- ‹ previous
- 807 of 2794
- next ›
Infinite Jest
So a bunch of folks are reading David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest this summer and blogging about it. Infinite Summer kicked things off and A Supposedly Fun Blog is the stomping grounds for IJ musings from a bunch of political types.
I feel kind of funny reading the things everyone has to say. It's an iconic book now, the kind of thing you read partly to say you've read it, and it's famously long and complex. And the footnotes. The footnotes.
But that wasn't my experience of Infinite Jest. It's absolutely not the kind of book I'd normally pick up and read, but for some reason I did back in 1997. I have no idea why. I'd never heard of the book and I'd never heard of David Foster Wallace, so I didn't suffer from any preconceptions that I was making a statement by diving into it. I was completely naive. And I loved it. It was long and complex — I could only read about 50 pages a day because my brain just gave out after that many pages — but I never found it pretentious or overly difficult, two adjectives often associated with it. (A little bit difficult, yes, but a friendly kind of difficult.) To me, Wallace was having fun with the vocabulary he used, not showing off. I got a huge kick out of the endless footnotes. And once he finally explained what the chapter headings were about, things started making a whole lot more sense. (Granted, that doesn't happen until you're a couple hundred pages in, but hey — that's less than 20% of the book!) If you're interested, my original 1997 thoughts about IJ are here.
I don't think I'm up to the task of rereading it this summer, but I'd recommend it to anyone who asks. When you're done, be sure to read the first chapter over again.
I haven't read it, but
I haven't read it, but you've made me decide that maybe I should.
I had a similar experience with "Gravity's Rainbow," a book which many people found to be equally difficult, pretentious, etc. I had no idea it was a post-modern (or whatever) classic the first time I read it. It was just fun, even when it was serious, and I enjoyed it immensely.
When I read IJ back
When I read IJ back about ten years ago, I loved it so much that I came to think of the book as a huge block of chocolate. It's that good. (Metaphor invalid for the Kindle edition.)
IJ's infinitely easier to
IJ's infinitely easier to read than Gravity's Rainbow, thersites. If IJ is a block of solid chocolate, GR is a bushel of hardshell crabs.
Ticket to the Fair
You should read his coverage of the Illinois State Fair , which ran in Harper's back in 1994. It was the first thing by him I ever read, and it's still my favorite. Laugh-out-loud funny:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/1994/07/page/0037
Try this one
You should read Godel, Esher and Bach. Speaking of mindblowing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach
well done, Kevin!
Now when are you going to get around to reading Ulysses?
Finished Infinte Jest and Oblivion
Astonishing book, first of all. Took about 2 weeks of solid reading a re-reading but on vacation so I had the time. I did have to go back and hunt for clues to a few things. pretty amazing start sucks you right in. It was a bit annoying to have to look up words at times, as were tangents, but worth the effort. I had read Oblivion first and was real interested in the author's back story. I have had the book since 1997, but just kept waiting for time to get to it. There are moments that are not for the faint of heart or weak of spirit, but those of you who actually DO finish the book will be glad you did. I have since found out that there is a whole group reading it this summer as a project which I had no idea was taking place until after I was around page 600! I agree with the idea expressed in one site i saw that I would be careful recommending this book to just anyone. There probably could be a whole mini-course taught on this book, but WHO would be qualified to teach it since DFW is gone? Cheers and fantods, MM:)
HK
0.0