PK and liked them both immensely, but the sense I get (partly second-hand and partly from reading Girl with Curious Hair) is that he was more full of himself early on and more interested in being clever, etc. than being genuine (which I think happened when he got to IJ). I found GwCH a mixed bag and off-putting at times and haven't felt an urgency to read Broom.

>>7219267
What is ambitious about it? Name one theme or idea.

What is clever about it?

What is good about the writing?

Seriously what is good about this book i don't get it at all

>>7227858
Did you read it?

I'm about 450 pages into it, I like it, but i still can't fully understand the story, will there be some payoff later in the book or something that will explain what's going on

>>7227994
yeah i could throw some quality links your way if you want i know aaron schwartz of reddit fame had a pretty good explanation of the plot. its actually quite sad

>>7227994
The book resolves beyond the page, meaning the threads dangle but by paying close attention and putting together clues, you can figure out where everything's headed.

>>7224066
We are made of language and words.

That's my take on the theme. He doesn't really beat you over the head with it either. If you don't get anything out of it, you'll at least be entertained. The characters were likable, dialogue was funny, plot was intresting. Ignoring the 10/10 prose it didn't read like high brow pretentious lit like his other stuff. Good read, recommend it over his other stuff.

>>7227997
i'd love that

>>7228360
im not him, but just so you know the aaron schwartz thing is gonna tell you everything that happens up to the end and beyond

>>7223091
>that spoiler
Ha

Going to add in a bit though from the conversation near the end with Jo and Steeply.

Joelle:
> When he talked about this thing as a quote perfect entertainment, terminally compelling - it was always ironic - he was having a sly little jab at me. I used to go around saying the veil was to disguise lethal perfection, that I was too lethally beautiful for people to stand. It was the kind of joke I'd gotten from one of his entertainments, the Medusa-Odalisk thing. That even in U.H.I.D. I hid by hiddenness, in denial about the deformity itself. So Jim took a failed piece and told me it was too perfect to release - it'd paralyze people. It was entirely clear that it was an ironic joke. To me.

Based on where Joelle's head is at at this point, I'm struggling to think of a good reason for her to lie to Steeply, and from what little we've seen of the JOI/Joelle relationship, I feel like this falls in line.

>The rumor is that the last thing people remember seeing is the veiled woman/Joelle/death/matriarch removing the veil.
Also, Joelle (in the same conversation):
> I don't think there's much doubt the lens was supposed to reproduce an infantile visual field. That's what you could feel was driving the scene. My face wasn't important. You never got the sense it was meant to be captured realistically by the lens.

The film they're discussing here doesn't seem to match up perfectly with the Death/Mother description we heard earlier on (from whom, I forget), but I'm having difficulty believing that this is anything but IJ5.

Of course, it's possible that JOI'd done a whole lot of editing without telling Joelle, but immediately following, Joelle says that never saw IJ5, and that she also never saw the will. When asked how she knew about the contents of the will, though, she responds:
> He told me. He told me things.
which, in junction with the first quote, leads me to believe JOI'd had Jo pretty well-informed about IJ5.

The convo's on pg 940 of OP's version.

In anyone can drop in and remind me where we first heard the Death/Mother description, I'd be much obliged. I know Gately has a dream in the hospital that's related, but I think this was a scene for Fortier or one of the AFR...

>>7227994
By the end, you'll generally understand what happened, but you'll be left wondering what exactly is happening at the end, which is what DFW intended.

There's a very good explanation of the ending online that you should be able to find easily, but try to piece it together yourself first.

bump

>>7219267
It's a fucking gimmick book.
Who actually reads this? Who will read this 500 years from now?

I understand having fun with it, but it's not litterature.

>>7230474
Way to meme

After reading IJ, I felt a lot more sympathy for people, and began to understand what I was doing wrong with my life. That's a big part of the reason that I loved it.

Sure, it was imperfect--especially the middle 300 pages, which I zoned out in quite a bit--but I loved the rest.

I loved a lot of individual scenes, like the Ennet House beatdown and Eschaton.

I loved all of the characters, like Gately and Hal and Joelle and Pemulis and Teddy Schacht, who is my favorite for some bizarre reason.

It felt not like a tryhard book to me, but like an honest one, and I can sit down and reread it knowing that what I see on the page is what DFW genuinely believed, and he was communicating it as best he could through his most beloved medium: fiction. And that's what our lives are all about: communication.

>>7230479


>>7230474
This guy has a point, although like this guy said >>7228112 Since understanding the book hinges hard on the language and Wallace's lexicon being just high enough where it isnt obscure. It will not share much themes with 100 years from now cause the world can change so much by then, as well as their language.

Also if you read closely Wallace is a lexical writer, his grammar isnt very good, and his aesthtic appeal is one of connection and effect to the reader (Jim Incandenza's frequent use of audiences in his films) then linguistic; this is what leads to him being critisized as a writer.

I do however think it has a place in our culture and I expect it to follow a course like Buddenbrooks were most english speaking people won't ever read it. Even people who aren't well read read highschool core and some novels, but IJ wont be one of them given the factors listed above (as well as size).

Consider that Infinite Jest is long and has a reputation for being weird and hard, so that if you read it, you can brag about. It's only going to become more shrouded in mystery and myth as it ages and becomes an "old book." But - it's not that hard to read, and it's a fun book. So I think young people for a long time to come are going to be attracted to it because they can read it without much difficulty and have fun with it and feel glorious at not much expense. I think future high school and college students will be reading it on their free time for these reasons, especially as it gains dignity from age turning it from a contemporary literary phenomenon into an "old book." Plus it's got weed in it.

I do think, though, that beyond a certain point it'll age out of this. There are lots of bizarre and fun old novels that even pretentious young males aren't reading unless they're assigned. Eventually it'll be too old.

>>7230664
>Wallace is a lexical writer, his grammar isnt very good
Wallace was a total grammar snob, something he got from his mother who taught the subject. Ungrammatical sections in his writing reflect the character through whom that section is seen.

>>7219267
>Can someone explain to me what is it about the book they found so amazing?
The title.
It really is an infinite jest at the readers expense.

>>7227047
Broom sets out to parody a post-modern bildungsroman, which it accomplishes by actually becoming an ironic post-modern bilbungsroman.

>>7231215
is it a good starting point to discoverng post-irony?