Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Well, duh (1996)

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#21

Post by Patrick_Devine »

The first time I tried reading Infinite Jest I felt that I was dealing with DFW's own personal trauma. I think I made it about 10% of the way through before putting it down.

The second time I picked up the book, I made it all the way through and thought it was absolutely brilliant. I see this in the same vein as Paul Beatty's _The Sellout_. There's a lot of stream of consciousness, there's a plethora of characters, and you have to really be paying attention to figure out exactly what's going on. These books aren't for everyone, but they're certainly important parts of American Literature.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#22

Post by LZ_Khan »

"And herein is Infinite Jest’s (the book’s) major theme: the United States has become a culture addicted to entertainment, and like all addicts we pursue that entertainment to our detriment."

It seems like the reviewer dislikes the book because he disagrees with this notion, citing our attachment to entertainment is more of a choice than an addiction. I however find this very profound and will be finishing the book thanks to this review.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#23

Post by zadler »

codingslave wrote: post #10

I will agree with the writers sentiment about Infinite Jest. I read about 1/3 before deciding I could not make it the whole way through. I think a good chunk of the reasons for the books popularity is the persona of DFW. His personality, physical looks, melancholic and thoughtful disposition make a him a quintessential writer. He looks the part very well, and produces this obscure monstrosity called Infinite Jest. My…

It’s an enjoyable read mostly. It doesn’t claim to contain profound social commentary in every character and subplot. Of course his persona makes a difference because it’s a fiction born of his imagination. DFW did have a point though, about how we would become addicted to instant gratification, and you can see a grain of truth to this in the contemporary internet and the “attention economy”.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#24

Post by throwlaplace »

here's a hack for reading infinite jest: use two bookmarks - one in the main story and one in the endnotes. here's another hack that is tougher: read it in less than a week. you simply cannot appreciate the book if you do not have all of the different plots and characters fresh in your head (BTW I make the same recommendation for all long classics eg war and peace).

about the merit of the book: it is one of the few books that i've read that evoked a visceral reaction in me - i felt manic and strung out (like many of the characters) while reading it. social commentary aside i think that passes bar for worthwhile literature.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#25

Post by pasabagi »

Very interesting review. I read infinite jest once as a teenager, and once a couple of years ago - and yeah, on second reading, I could see it doesn't really deserve its hype.

The one weirdness of the review is kind of related to the main weirdness of Infinite Jest - why on earth is it related to Pynchon? I never really understood the similarity. Sure, they're both digressive writers - but so is everyone and their dog since Virginia Wolf. Why did Infinite Jest become the postmodern novel?

I think ultimately, what killed Infinite Jest to me is, on second read, it seemed dated. The driving concern - authenticity - seems to be one that sort of faded in relevance in the late oughts, then merged fairly seamlessly into a sort of teenage angst - a merger that's pretty well enacted by Infinite Jest, to be honest.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#26

Post by i_am_proteus »

throwlaplace wrote: post #24

here's a hack for reading infinite jest: use two bookmarks - one in the main story and one in the endnotes. here's another hack that is tougher: read it in less than a week. you simply cannot appreciate the book if you do not have all of the different plots and characters fresh in your head (BTW I make the same recommendation for all long classics eg war and peace). about the merit of the book: it is one of the few b…

The second bookmark for the endnotes is critical.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#27

Post by afterburner »

locusofself wrote: post #2

I had a ton of fun reading Infinite Jest, it took me two months of reading daily but after a while I couldn't wait to get home from work to read it (I didn't have a kid yet mind you). There are many things about it that are dissatisfying, frustrating even maddening. But there are so many points of brilliance it makes the whole thing worth it. The ambitiousness, audacity and shortcomings are part of it. I felt similar…

What 50 page section? I would love to skip to it...

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#28

Post by freewilly1040 »

Infinite Jest is proof the Great American Hype Machine can work wonders

Funnily enough I think DFW would agree, in an interview somewhere (I think it was in Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself) he talks about the surreal experience of seeing all the hype and raves about his book immediately after release, when he knew no one had actually had time to read it.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#29

Post by vo2maxer »

ebg13 wrote: post #18
locusofself wrote: post #2

I had a ton of fun reading Infinite Jest, it took me two months of reading daily but after a while I couldn't wait to get home from work to read it (I didn't have a kid yet mind you). There are many things about it that are dissatisfying, frustrating even maddening. But there are so many points of brilliance it makes the whole thing worth it. The ambitiousness, audacity and shortcomings are part of it. I felt similar…

> Was it a great book? No. But there is about a 50 page section in the middle that makes the whole damn thing worth it. Could you not read just the good part?

Any suggestions for “the good part” in Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time? Just kidding ;-)

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#30

Post by ses1984 »

ryanyde wrote: post #19

They totally missed the mark on this one: "What’s meant to distinguish Infinite Jest (the book) from various artefacts that precede it is the conflation of entertainment with drug addiction, and this notion is, I think, fundamentally flawed." It's now pretty clear entertainment can be neurologically addictive, as evidenced by the social media companies and their abilities to predict improved engagement. On top of tha…

Also I'm quite sure the idea of conflating entertainment with drug addiction precedes IJ, it can be traced back at least as far as the idea that religion is the opiate of the masses.
Post reply on HN