This is the first of a five-part roundtable discussion with the Infinite Summer Guides.
Infinite Summer: Congratulations on reaching the halfway point.
Eden M. Kennedy: Thanks.
Matthew Baldwin: Huzzah!
Avery Edison: Thank you. Although I think that once you factor in the endnotes, we technically haven’t even started.
Kevin Guilfoile: I turned 40 last year, which is pretty much halfway to dead. This feels like that in a “I’ve been reading this same novel for so long I’m not sure what I’m going to do after I finish it” way.
IS: What do you think of the novel so far?
KG: I really love this book, and not in a way I can remember ever loving a book before. Last summer I read Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove, which is also in the 1,000-page range and is about as beautiful a traditional novel as I can imagine. On some sort of linear scale I would tell you I liked both of these books about equally, but if you were charting my feelings about these novels in three dimensions the plots marking my feelings would be pretty distant from one another. Man, so different.
MB: I am also enjoying it immensely. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t also find it taxing. I once likened reading Infinite Jest to exercising, and that opinion hasn’t changed: I’m happy while I’m doing it, I’m happy having done it, but getting myself to do it everyday is something of a challenge. I also find myself eager to be done reading the novel the first time so I can start reading it the allegedly more rewarding second.
AE: I’ve very recently started enjoying the book, although I’m having trouble articulating just what about it that I’m so enjoying. I had a lot of frustrations related to the lack of information we’d received in the first few hundred pages, and now that we’ve learned a little more about the ‘world’ of the book I’m happier to plow through it.
EMK: I feel as though it really took getting past page 400 for the book to open up for me, and I don’t know if it’s because I’m a crummy reader or because patterns are beginning to take shape or because the characters are familiar enough to me now, or what. But despite some rocky weeks, I know I’ll finish it now, and I’m looking forward to finding out what it is that happens at the end that makes some people turn right back to page one and immediately start over again.
IS: And the endnotes?
MB: I have gone back and forth on the issue about two dozen times in the last month, and right now I’m learning away from “essential literary device” and toward “gratuitous pain in the ass”. Plus I just don’t buy any of the rationales I’ve heard for them: that they simulate the game of tennis, that they simulate the fractured way we’d be receiving information in Wallace’s imagined future, that they are there to constantly remind you that you are reading a book, etc. I’d be more inclined to believe these theories Infinite Jest was the only thing Wallace had written that included them. But the more you read his other works, the more it becomes obvious that Wallace couldn’t even sign a credit card slip without bolting on an addendum. The dude loved endnotes–I’m pretty sure that’s the only real reason they are there.
KG: Everything DFW writes is in some way about this difficulty we have communicating. I mean I don’t think it’s as contrived as that—I think he finds endnotes practical as a way of imparting information without interrupting the primary narrative—but I think they are useful in the context of these themes that he’s always returning to.
MB: Why do you always take David’s side?
EMK: I’ve completely gotten used to the endnotes and I actually look forward to them, as they often turn into little punchlines for jokes you had no idea you were being set up for.
AE: I’m not really that bothered by the them. I can definitely see where they could have been included in the text (either as parenthetical asides, or as footnotes on the page), but it is nice to have a break from the main text now and then. I think I also like that, whilst everything else about DFW’s style is so subtle and cultured, there’s something rather in-your-face about his use of endnotes. I like that it’s a very clear “eff you” to the reader.
File this under “For What It’s Worth About Endnotes”:
I came to IJ after having first read V. Nabokov’s Pale Fire, which is structured as a 99-line poem in heroic couplets and the commentary to that poem, and which makes brilliant and funny use of commentary-as-endnotes, and an index. The commentator has his own agenda, and often uses the flimsiest of textual reasons to head off on various end-note and index tangents. What results is a funny kind of tension between the poem and its commentary, between the putative story that should be told — i.e., the poem’s explication — and the narcissistic, highly-digressive and possibly batshit crazy story that the commentator wants to tell.
At any rate, I’ve probably carried over some of my enjoyment of Pale Fire‘s text and endnote structure to IJ, because I don’t think the presence of endnotes in IJ appears to have any sort of intra-story purpose. That is, I don’t think IJ is meant to be a thesis or some other sort of formal academic offering. Is it?
Is it?!?
Are you kidding me with the Pale Fire business?
When I started reading IJ, the other book I was reading was Pale Fire. While I was reading it (them), not one but two other people mentioned they were also reading Pale Fire alongside Infinite Jest.
They had planned it, but those books happened to be two I had that I wanted to tackle. This is starting to freak me out. I think three separate occasions is enough to go beyond coincidence, dontcha think?
I have taught Pale Fire so many times; I love that book. I find it totally different, though, because in the case of PF, the endnotes are where the actual story is!
Very weird. I just started re-reading Pale Fire, too. Perhaps John Shade’s wraith has been busy whispering in many brains’ brain-voices!
As a recovering academic, I find endnotes a pain in the rear at the best of times. In IJ they are a smart-ass pain in the rear. *sigh*
Not sure if this is accurate or not, and I’m sure someone will be able to speak to it, but the other DFW I’ve read had footnotes, not endnotes. I always thought the endnotes were specific to IJ. But I could very easily be mistaken.
Also, when you reach the end of the novel, you also reach at the beginning of the endnotes, which you read already – at the beginning of the novel – making it a nice little circle.
You’re quite right; footnotes and end notes are not the same. End notes appear only in IJ, the rest of DFW’s work (some of it) contain footnotes but not not end notes.
Also, for what it’s worth, I know a lot of people are finding it taxing, but I feel like I can’t put the book down. For me, it’s a page turner, and the only effort I put forward is a deliberate choice, because the more work I put into the book, the more I enjoy it. So I’ve been reading about philosophers and mythologies and literare references that seem to have influenced DFW’s writing. But reading it itself is no effort.
I second this opinion. I’ve certainly put more work into this than I had originally intended, but I have found the effort well worthwhile. It has definitely definitely expanded my enjoyment.
Me too! I’m a first time reader and am finding it very hard to put down. I’ve been trying to pace myself by reading some of his essays at the same time so I don’t get too far ahead of schedule so all of the forums/columns still make sense. But I find myself drawn back to it constantly. Wonderful.
As for the endnotes, I sort of look forward to them. They seem to form a disconnect from the text while still being an integral part, that little bit of additional information you may or may not need later.
I enjoy most of the endnotesª. They add more humour to the novel and provide further explication to IJ world.
ª I don’t need to know that much about various pharmaceuticals.
I love the end notes, but would submit that much of the material therein could or should have been presented in the main text, particularly some of the really long ones. They work really well, for example, in presenting J.O.I.’s filmography. But in the case of the wheelchair/chicken game that cost Marathe and his cohorts their legs, I think that could/should have been in the main text, as well as the Pemulis/Hal convo re DMZ/addiction.
An “eff you” to the reader? Seriously?
You guys make me crazy. The endnotes are there because they’re fun. No other reason required. Complaining about them is like complaining about splatters in Pollock paintings or the gaping mouths in Bacon. They’re there because they’re what Pollack and Bacon respectively did, the mode in which they worked. Thus with Wallace and footnotes/endnotes.
Well said. (And thank you for saying it.)
I also thank you for this comment. Nice comparisons too.
Endnotes have nothing to do with what he wanted readers to experience. It’s not some sort of dog and pony show to keep us on our feet–it’s simply the way DFW writes.
I believe I heard/read somewhere that he wanted footnotes (his more common method) but the publisher or editor or something insisted on endnotes. Can anyone verify that?
I have to disagree. Strongly. Here’s a quote from DFW directly re footnotes in IJ:
The footnotes “allow… me to make the primary-text an easier read while at once 1) allowing a discursive, authorial intrusive style w/o Finneganizing the story, 2) mimic the information-flood and data-triage I expect’d be an even bigger part of US life 15 years hence, 3) have a lot more technical/medical verisimilitude, 4) allow/make the reader go literally physically ‘back and forth’ in a way that perhaps cutely mimics some of the story’s thematic concerns . . . 5) feel emotionally like I’m satisfying your request for compression of text without sacrificing enormous amounts of stuff.”
Plus I stand by my assessment that when you finish the book, youre at the beginning of the footnotes, so at the beginning of the book again, and it’s come full circle. And his second point can be expanded upon – it’s a distraction much like the ways that entertainment / information overload distracts us, pulls our attention span thinner and thinner. Plus it mimics natural thought – sometimes I’ll start thinking about something tangential to what I’m doing, but then I get lost daydreaming about it, and then jump back to reality kind of bluntly. AND they’re funny. Really funny. Plus there’s something to be said for the experience of reading them being sort of strange at first, which would just help call attention to all of the important points to them, because youre paying extra attention because of the form.
ALSO the book is about people’s trouble communicating with each other so having this excess of information in the book (though I think it’s an enjoyable excess) further emphasizes his original point.
I seems as though you (at least partially) agree with me, based on the congruence between your championing of Wallace’s practice “mimic[ing] natural thought”, being really funny, etc. I put it a bit more simplistically (simple-mindedly) in saying that they’re ‘fun’, but it comes out to about the same thing.
Regarding Wallace’s reasons, as you quoted them: 1) Interviewers tend to ask questions such as “why all the endnotes?” and if you don’t have a better answer than “because they’re fun” you can look like an idiot. 2)Wallace tended to overthink things — such obsessing large part of the appeal of his writing.
In other words, I suspect that Wallace began with the neurotic habit of footnoting first, then came up with the reasons second, rather than the other way around.
All of this is beside the point, however, as I’m just annoyed with and taking to task the suggestion that such an integral element of an artists style can be parsed for meaning as though it were some symbol or motif.
Oh, I was disagreeing with Randy’s assertion that “Endnotes have nothing to do with what he wanted readers to experience.” Not with your original post.
I like the idea that they don’t need explanation – they simply are, and they add to the entire experience of reading the book. I don’t need to clearly define each possible reason he included them in order to enjoy the book.
However.. I did try to define all of the thoughts floating around in my mind – and his, if he was honest in the interview, and I don’t see any reason that he wouldnt be. He didnt seem like the kind of person that would fabricate explanations of his writing to safe face. I picture him more along the lines of someone who, like you said, overthought his writing.
The reason that I laid those explanations out was because I didn’t believe agree that the endnotes don’t factor into the overall experience of reading the book and I wanted to present several possibilities of his intentions or ways that the endnotes do have an impact on the overall text.
I think you and I essentially agree because, as far as I can tell, you ARE saying they influence the reader’s experience – just in a way that doesn’t need to be precisely analyzed.
I love the endnotes. Both the ones that provide light and meaning to the book (Avril’s correspondence with Orin, or finding out PGOAT is still alive) and then the just plain hilarious (endnote 216. No clue). It’s delightful.
I’m loving this book, but it is beginning to feel like a marathon in terms of finishing. There’s no end in sight and I’m not really worried about it, but the “I feel like I’ve been reading this book since…” definitely resonates.
Also loved endnote 216.
Also feeling like I’ve been reading this forever. I’ve got all these other books I want to read, and I’m starting to wonder if I’ll ever be done with this and able to pick up something else. Halfway? Only halfway? Sigh. Even though I’m enjoying it, I do feel overwhelmed with the “task” at times.
Me too. Happily enjoying the ride, and definitely ready for other rides.
Great to see the Guides all together. Keep Coming!
Lately I’ve been fixated on trying to put together the “detective” aspect of the novel – the Entertainment, the Entertainment, who’s got the Entertainment Master? And I’ve been able to piece together quite a bit of it (with a good dose of speculation). Doing this during a first-time read is fun, since I take it that most people don’t try so hard to catch the details the first time ’round. For instance, I’m not past the spoiler line, but I feel sure that Geoffrey Day is involved in the Entertainment, based on his authorship of Wild Conceits, the book Struck plagiarized, as well as his snippet conversation with Gately in which he describes being box-surveilled.
Info on this can only be garnered from the Endotes. Also in the Endnotes is the hint that the Entertainment Master was supposed to be buried with JOI, right? Didn’t Hal tell us in the year of Glad, p. 17 that he and Gately dug up the Head of Himself?
Keeps me on the edge of my seat, I tell you… Every time I see that superscript, I’m running to the rear bookmark to see what I find, and if it says, “No idea,” well, that’s fun, too.
I’m with you. I’m trying to figure out how it all fits together, and as a first time IJ reader, I have the nagging suspicion that there is something(s) that I’ve missed and should go back and reread before moving ahead, but that’s not going to happen.
I’d completely forgotten about that little nugget of info on p. 17. Holy cow! Thanks–I think–for the reminder.
I’m a little shocked at how negative these assessments are. I’m only about 1/3 of the way through, but I frankly find almost every page immensely enjoyable. I’m not conflicted at all about much of it, even as I can confess low expectations as to how it all fits together. So there’s that.
As to the endnotes, I’m reading it on a Kindle, and accessing the endnotes is a pleasure. They’re not really as good as the endnotes he used later on, DFW was clearly still working out how they could be best used. But the tone of the post is uncommonly churlish, as if DFW owed everyone an explanation for why they’re there. It’s a complex book, and DFW’s mind worked complexly. Why not complain about Proust being long-winded? I don’t get it.
Good gravy, we all said we love the book. Citing specific reservations is not negativity, it’s honesty.
YES, YOU ARE ENJOYING INFINITE JEST —
BUT ARE YOU ENJOYING IT ENOUGH?
Look, I don’t mind being made out to be a martinet (pun intended) even if what I wrote bears little relation to your version. I cop to exaggerating a bit. Yes, enthusiasm was expressed, I admit it.
I remain surprised that anyone who has volunteered to guide other readers through the book would, at this stage, be complaining about the book’s length, difficulty, or endnotes.
You ask, in jest, “Are you enjoying it enough?” Is that actually such an outlandish question? If you all rate it a big B+, outstanding but too long, wasn’t the summer kind of a waste? We reserve projects like this for the most special of books, not that any of you would deny that the book is special. But … what can I say. Are the endnotes really that freaky? I am honestly surprised that this specific group of people could still have such profound reservations about the technique.
Maybe you’re all such close readers of fiction that the raggedness bothers you more than it does me. I don’t know.
According to the group of guides, I haven’t even gotten to the good parts yet, but it all seems pretty delightful to me. I still think my comment on Proust is pretty apt.
Thinking about it, I guess I’m just surprised that I’m that out of sync with some of those comments. I don’t mean to step on anyone’s honesty. The book does demand a lot, and it does have flaws. I apologize for lashing out, if that’s what it was.
I thought the martinet pun was pretty funny.
Re the endnotes, I think its worth watching wallace’s ’97 interview with Charlie Rose where he talks about the logic behind them.
As far as their length and whether they should be included in the text, if you’re only halfway through the book, you have no idea…
hear hear. even people who don’t care about the endnotes should watch that interview.
To Matt MC: You say: “If you’re only halfway through the book, you have no idea . . .”
could you explain that please (without spoiling anything)? I’m well over half-way and wondering where you’re going with that comment. Curious.
Thanks
Ramdy – you have no idea! I’m at just rounding the 800 page milestone and it is becoming almost like the endnotes are the primary narrative and the story you are reading (you know, that first bookmark) becomes frontnotes.
Yes. I didn’t want to spoil anything. There ends up being a lot of integral plot-related info conveyed throug the footnotes but he also does things like having a break in the text with only a footnote number and the corresponding note is a whole section of the narrative. Interesting.
No, you didn’t spoil anything. I’m just getting to this point and you’re not ruining it. Thanks for the comments.
I’ve read the book twice and still maintain that some of the lengthier end notes could/should be in the main text. Having said that, it’s a minor complaint about my favorite book, not a major deal. As to “Aerodynamics” point that they (the end notes) are there just because “they’re fun”, this is simply not true as others above have pointed out; DFW says this many times in many different interviews. Watch the Rose interview, or read some other DFW interviews re the end notes for some background.
First off, half way through IJ, I’d say it is probably the best reading experience I’ve ever had and one of the best novels I’ve ever read. I got started a couple of weeks late, but I got caught up with the spoiler cutoff last week. I decided to stick to the calendar, because I’m really enjoying the community experience. But after a week and a half of reading around 75 pages a day, I’m having trouble limiting myself to 75 pages a week. School starts back up next week, so that should help. But in the meantime, I’ve been reading other books. I’m so hooked on DFW, that now when I read nonfiction, I find myself flipping back to the endnotes, and being annoyed when there is no information presented besides cites to other books, much less witty asides.
[…] of the Day But the more you read his other works, the more it becomes obvious that Wallace couldn’t even sign… Share and […]
[…] a taste of that same conversation from Infinite Summer. You can find the entire call and response here, and below is a small taste of Matt Baldwin’s take, which sets the tone for the rest: I have […]
[…] frequently noted when people mention the novel (followed, I think, by feral hamsters). In the first Roundtable discussion of the book, for instance, the Infinite Summer readers discuss the novel’s […]