Marcus Sakey is the award-winning author of Good People, The Blade Itself: A Novel, and At the City’s Edge, all of which are in development as feature films. His new novel, The Amateurs, comes out August 6th. His website features excerpts, contests, and tips for writers.
I picked up IJ the same way I imagine a lot of you did—while browsing, I was caught by the cover, the hyperbolic quote, and the heft of the thing. This was 1997, an era when I was more likely to be willing to invest in a doorstop novel. But even then, 1079 pages was going to take some persuading, so I opened to the reviews: “Uproarious,” “Exhilarating,” “Truly remarkable,” “Spectacularly good.”
Okay. You win.
My first read of the novel was by and large a pleasure. I’ll admit that there were moments when I wondered if I could trust Wallace to deliver the goods. And at that time, I thought that the book could have benefited from a sterner editor (although the submitted manuscript was apparently significantly longer.)
Still, I labored through the rough spots, and found more than enough to tickle me and keep me going. But while I don’t want to reveal too much, I will say that when I got to the end, my initial reaction was, “Huh.”
Not in a bad way. There had been moments of such startling brilliance along the way, episodes so hilariously sad and tragically funny, that I knew even at the time that it was something special. But still, at the very end, there was a “Huh” factor.
Fast-forward two months and ten books, and here’s the thing—I was still thinking about Infinite Jest. In fact, I found myself seeing it more clearly, getting more seduced by it, than when I was actually reading the thing.
With distance what at first seemed sprawling begins to come into a more cohesive, if still massive, picture. Wallace is a writer who does not spare you the full force of his brain; in fact, he demands your effort like a brilliant professor who expects that you show up every week, well-rested, on time, and with the reading done.
However, novels aren’t read that way. They’re read in sips and gulps, sometimes a sleepy page before bed, sometimes a hundred with a pot of coffee. Not only that, but because Wallace believes in complexity, he doesn’t always reveal the structure of things all at once; doesn’t make obvious the nature of the world he’s building.
But finish the book, let it stew, and it will all come together, I promise. And it’s more than worth the effort. So much so in fact, that about a year later I decided to read it again.
And brothers and sisters, I’m here to tell you, on a second read, there wasn’t a word I would cut. Once you’ve got a sense of the greater whole, and once you trust Wallace, the thing is fucking genius. I write a very different style of book, but even so, it makes me want to pack it in and go home. He’s that good.
But I made a mistake the second time. I thought that because I had puzzled out certain aspects, the rest of the book was a riddle, a code I needed to crack. So I went at it that way. I took notes on characters and relationships. I annotated. I formulated guesses about what “The Entertainment” was, and where it showed up, and how what happened at the end played into what happened at the beginning. I visited message boards and forums and the Wallace discussion list. I spent as much time taking notes on the novel as I did reading the damn thing.
And here’s what I learned: There is no secret.
Fundamentally, IJ is a novel about two things: the pursuit of happiness, and the impossibilities of communication. Wallace explores those themes and their intersections in a hundred different ways. And because he was a genius who didn’t believe there were answers to these questions, he also contradicts himself over and over and over. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that there are no assertions of importance in the text that aren’t contradicted somewhere else.
I realize that sounds annoying. But that’s why I’m writing this piece. It’s only annoying if you look at the novel as a code to crack, if you see everything as a clue.
After a second read, there were many things I understood more clearly. And damn, how I loved it. But could I tell you, unequivocally, “what happened”?
Nope.
It’s not about that. There aren’t easy answers in life, and so Wallace didn’t want them in his work. There aren’t single perspectives in life, and so Wallace didn’t want them in his work. The world can’t be summed up in a sentence, and so Wallace not only didn’t try—he demonstrated some of the reasons why the world is the way it is.
Last year, David Foster Wallace hung himself. I’d never met the man, but it threw me into a funk. After a week of moping about, I picked up Infinite Jest again as a sort of personal tribute, and read it for the third time. Read it trusting him, read it feeling the sorrow and the joy and the sheer intellectual pleasure.
And finally, I read it right.
Comments
33 responses to “Marcus Sakey: Decoding Infinite Jest; or, Don’t”
Avril Incandenza (not to mention DFW Himself) would have to point out that while “hung” is the simple past of “to hang” in most situations, in the particular situation at hand it’s “hanged”.
Hm, I’m no grammarian but I don’t think so. As an editor I’d leave it alone either way–at this point they’re basically interchangeable in cases of suicide. One source: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/hanged.html.
Not to micturate in your Wheaties, Ben, but the page you linked to says “‘hung’ is correct except when…someone commits suicide.”
Sorry, I did not really explain myself there. I was pointing out that the words had been interchangeable centuries and there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to correct one over the other, unless you want to avoid twisting any prescriptivist panties (such as those worn by the author of the passage I linked to, I’d imagine).
That said, my inability to comment coherently on a post might twist any kind of panties you care to wear, so I’ll just show myself out now.
Great post. I’m on my third time through this summer. I couldn’t read it last fall – it was too close to the thing.
Very nice post. I agree with many of your insights regarding IJ. I am on my third journey through IJ this ‘infinite summer’.
Nice post! Mahalo for your introduction Markus.
I myself picked up IJ for the first time after DWF’s passing and have been “reading it right” myself. W seems to have enjoyed or struggled with contradictions in a search for a meaningful life. The results so far for my personal reflection has been to keep in check with my most valuable lowest common denominator; positive collaborative relationships.
Mike, are you in Hawaii? I’d love to know if someone near me was reading at the same time!
Just finished the reading for Friday and caught up on all the guide introductions. I’m a math professor who hasn’t found the time to read “serious literature” since being an undergrad. I’ll probably be the same kid I was in college: the one who reads everything, soaks in every word of the discussion, and doesn’t contribute very much herself.
I will say that I avoided reading IJ for so long because I had probably heard too much about it, and was afraid that I wouldn’t “get it” on my own. At 60+ pages in, I’m sorry I never tried it before. I love the characters, the use of language, and the really funny bits. It’s a terrific read, and I’m feeling no need to decode it. Still looking forward to the discussions here.
I know it seems a little suspect, but this is also the 3rd time I’m reading IJ. After reading it alone twice, I’d like to see what others are getting from it. I see no reason *not* to *try* to decode its symbols, references, and even format (WHY end-notes?) — whether on your first or successive readings. After all, I think that’s what DFW might have been going for. But in the end, it might all just be a “… tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” (But I don’t happen to think so).
Hey Lee,
Don’t get me wrong–there’s nothing wrong with putting thought into the novel. In fact, it demands it, as you well know.
My point is just that I firmly believe there is no secret code buried here. A large part of the point DFW was making was that analysis can only take you so far, especially when the “evidence” is entirely subjective–as life is.
Thanks, folks! Glad you enjoyed. Happy reading–I have to admit, I kind of envy those of you reading it for the first time.
Infinite Jest was my first dip into Wallace’s pool of humor and brilliance. As an ex-college tennis player, I loved the references to junior competitive tennis. I only wish we had more material from DFW to read in the future.
We’ve still got Pale King to anticipate though!
Lovely post. I agree on several points, although my initial was not a “huh” but a throw across the room because I wanted it to go on for another 400pp. I see the urge to code crack, and I see the urge to pack up my novels and go home, as well. Nice post.
Regarding the first comment: speaking as an English professor and professional copy editor, “hanged.” Hung is correct for everything except humans.
His death still has me in a funk. And the book is still magic.
First time for me. I had never even HEARD of Infinite Jest before this week. I’m a reader of blogs as a blog post is the perfect reading length while nursing a baby or taking a break at work or sneaking in some me-time while my 4 yo is temporarily distracted by something not-me. I like books but have not a lot of time anymore and I’m not really an intellectual. In fact, the last book I read was Twilight, for crying out oud. And I liked it, in that guilty pleasure kind of way.
But I’ve been intrigued by my introduction to DFW and downloaded an IJ ebook to see if I should make a purchase. I’d stick w/ the ebook but it doesn’t seem to have endnotes. Now I’m looking for a cheap used copy to purchase.
I’ve enjoyed my first few (?? dang ebook)pages of IJ and all the guides & can’t wait to read more comments.
IJ is something that I can’t sum up very easily, but the genius of it is something that was overwhelming, In a way things were never the same again, It’s something I’ve read once and have read sections over and over just to enjoy again without making the full commitment. It was painful to hear that he passed as this book is that important to me, after ready this post I’ve decided I’m in to honor the memory of Mr. Wallace, thanks for the inspiration Mr. Sakey
First time reader. At pg 132. At this point I am
committed but not in love with this absurd book.
i gotta say to the reader at pg 132. Give it some time! My first attempt I ended around there partly because it just seemed all too much and partly just cause it hit as so STRESSFUL. Anyway, my experience now is totally different and trust other readers…by 200 something you will be in. that intro stuff without context just gets a bit overwhelming and pointless seeming.
Nicely said. This is my first reading of IJ and so far, so good. I’m trying not to get too caught up in the minutia — just keeping focused and soaking it all in (well, maybe not all).
I hate to poop the party, but can we please stop using the word “genius.”
It’s some knee-jerk reaction I guess I’ve learned from growing up in a middle-class household with a dad engineer and a mom who read paperbacks about criminals with obvious motives. It was always unspoken, but I think the only people we were allowed to call geniuses were Albert Einstein and Beethoven.
Just hearing a book or an author describe at genius is having a big, gooey bucket of holier-than-thou pretention thrown in my direction and drenching all the novels I own that aren’t as thick as my Lit 101 compilations.
Just had to say it. I’m on page 400 and I love the book.
I think this is just how people feel about The Wire who haven’t seen The Wire and how everyone who’s seen The Wire says how great it is to the extent that said non-having-seen-The-Wire people becomes less and less inclined to watch The Wire.
It’s a shame your formative years left you with such narrow ideas about genius, but the rest of us are probably in relatively loose agreement about what constitutes genius, and while none of us have his IQ scores in front of us there is little doubt that Wallace qualifies as one.
So I doubt you’ll get anyone to stop using the word, although you’re free to censor yourself any way you like.
I’m on my second reading, my first having ended about a month ago. I’m not sure what the bar for “genius” is — or even what the criteria are. I do think, though, that DFW’s brain was capable of things that most of ours are not. I think IJ illustrates a depth and breadth of imagination, inventiveness, empathy and observation that are unusual. And on this second reading, I’m more aware of how he plants things in the text long before he reveals them — certain expressions he creates, for example, show up in the text long before you find out their origins. I think those kinds of things indicate a beautiful and complex structure in a novel that seems on the surface to be pretty sprawling and “organic” — sort of like fractals in nature.
Where *I* seem to diverge from many readers is in the experience that this book “demands” anything of anyone. My first reading was fast and shallow. I had an incredibly difficult time disciplining myself to read the footnotes — I hated that break in the flow. Even this time around, I keep feeling like this book is my own “Infinite Jest” — so thoroughly entertaining that I have a difficult time choosing to do anything else while I’m in the middle of it. I guarantee I’m missing a lot; what’s simmering in the back of my mind as I read this, though, are ideas about entertainment. A few years ago, I formulated a dichotomy between “Art” and “entertainment” — in my personal lexicon, entertainment is entertaining; art can be entertaining but must also illustrate something “true” about the world. I think DFW has something to say on this topic, but I’m not sure yet that I know what it is.
As for where I think IJ falls on this spectrum — certainly it’s an entertainment. And I’ve found instances: paragraphs, events, even pages that seem undeniably “true” in a nontrivial way. But those seem like glimpses, or flashes of capital-A art.
I’m not yet sure about the book as a whole.
Slightly OT, just to tell you how interested I am foundin this extra ordinary exercise of reading in ( and between ) the sounds, the words and meanings of IJ. When I first hear about it I was attending the Torino Book Fair. Sandro Veronesi spoke about the challenge – both linguistic and economic – to translate and publish it in Italy. I’ve already read ” the girl with curious hair ” and felt in brain-guts love with DFW kind of writing – Lyndon’s last paragraph is a masterwork of all times, and an almost complete summary of DFW’s opera AND bio ). Then came ” the doom..” , the other short stories, and finally IJ… Pardon me for this recalling, and for my poor English: I will follow you all, thanks !
PS do not forget to consider some others great and useful writings of DFW ( toward west the Empire…” , for instance: a true writer, an authentic thinker is to be found in details, often hiddened by himself, ’cause words are just signs: ilrestomanca (therestismissing).
The text from 144-151 is inspired prophetic
literature about individualism run amok. Truly hilarious and very poignant.
Markus,
Thank you for that post. You wrote what I think.
This is my first reading of IJ. I’m glad I decided not to get it on Kindle. Pages 200 to 205 are my
favorites so far. Truth as one-liners. Going to enjoy this book!
I’m psyched by all the comments here, and by how many people are obviously enjoying this book. I’m honestly a little envious–wish I was reading it for the first time.
Hope everyone enjoys!
Thank you for this post/advice, which is so true that it’s almost heartbreaking. (And I’ll stand by having said that, even though it looks mawkish in the extreme.) I’ve read IJ in full twice (I started it once, and lost it the first time, thus having to start over again). And, as desperate as I may be to know WHAT HAPPENED to a couple of characters I love as truly as friends, I know that’s not the reason to read it, or to think about it, or to love it.
[…] I’ve taken the plunge and started reading Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, using the Infinite Summer blog as a handy pacemaker and reading aide to what I am beginning to understand is a supremely complex book. It’s only annoying if you look at the novel as a code to crack, if you see everything as a clue. – Marcus Sakey: ‘Decoding Infinite Jest; or, Don’t’ […]
I love how partway through the book (around 360ish somewhere) DFW mentions anticonfluentalism, which if you pay attention, more or less tells you how the book is going to end (or rather how it isn’t going to end).
The ending felt intentionally the way it was, and I rather liked it that way the first time even as I felt disconcerted by its basic violation of expectation (which DFW points out in his essays, the David Lynch one at least, tends to make people upset)
Plus it allows for a great IJ=IJ theory someone came up with in which people addictively search for a meaningful code with all the answers. Which isn’t any more right than any other way to read the book of course.
[…] have dropped out already. I was thinking about them as I read my friend Marcus Sakey’s guest essay on […]
Marcus – thank you for writing this. I have read IJ twice & my sister is reading it for the first time with this group. I was trying to give her advice about how to read IJ and couldn’t quite put the words together but you said exactly what I was trying to explain. The novel as a whole leaves the reader with an experience that is fulfilling in itself. I have no urge to place the events in order, or focus on connections to Hamlet. Passages such as Kate in the hospital and Erdedy waiting at home for his delivery are so moving that I have no desire to try to dissect any one character, plot, or theme. The poignant descriptions of humanity scattered throughout the novel create a montage of what it is to suffer and survive and they are the passages that I have learned the most from.
[…] on in the project I read this post by Marcus Sakey: Still, I labored through the rough spots, and found more than enough to tickle me […]