Leonard Gaya's Reviews > Infinite Jest
Infinite Jest
by
by
Reading Infinite Jest feels a bit like when you’ve had some friends over for dinner, you’ve all had a jolly good time, it’s getting a bit late though, the guests are leaving one after the other, and but there is this one guy, a brilliant guy, a bit of a show-off, to be honest, a kind of beefy guy you wouldn’t want to mess up with too much, and, above all, a horrifyingly garrulous guy. And he is lying there on your couch, slowly but steadily draining your liquor cabinet, and droning on and on, and oh! but it’s already 4 a.m., and everyone else is long gone, and he is still there telling all sorts of rambling anecdotes you can’t make head nor tail of, so but then at some point your eyes start itching like real bad and he’s babbling and pouring himself another glass of Wild Turkey, and at length, you accidentally drift off and, as you suddenly jump back and open your eyes, the guy is still relentlessly talking, the tide in your drink cabinet is “way out”, and meanwhile, you realise rosy-fingered Dawn is rising across your dead-bottles-littered living room... And but then, right at that moment, out of the blue, in the middle of his sentence, that conversationalist from hell glances at his watch, mumbles something about it being already 1079h or some such, gets up, grabs his coat and leaves. And so but so you realise you really need a fucking shower.
Now in all earnestness, Infinite Jest is a pretty beefy beast. And it’s not just a matter of length (just about one thousand densely-laid-out pages + another thick, even tighter cushion of endnotes). The material, the style, the composition are a challenge to the reader as well. It is quite clear that David Foster Wallace is insanely talented and capable of pulling out all the stops literary-wise: a variety of styles and speech patterns and dialects, unearthly situations, deeply layered characters, several-pages-long sentences that still manage to make sense and remain grammatically sound, a blend of casual phrasing and hyper-scholarly pedantic jargon and neologisms, bits and bobs of French (in fact, French-sounding but laced with blunders and mostly borderline gibberish), sudden left turns from hilarious to grotesque to horrifying, and the list goes on.
On the other hand, Infinite Jest is in toto and quite literally a puzzling novel — a giant 1,000 piece jigsaw with missing bits. It seems as if DWF had been writing this monster haphazardly, throwing one scene after the next on paper, all over the map, introducing one character after another, without much consideration for any form of consistency or reason or storytelling technique or quite knowing what he was doing. As if he had been throwing stuff against the wall to see what would stick, and in the end, just left everything in (allegedly, he removed some 600 pages from the initial manuscript before publication, but still!). As a result, the book is rhapsodic, bloated, and seems to display a disjointed and sometimes irritating and gratuitous series of vignettes, anecdotes, dreams, hallucinations, esoteric digressions, silly acronyms and endnotes, winks to Homer and Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky and Joyce and Nabokov and Pynchon and Bazin and Deleuze and Scorsese and Lynch. In other words, a jumble of bits and pieces of attempts that, in some cases, would and, in others, wouldn’t adhere so much to the rest of the picture. In essence, perhaps, a “stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit” (p. 911)? This holds even to the very end, which doesn’t provide any sense of closure or resolution or Gestalt. The novel ends in medias res, as abruptly and randomly as it started. In other words, it doesn’t end.
So, for the most part, the readers of this sprawling and baroque novel are expected to hone their understanding and piece all this material together into something that might make some sense. As the narrator puts it at some point (talking about something else), Infinite Jest sometimes feels to have “no narrative movement toward a real story; no emotional movement toward an audience” (p. 740). But in the end, and as a result of the sheer length and complicated, disorderly structure, they might find that, although their patience has been tried to the nth degree, there is still a sort of power of accretion which, for want of producing a proper story, does indeed paint the picture of a whole epoch: our time.
Infinite Jest is an insane form of speculative fiction. The story takes place in some trippy dystopian alternate reality, where North America has become one single country, governed by a halfwitted show-business-celebrity president (rings a bell?), where mindless consumerism is rampant — even the Gregorian calendar and the Statue of Liberty have become ad spaces — and massive amounts of toxic rubbish and radioactive pollution are catapulted into a large chunk of territory to the N-E Appalachian Mountains, turned into a giant Chernobyl-like landfill. It is also a book featuring (among other things): the daily life of a bunch of kids at an upscale Tennis Academy, a multi-generational family saga (the Incandenzas — compare to, say, the Buendías in One Hundred Years of Solitude), a series of wrecks at a drug and alcohol rehab centre, and a group of French-Canadian terrorists.
Most characters in Infinite Jest seem utterly miserable, suicidal, damaged, depressed, obsessed, lonely, lost. The book is also, in a way, an existential study about the struggle of being human in our postmodern reality. But in my view, at the core, Infinite Jest is a book about addiction and its devastating effects. That is addiction in all imaginable forms and shapes: drugs, alcohol, sex, success, mindless entertainment, so on. One of the central and most fascinating threads in this novel is about a movie that is so very entertaining and compelling that anyone who starts watching it won’t be able to stop watching it again, on a loop, to death — the wild dream of any media and entertainment tycoon, no doubt. Incidentally, that movie is titled Infinite Jest.
In a way, Infinite Jest (the movie within the novel) illustrates the most extreme version of addiction. Infinite Jest (the book), on the other hand, is a stark satire of a society that has become the slave of cheap and mind-numbing, soul-destroying pleasures, force-fed to everyone by a capitalist system that pretends to bring happiness to humankind but is in actuality driven to endless consumerism only.
And so, Infinite Jest is ultimately a book about literature as a form of art and as an industry. Infinite Jest (the novel) is radically, obsessively antiformulaic, “anticonfluential” (to use one of the narrator’s terms); it doesn’t pretend, doesn’t try to provide, even denies the reader any form of low-grade, profit-oriented, passivity-inducing, addiction-inducing literary pleasure. In short, Infinite Jest (the novel) is the direct opposite of Infinite Jest (the movie within the novel).
Ironically though, the book’s publication was intensely marketed and hyped in the US (as a comedy, mind you, which cannot be further from the truth!); it has become, in most English-speaking countries, especially since DFW sadly “eliminated his own map”, a cult bestseller of sorts.
Now in all earnestness, Infinite Jest is a pretty beefy beast. And it’s not just a matter of length (just about one thousand densely-laid-out pages + another thick, even tighter cushion of endnotes). The material, the style, the composition are a challenge to the reader as well. It is quite clear that David Foster Wallace is insanely talented and capable of pulling out all the stops literary-wise: a variety of styles and speech patterns and dialects, unearthly situations, deeply layered characters, several-pages-long sentences that still manage to make sense and remain grammatically sound, a blend of casual phrasing and hyper-scholarly pedantic jargon and neologisms, bits and bobs of French (in fact, French-sounding but laced with blunders and mostly borderline gibberish), sudden left turns from hilarious to grotesque to horrifying, and the list goes on.
On the other hand, Infinite Jest is in toto and quite literally a puzzling novel — a giant 1,000 piece jigsaw with missing bits. It seems as if DWF had been writing this monster haphazardly, throwing one scene after the next on paper, all over the map, introducing one character after another, without much consideration for any form of consistency or reason or storytelling technique or quite knowing what he was doing. As if he had been throwing stuff against the wall to see what would stick, and in the end, just left everything in (allegedly, he removed some 600 pages from the initial manuscript before publication, but still!). As a result, the book is rhapsodic, bloated, and seems to display a disjointed and sometimes irritating and gratuitous series of vignettes, anecdotes, dreams, hallucinations, esoteric digressions, silly acronyms and endnotes, winks to Homer and Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky and Joyce and Nabokov and Pynchon and Bazin and Deleuze and Scorsese and Lynch. In other words, a jumble of bits and pieces of attempts that, in some cases, would and, in others, wouldn’t adhere so much to the rest of the picture. In essence, perhaps, a “stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit” (p. 911)? This holds even to the very end, which doesn’t provide any sense of closure or resolution or Gestalt. The novel ends in medias res, as abruptly and randomly as it started. In other words, it doesn’t end.
So, for the most part, the readers of this sprawling and baroque novel are expected to hone their understanding and piece all this material together into something that might make some sense. As the narrator puts it at some point (talking about something else), Infinite Jest sometimes feels to have “no narrative movement toward a real story; no emotional movement toward an audience” (p. 740). But in the end, and as a result of the sheer length and complicated, disorderly structure, they might find that, although their patience has been tried to the nth degree, there is still a sort of power of accretion which, for want of producing a proper story, does indeed paint the picture of a whole epoch: our time.
Infinite Jest is an insane form of speculative fiction. The story takes place in some trippy dystopian alternate reality, where North America has become one single country, governed by a halfwitted show-business-celebrity president (rings a bell?), where mindless consumerism is rampant — even the Gregorian calendar and the Statue of Liberty have become ad spaces — and massive amounts of toxic rubbish and radioactive pollution are catapulted into a large chunk of territory to the N-E Appalachian Mountains, turned into a giant Chernobyl-like landfill. It is also a book featuring (among other things): the daily life of a bunch of kids at an upscale Tennis Academy, a multi-generational family saga (the Incandenzas — compare to, say, the Buendías in One Hundred Years of Solitude), a series of wrecks at a drug and alcohol rehab centre, and a group of French-Canadian terrorists.
Most characters in Infinite Jest seem utterly miserable, suicidal, damaged, depressed, obsessed, lonely, lost. The book is also, in a way, an existential study about the struggle of being human in our postmodern reality. But in my view, at the core, Infinite Jest is a book about addiction and its devastating effects. That is addiction in all imaginable forms and shapes: drugs, alcohol, sex, success, mindless entertainment, so on. One of the central and most fascinating threads in this novel is about a movie that is so very entertaining and compelling that anyone who starts watching it won’t be able to stop watching it again, on a loop, to death — the wild dream of any media and entertainment tycoon, no doubt. Incidentally, that movie is titled Infinite Jest.
In a way, Infinite Jest (the movie within the novel) illustrates the most extreme version of addiction. Infinite Jest (the book), on the other hand, is a stark satire of a society that has become the slave of cheap and mind-numbing, soul-destroying pleasures, force-fed to everyone by a capitalist system that pretends to bring happiness to humankind but is in actuality driven to endless consumerism only.
And so, Infinite Jest is ultimately a book about literature as a form of art and as an industry. Infinite Jest (the novel) is radically, obsessively antiformulaic, “anticonfluential” (to use one of the narrator’s terms); it doesn’t pretend, doesn’t try to provide, even denies the reader any form of low-grade, profit-oriented, passivity-inducing, addiction-inducing literary pleasure. In short, Infinite Jest (the novel) is the direct opposite of Infinite Jest (the movie within the novel).
Ironically though, the book’s publication was intensely marketed and hyped in the US (as a comedy, mind you, which cannot be further from the truth!); it has become, in most English-speaking countries, especially since DFW sadly “eliminated his own map”, a cult bestseller of sorts.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Infinite Jest.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-42 of 42 (42 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Michael
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Oct 11, 2020 12:34PM
congratulations!
reply
|
flag
Tom LA wrote: "One day I’ll find the courage to climb this mountain."I’d say there are a few slippery slopes, so be mindful not to sprain your ankles while climbing, but other than that, the view from up there is quite astonishing!
And but so, Leonard, it seems to me you've explained this book brilliantly: … denies the reader any form of low-grade, profit-oriented, passivity-inducing, addiction-inducing literary pleasure. In short, Infinite Jest (the novel) is the direct opposite of Infinite Jest (the movie within the novel)...Though I haven't read it myself, that explanation fits with the kind of clever subversion I've noticed in the couple of DFW short stories I've read, the kind of subversion Joyce engaged in so confoundingly in Finnegans Wake. He uses a lot of French words too incidentally, but though he sometimes distorts them, the reader guesses he knows the meaning and usage perfectly and is just choosing to manipulate them to suit his agenda.
Fionnuala wrote: "Though I haven't read it myself, that explanation fits with the kind of clever subversion I've noticed in the couple of DFW short stories I've read, the kind of subversion Joyce engaged in so confoundingly in Finnegans Wake..."Thanks so very much, Fionnuala. I must confess I haven’t read Finnegans Wake yet, so I’m unable to compare. Regarding the crappy bits of French in IJ, I’m frankly a bit perplexed: e.g. why the incorrect “Les Assassins des Fauteuils Rollents” instead of just “Les Assassins en Fauteuils Roulants” (and ditto all the rest). Is this a way of making fun of some Québécois dialect (although I have never heard or read a French-Canadian use language in this way)? Is this a parallel universe French variation? Is this some sort of in-joke I’m obv not in on or yet another way to disorient the reader? Or, I guess more probably, is it just that he didn’t give a fuck? I think we’ll never know.
Loved your review, the metaphor of the guy sitting in our couch at 4 in the morning speaking non-stop :D so good :D However you missed the punch at the end, you get to see the light when he stops talking :DThanks.
Excellent. It's been eleven years since I've read this book, but your review really brought me back and reminded me of what I loved about it (as well as- or maybe including?- its maddening qualities).
Is this a way of making fun of some Québécois dialectI can confirm that the French is equally jarring to those of us in Quebec! The numerous obvious errors irked me, and I also wondered - did no one edit the French?
Great review.
Javier wrote: "Amazing review, Leonard, honestly amazing. The first one I read which makes sense out of this insane book..."Thank you so much, Javier, I’m flattered! I haven’t watched The End of the Tour, no. But if it’s a good movie, I might do that while IJ is still fresh on my mind!
Nelson wrote: "Loved your review, the metaphor of the guy sitting in our couch at 4 in the morning speaking non-stop :D so good :D However you missed the punch at the end, you get to see the light when he stops..."Haha! Thanks, Nelson. However, I’m not so sure about seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I’m pretty sure that bloody Dave Wallace has been fucking with my brain big time these last few weeks, and that I’m now stuck for good with the after-effect!
Michelle wrote: "Fantastic summary of what the reading experience felt like! A joy to read your review."Hey, dear buddy-reader, it’s been a pleasure and a privilege! Now post your own review already, and I’ll leave a link up there! ;)
Mike wrote: "Excellent. It's been eleven years since I've read this book, but your review really brought me back and reminded me of what I loved about it (as well as- or maybe including?- its maddening qualities)."My pleasure Mike! It’s an amazing book indeed, even though it frequently rubs you the wrong way and is pretty often exasperating! The guy, though, is utterly brilliant and adorable: do watch his ZDF interview if you haven’t already.
Lisa wrote: "I can confirm that the French is equally jarring to those of us in Quebec! The numerous obvious errors irked me..."Thanks so much, Lisa, and although my French is “Parisian” and not Québécois, really, I thought as much!
Oh, speaking of French lit, I’m probably going to start a small reading group of Proust’s RTP, in pretty short order. So if you (or anyone reading this for that matter) are interested, don’t hesitate to drop me a DM.
A friend gave me this novel shortly after I left Toronto for Ottawa, about a decade ago now. I read perhaps 30 or 40 pages - much of which stays with me still, despite the years since it's been returned to my bookshelf.Your review has (just about) convinced me to give it another, more serious, try. So, thank you (I think) for that.
Geoffrey wrote: "Your review has (just about) convinced me to give it another, more serious, try. So, thank you (I think) for that."That sounds great, Geoffrey! In that case you’re (just about) up for a wild ride. So (I think) hang in there! :)
... every reader generation seems to have its essential 'cult book' but i seem to have missed the timing, how does it compare with say older cult works like 'gravity's rainbow'?... or newer work like 'american psycho'?...
Leonard wrote: "I’m probably going to start a small reading group of Proust’s RTP, in pretty short order. "I will take the plunge someday, but I doubt it'll be anytime soon!
Your first paragraph summarizes exactly why I've never picked this up. Well said. Reading the rest of your review, I'm more intrigued. Thanks Leonard for the in depth review.
Michael wrote: "... every reader generation seems to have its essential 'cult book' but i seem to have missed the timing, how does it compare with say older cult works like 'gravity's rainbow'?..."Well, in a nutshell, I haven’t read Gravity's Rainbow, but if I try to compare with, say, Against the Day, I’d say IJ is more “casual”, down to earth, in tone and subject. Not to say it’s “realistic”, but roughly in that direction, more “corporeal” as compared to Pynchon, which I’d say is extremely “cerebral”... And, I don’t have specific memories of American Psycho, but I’d say Wallace is way less cynical than Ellis. In short, Ellis is utterly nihilistic, gratuitously provocative; Wallace still has a heart. OK, a bit of a leap there, I know, but there, first impression that comes to mind!
Lisa wrote: "Leonard wrote: "I will take the plunge someday, but I doubt it'll be anytime soon!"Completely fine, thanks for letting me know!
Stephen wrote: "Your first paragraph summarizes exactly why I've never picked this up. Well said. Reading the rest of your review, I'm more intrigued. Thanks Leonard for the in depth review."Of course, Stephen, my pleasure!
Wow, thanks, 7jane! That translation into Finnish comes just in time, then. Although, if your English isn't too shaky, I'd really recommend reading it in the original text.
Leonard wrote: "Wow, thanks, 7jane! That translation into Finnish comes just in time, then. Although, if your English isn't too shaky, I'd really recommend reading it in the original text."Yeah, I have read this book, and a guide to it also; I do think your review was good too ::)
It was a bit tough to get what was going on at first, but taking notes helped, and beign stubborn haha...
Haha, gotcha this time! And I agree, you sometimes gotta bite the bullet on this one. But it's so rewarding when you come out the other side! ;)
thanks Leonard yeah i read American Psycho once but have no urge to ever read it again, and does not borges say the definition of a favorite book is one you are reading again...
Sure! I believe Borges said he had reread The Divine Comedy countless times. And Faulkner used to reread Don Quixote every year... It’s a little bit insane, but I can understand such obsession. Not so sure about rereading American Psycho for the umpteenth time! But thanks, you reminded me I do have to reread it anyway, because my memory’s gone kind of blank on this one!
24 MARCH YEAR OF DAIRY PRODUCTS FROM THE AMERICAN HEARTLANDFROM: adonay @clmshqnne22.626INTCOM
MESSAGE: hypnotic book. Stop. love his views on videoconf. Stop. is the book Infinite Jest like the movie Infinite Jest, in that you can’t stop reading it over and over? End.
never thought I'd be interested reading it but just got a non fiction book about addiction and your review mentions it as the core of this novel
Yes, addiction is a significant theme, although far from being the only one: IJ is a sweeping novel that touches on tons of subjects. I hope you find what you're looking for, in any case!
Brilliant, fair review! I'm on my second reread (spaced out in years, of course) and it's so satisfying to come across someone who really nails it.
Have you read JR? Wondering if you have, which one you consider to be the more challenging read of the two. I have JR and just looking at the dialogue makes my head spin a bit, but I’m nothing if not persistent! I know this is one of the top “DNF” books of all time as well, and I was wondering precisely what was so difficult about it (aside from the obvious, which is the book’s length). Not exactly a solid chronology of events or any meaningful plot either, it seems?Your review is amazing, by the way. Definitely has me wanting to give it a go. The only thing more difficult than getting through this massive story might be writing a succinct review for it, and you did a fantastic job!
Why, thanks, Megan, very kind of you to say!I am a William Gaddis ignoramus, so I unfortunately can't answer your question on J R. But if it's anything like, say, Wallace or Pynchon or the late Joyce, I'd say you just need to keep going: some parts will be pretentious and ultra-long and obscure and boring, but you don't need to understand everything: just let that be, and you'll be rewarded with the occasional stroke of genius.
That said, Infinite Jest isn't really obscure. It's just meandering a lot.






