At Meriadoc's suggestion, I have started infinite jest and now I feel like I'm par of some cult every time I say DFW'S full now. Gotta say though, some of these depictions of psychological addiction are spot on.
JOIN US. So like, I just finished IJ, and I'm super stoked about it cause it's been a several month long process and I had planned to do it a few years ago. Let's chat about it when you're done. No spoilers, I promise, just some stuff I would have done:
Take hella notes. Windows are an important allegory, so pay attention when they come up (I didn't as much as I should have), and re-read the first 50 or so pages whenever you finish it. Don't really stretch your noggin trying to put the story together too much, it was pretty much made to be intentionally distracting to the linear progress of events, and there's plenty of resources you can find afterwards that tie it together in a linear fashion. Resist all temptation to look at them while you're reading it, though. And just enjoy it, it's an amazing novel. It really drives home the place and purpose of literature in modern times.
Got 100 pages in, restarted, got 100 pages in again, saw the thread of you and _refugee_ mentioning addiction. Surprised neither of you mentioned mental illness, so far it's had anxiety, depression, mania, paranoia. It seems like this book doesn't want to leave any state of consciousness untouched.
I would highly, highly suggest you finish it, it gets much better as it goes on, and is more actively engaging. You are totally hitting on very good points that are thoroughly interrogated throughout the entire novel. I think what I get from DFW is less of a compartmentalization of the various states, but a fluidity and equivocation amongst them. Addiction gathers all of this as a focal point because of the addiction is a universal state, a process which everyone is undergoing (in the novel), and being treated for. There are rituals, rote practice, un- awareness, over-awareness as manifested by an addictive state of being. While it is handy to not read as cases from the DSM, I will probably keep this in mind whenever I re-read it, there are plenty of things lost on me the first go-round.
ugh. I know that feeling. I would def love to hear your thoughts after you're done or even before that!
Figured I'd poke my head back in and say I'm right around page 666 (Though I'm well behind in the footnotes). Definitely didn't think I was going to make it this far, but I'm slowly chugging through. It's weird to think that it's been lurking in the back of my mind for pretty much the entire last month...
You're definitely getting through it faster than I did! I do have to say that some central stuff happens in some of the footnotes, though, so don't get too far behind.
Having the audiobook helps. I got up to the footnotes that start turning into chapters and then decided I'd put them off until I had time to sit down and read through them for an afternoon. Being an expert procrastinator, that afternoon has yet to materialize.
It will be a lovely afternoon. Also, I can't for the life of me listen to any audiobook except for nonfiction or very casual fiction, I too easily lose track of what's going on and can't like, build the story in my head that same way as I can when reading. I keep seeing the stream of words in my head, and am not translating it into like, a metaphysical space where I am processing the symbols themselves, or letting my imagination run along with the novel, if that makes any sense. It seems to work fine for most everyone else, so it's just me, but the best I can do well is podcasts, cause they have a conversational tone to them that makes it easier to sort of put on the backburner and enjoy. I wish I could do it a lot more easily, I have way more time to listen than to sit down and read.
Re you and _refugee_: So apparently this book is classified as "post-modernism", which I only learned about when veen mentioned the topic a week or so ago. I'm not sure if that label is given for the overall philosophies or the actual writing style of the author. But if it's the latter, it reminds me a lot of video games: in the sense that you find documents throughout a level giving you the optional backstory on the setting and characters (A la). I'm given the impression that the book is a merge of a traditionally written story and the side-stories that may not fit into its chronology but make for fun writing exercises in the process of the central storyline. The same way an author might draft character profiles before starting on the main work, I feel like DFW takes those same accessory stories and drops them into both the footnotes and the main body of the book. It may be an odd observation / guess, but I can't help but wonder to what extent the book was deliberately designed in advance and conversely how much was written without pre-meditated purpose.
According to his editor, DFW thought that everything in the novel was necessary for the work as a whole. Post-modernism operates partially in response to stream-of-consciousness modernist lit, wherein the authors (Joyce et al) admittedly vomited onto a page in order to authentically capture, without editing, the essential element of literature, the authorship and the artist's mind-gaze, so I would hesitate at thinking it is just a flurry of homeless ideas. Also, he admitted to using the footnotes as a way to disrupt the narrative and any linearity you even have. Confusion is only natural and this is part of the experience of reading the novel. You will not gain much by following just the plot while reading. The joy is simply reading the work and the thoughts pouring out. There's a world of difference between post-modern philosophy and post-modern literature, but DFW was aware of both as the son of a philosopher and he incorporates some hard-line philosophy into his work, however, post-modernism in literature is also (partly) about the relationship of the author to the work, the reader, the voice, and other literary forebears. This is not to say these things were not taken into account beforehand, but previously was not so endemic in the writing. The "asides" and plots tangential to the main thread is an stylistically classic example of post-modern literature. Italian Neorealism also contained some concurrent stylistic choices (though obviously the gaze is literally controlled by a director, so there are essential differences, but this video helps visually elaborate similar stylistic choices), namely a focus on the world inhabited by the characters and not simply treating them as background actors (or "figurants", DFW ruminates on this at a later point in the novel. the relationship of the characters to the main plot is very very important, and pay attention to that. Not necessarily what they are doing in the plot, but their relationship to the plot. ie, how many of them make choices, what choices does anyone make, are any of them drone-like in response to the robust environment around them? are you even watching the main characters of the actual story?) The term for such a splayed-out world is an Encyclopedic Novel. The ability to not just regurgitate common narratives, but instead investigate their origins and the fractionation amongst the belief systems, and where the knowledge to build these ideologies comes from is central to this stylistic choice (he does this a lot with his elaborations on trope-y sayings ("One day at a a time") the context of their meaning and assmiliation). It is not a whimsical one done idly. This is a driving force amongst post-modern lit to discuss our relationship with knowledge and information, which I believe to be an important aspect considering we now live in such a fractalized and information-rich society. In video games, I would say that that is less of an meaningful choice to establish an idea in the narrative, but to generate further environmental and emotional investment in the plot and characters. Not to say that they are not indebted to literary and film influence, but I don't think they have sufficiently matured to the point at which you can say either "This is an art form that encompasses all possibilities of the form" or "they contribute to the understanding of their place in society" It's difficult to try and parse out exactly "Why" each character and plot is weaved in, but they have some significance and meaning, and a lot of times these digressions are used to reinforce and elaborate on particular themes (of which there are a lot in IJ), to provide counterpoints, or different interpretations. Don't sweat too much trying to tease apart a plot, you will miss half of the real reason why this novel is so enjoyable and thought-provoking, and going back afterwards and finding a timeline of chronology is easy to (do not do this while reading). Really think about who's eyes you are looking through and what contains meaning in all the information. DFW did not just put the puzzle pieces on a table and say "figure it out", post-modernism is looking at the pieces, realizing most of the shapes don't even match or are redundant, then wondering about the economic system that brought the puzzle to the store you bought it from, what the worker's lives are like who made the thing, and if they've even know what or will ever see for themselves the Eiffel Tower on the front of the box.
... It's difficult to try and parse out exactly "Why" each character and plot is weaved in, but they have some significance and meaning, and a lot of times these digressions are used to reinforce and elaborate on particular themes (of which there are a lot in IJ), to provide counterpoints, or different interpretations. Forgot to say, finished the body of the text last Friday on a plane-catered-coffee-fueled 150-page binge. Now I'm going through the footnotes, since I skipped most of them when I wasn't listening with a book handy. Figured you might appreciate #61: More thoughts will arrive at an undetermined point in the future. I'm still deciding which of the remaining mysteries / questions I'd like to think more about.The term for such a splayed-out world is an Encyclopedic Novel. The ability to not just regurgitate common narratives, but instead investigate their origins and the fractionation amongst the belief systems, and where the knowledge to build these ideologies comes from is central to this stylistic choice (he does this a lot with his elaborations on trope-y sayings ("One day at a a time") the context of their meaning and assmiliation). It is not a whimsical one done idly. This is a driving force amongst post-modern lit to discuss our relationship with knowledge and information, which I believe to be an important aspect considering we now live in such a fractalized and information-rich society.
An après-garde digital movement, a.k.a. 'Digital Parallelism' and 'Cinema of Chaotic Stasis,' characterized by a stubborn and possibly intentionally irritating refusal of different narrative lines to merge into any kind of meaningful confluence, the school derived from both the narrative bradykineticism of Antonioni and the disassociative formalism of Stan Brakhage and Hollis Frampton, comprising periods in the careers of the late Beth B., the Snow brothers, Vigdis Simpson, and the late J. O. Incandenza (middle period).
Haha, much appreciated considering i feel like a a mostly ham-handed moron most of the time, and I so don't feel totally like this is an very accurate run-down.
