Is infinite jest the best novel?

Yes

Based Sebald Chad. He reminds me of Thomas Browne just going off on random tangents that are still interesting.

Of all the novels of all time, it is one of them

lol

It's time to go back son

Infinite Jest is a book of okay-ish prose and brilliant social insight. Harold Bloom being the wrong kind of autist (DFW being the right kind) had little to no conception of the real world or genuine human emotion and struggle, and so could only judge a book on its prose, leading him to consider Infinite Jest a failure.

I genuinely cannot understand any politically motivated hatred for the book, as I have never read something that manages to advocate for public institutions, religious conservatism, and fascism so congruously.

How does it advocate for any of those? He uses them all as examples of things people use as surrogates for communication and being an actual person. If he advocate for those he also advocates for being a junky.

The whole concept of the Infinite Jest cartridge raises some questions about personal freedom, and I remember a prevalent theme of the Ennet House chapters being about surrendering to a system you don’t fully understand yet, specifically with regards to platitudes, mantras, and religion.

He is not advocating for them. The cartridge is used as the example taken to the extreme to show the absurdity in the rest. Ennet house is showing how people can only communicate honestly when it is expected of them but even then they are not actually honest because it is all wrapped up in those platitudes and performance (ETA is used to reflect this aspect of Ennet House). The conversation between Gately and Joelle is a prime examples, UHID dogma and AA dogma clashing, they absolutely fail to understand each other but both come away from it thinking they are "right," neither say what they mean, they are just sparing with the stock phrases from their respective institutions. And this reflects back on the Steeply/Marathe bit and the two conversations follow almost the exact same form, Steeply and Marathe are just a tiny bit more honest because they know they are sparing, they acknowledge their ulterior motives and know the other has ulterior motives even if they do not quite know what those are.

I see a lot of people interested in Infinite Jest here. Some people are eager to jump in, others are intimidated. I've read the book about eleven times, so I just want say a few words and address people who are thinking about reading it or are just beginning.

Before you embark on your journey into the mind of a genius, you have to understand a few things that are very important. When we talk about David Foster Wallace, we’re talking about a man whose I.Q. could not be measured. Past 200, I.Q. tests get imprecise. We don’t know whether we’re dealing with a man with an I.Q. of 200 or 300 or what. We can’t measure it. When it comes to Wallace-tier geniuses, the standard tests simply don’t apply. You see, Wallace could have entered any field he wanted. He was a real-life Will Hunting. He could’ve been a doctor or a lawyer, or both, if he wanted. He could’ve been a pioneer in physics. He could’ve been a codebreaker for the NSA. But no. He decided to be a writer. He decided to devote his life to aesthetic beauty and to illuminating for us the way to live. That was the beauty and the tragedy of his life. In one way, it’s a blessing to have been born in Wallace’s time, to be able to hear his voice in interviews, to hear him delivering his famous commencement speech, which is already transforming people both intellectually and spiritually. On the other hand, I will surely die before we know even half of the secrets buried within the labyrinth of Infinite Jest. That I consider a curse.

I don’t say this to intimidate you, but to encourage you. You must understand that, on your first time through, you will not understand everything Wallace is trying to communicate to you. Don’t worry. He knew things about life that we won’t discover for decades. Your job is merely to get on the road. In the decades to come, we may, if we’re lucky, discover scientific applications for the new ways of thinking Wallace gave us. We may have to throw out science altogether. We simply don’t know. For now, we have to be content with our vanguard roles. We are the ones who will break the ground and loosen the soil for Wallace’s future interpreters. This is not only our pleasure, but our duty. And for that, as Wallace famously said, “I wish you way more than luck.”

It's so strange to me how people come away with these completely wrong interpretations

Can you enlighten us about what is wrong with it and what you believe to be correct?

No

Have you even read Infinite Jest?

It's my favorite book
My favorite scene is when Gately is in the hospital bed and is visited by JOI's wraith
One of the words JOI telecommunicates into his brain is "dextral"
One of the words I am telecommunicating into your brain is "retarded"

That's not Miguel de Cervantes

For Infinite Jest to be the best novel, it'd have to be better than Lolita, and I'm not sure it's possible for anything to be better than Lolita.

What a surprise

Attached: pepefroggie.jpg (780x438, 37.56K)

I knew you were retarded without your "help," it is rather obvious.

Attached: 1632357683664.jpg (1080x1080, 166.03K)

Can't we just make a pool of the best novels without ranking them in a 1-50 scale? Lolita, Moby Dick, Don Quixote, Stoner, and Tender is the Night is a good foundation to start with.

>Stoner
lol

>stoner
>nobody smokes the devils lettuce
meh

>stoner
lol bait

He got metoo'd

>I genuinely cannot understand any politically motivated hatred for the book
electricliterature.com/men-recommend-david-foster-wallace-to-me/
>advocate for public institutions, religious conservatism, and fascism
Yes, yes, no.

>Pre-reading impressions:
>This insistence that I read his work feels like yet another insistence that The Thing that's Good is the Thing Men Like
>Some of this is personal preference, a desire for relatability in my fiction
>Post-reading impressions:
>I related to the narrative
>I've never read anything that's made me feel so inextricably trapped inside the depression's bell jar
>There's nothing like feeling superior to a piece of writing only to have its author acknowledge exactly what's annoying about the work
>But why have so many men been so insistent that I should read his work?
Dudebros' fascination with Wallace is annoying, but this is just dumb.

I'm not a big novel reader, but thinking about buying some to read at some point

Attached: Don_Quixote.jpg (328x500, 47.8K)

Attached: Rob_Crusoe.jpg (2000x1726, 935K)

Attached: Voltaire_Candide.jpg (175x287, 8.58K)

Prove me wrong. It deserves its spot in a sea of tremendously good novels.

Attached: Gulliver_Travels.jpg (1200x1724, 309.08K)

are you joking? it's literally the SJW woke bible it's utter garbage

I mean the other guy's clearly more intelligent and insightful than you, but I agree with something more like your intepretation if that's any consolation

It was the favorite 90s book of the liberals in Europe.

>There's a professor at Yale who refuses to read IJ but has read five different essays on how it's terrible and espouses that viewpoint.
You can't be serious

no, that's more or less correct.
the book wasn't meant to propose a solution, but to sort of illustrate the problem.
entertainment or external stimulation of any kind, whether it's forced upon you or resisted is about the desire to live & experience.
Marathe's philosophy is kind of like Ennet House, Steeply's like ETA.
Ultimately Steeply kind of admits that their optimism is kind of a hopeless schizophrenic aimless thing. i.e: You can live this way but why?
Marathe is more cynical but ultimately more honest about the contradictory and schizo nature of his views. i.e. "You should live this way, but can not".

the fascism thing is definitely there, but he's not advocating for it. It's not really an indictment either though.
The religious conservatism is definitely sort of a misreading. I'd say it's more of a sort of mystic fundamentalism.

This must be new. I was in San Francisco during the mid 2010's and every one was reading IJ, or trying to anyway. Even crypto-rightwingers were more liberal than democrats in some other places in the US. Maybe I just hung out with too many white males. I can remember at least 5 poc/women/trans people reading IJ and thinking it was the best thing they ever read.

It's mostly feminists that hate the book, but most of that comes from gossipy stuff about his personal relationships. Also, the lack of female characterization.

But I'm actually surprised if any Trans or gay people like it. If there is any overt examples of unnecessary insensitivity in the book I'd say it's towards those groups.
It's honest maybe, but it seems like it doesn't really offer any sort of help.

I agree. Maybe they were young and just caught up in the art for itself. I remember palling around with a guy who was trans- grew up in an ultraconservative family and never quite felt right with the dresses he was forced to wear on Sundays. He actually introduced me to IJ.

Go back
Lefties =/= liberals

8/10 lit bait

nope. next question

It does not need to propose a solution as it is obvious and there is only one solution, to acknowledge how you contribute and stop. But it requires the sort of honesty with oneself which most are not capable of and those rare times they actually do such a thing they use it as a way to ignore the more difficult truths or too validate the shortsighted pleasure seeking behavior. It is not my fault because...
>Marathe's philosophy is kind of like Ennet House, Steeply's like ETA.
You are taking the Marathe/Steeply stuff a little too literally. Ennet and ETA are essentially the same thing and much of the ETA/Ennet scenes are just showing the parallels between the two institutions. Marathe and Steeply are essentially the same as are everyone in the novel with the exception of Mario whose deformities free him from the game, he was never expected to perform and recite OED entries.
Feel free to actually explain.

>he
She will never be a man

>it doesn't need to propose a solution

I don't think anyone said it did. But the solution was suicide.
This is actually very likely what was meant by the rumors of the anti-entertainment (IIRC it's mentioned in relation to Clipperton in sort of suggestive ways).

(some of what you wrote that was unnecessarily confusing so I fixed it)

>there is only 1 solution: to acknowledge your contribution & stop

One of the big ideas is the parallel between entertainment&drugs and how resistance requires an almost fascistic mastery of self, similar in a way to sports or other performances. The reality is though, the goalposts only continue to move & a lot of what you're learning to do will only be futile or simply a waste of time.

>it requires the sort of honesty with oneself which most are not capable of and only ever use to ignore more difficult truths or validate shortsighted behaviors.

I think you're thinking of the big book of AA. This book doesn't really "say" that. As i explained, ETA has this parallel philosophy with AA, but neither one really brings any fulfilment.
Consider what you know about where Gately & Hal will end up at the end. Gately is going to break his sobriety by forceful injection and likely pursue a relationship with Joelle (which is forbidden by AA).
Hal may have a promising tennis career but his mind and his ability to relate with anyone is permanently damaged. He had come so far, but the DMZ/darkness/wraith/addiction/withdrawal snuck up on him and now that's all he has.

again it comes back to this idea about living. how to walk the line between the two philosophies.
so yes, ETA and Ennet are the same thing but also not. One is more of defensive precautionary and the other is more active & aggressive. Neither one really is the answer in every situation.

Marathe is like Ennet House in that the idea is of forbidding things by knowing to fear it. This is the idea of rock bottom and recovery.
Steeply is like ETA in that he's kind of supporting a thing that he knows enables self-destruction but in the service of a higher objective ideal like freedom & choice

i explained the fasscism thing above

and first you're going to need to explain where you're seeing this "religious conservatism".
There are references to God, sure, but that's mostly AA stuff, and even that is about the "God of your personal understanding", which is sort of a mystical idea. Add that to the supernatural ghost stuff and some of the more edgy and subliminal elements and i don't think i'd call it conservative.

>the goalposts only continue to move
No, the goalposts only move because people fixate on the shortsighted pleasure seeking. You just set your own goalposts.
>plotfagotry.
Ok, Plot says the AFR gets Joelle, Gately never has a chance to pursue that relationship and the last scene with present tense Gately is the tube getting removed, which suggests he is out of the woods and more importantly he gets his voice back so can actually say fuck off, there is nothing to suggest he relapses. Hal would still have a promising tennis career, he still could play the nearly unbeatable game and it is what they use to try and get him into college, what he lost was the book smarts. Not that any of this really matters, you are just showing that you missed the point and still are trying to find plot reasons for the first chapter. Both the narrator and Hal have ceased speaking, what Himself feared finally happened.
>Marathe/Steeply
That is a massively reductionist.
>i explained the fasscism thing above
where?
You are incorrectly assuming which user I am, which does not bode well for your reading comprehension. Best case scenario is that you are reading for the (You)'s and ignoring everything else.

No, but it is the best novel title. I've never read it simply because no book could ever be good enough for that title.

>No, the goalposts only move because people fixate on the shortsighted pleasure seeking. You just set your own goalposts.

but, you don't. Not until you're dead.
One day you won't make the cut and will have to find a new path, one day you might just feel different than the day before. You take each day as it comes. "One day at a time"

>Ok, Plot says the AFR gets Joelle, Gately never has a chance to pursue that relationship and the last scene with present tense Gately is the tube getting removed, which suggests he is out of the woods and more importantly he gets his voice back so can actually say fuck off, there is nothing to suggest he relapses. Hal would still have a promising tennis career, he still could play the nearly unbeatable game and it is what they use to try and get him into college, what he lost was the book smarts. Not that any of this really matters, you are just showing that you missed the point and still are trying to find plot reasons for the first chapter. Both the narrator and Hal have ceased speaking, what Himself feared finally happened.

well now I get it. You don't read very well.
The AFR does not get Joelle. They don't need Joelle anymore. Joelle is with Steeply and goes with him and Hal to dig up his dad. The fact that she is a naked angel in the flash-forward is likely more of a reference to her previous appearances as a sort of death-succubus creature in preceding scenes, the idea is that it's a blurring of fantasy and reality.
Re-read the Gately scene, you didn't understand it at all. He's literally about to die so they inject him. He's going to wake up on drugs.

But you can't read so this is all kind of lost on you.