Fun fact I learned from the last book I read: the Dead Sea, with a salt concentration of 32%, is so saline that it practically precludes swimming. You can dive in (though heaven forbid you do so without hermetically-sealed goggles), but the density of the water will pop you back to the surface like a cork. Remaining underwater for any period of time requires a Herculean effort.
That’s an apt analogy for the first 100 pages of Infinite Jest.14 I’ve found it easy, in the pre-coffee morning or the laying-in-bed night, to simply float upon the surface of the narrative, consuming paragraphs without much regard as to whether or where or when we’ve seen a character before, or what major and minor motifs are currently being explored, or how this eight page filmography fits into the whole.15
At other times, when I am fully lucid and engaged (i.e., between the hours of Last Latte of the Day and First Beer of the Evening), I try to submerge myself in the text. But it is not without exertion, and I have to come up for air every 20-30 minutes. Indeed, it feels like exercise. Not “work” mind you, but an endorphin-producing, man-I-feel-better-about-myself-for-having-done-that workout.
Each dip into the novel also feels like a completely separate excursion. When I take a break from a conventional novel it’s like pressing pause on a video, with the narrative flow frozen on the screen, awaiting my return. But in reading Infinite Jest I have tended to stop at the chapter divisions, and nearly every chapter of the first 100 pages starts in a new place, with new characters, and often in a new time. It’s akin to reading a collection of short stories, set in a shared universe but with little else in common. I can see why many people–including myself a decade ago–put this novel down and never pick it up again. There is so little connective tissue thus far that the end of each chapter feels like a natural place to stop reading, forever.
And yet, 100 pages in, I sense engrossment on the horizon. With each additional chapter I find myself sinking into the salty tide. It’s probably only a matter of time before I disappear below the waves for good.
Some other observations:
Complaint: It totally sucks that pages 17-27 of Infinite Jest (Erdedy waits for pot) are 100 times better than any short story I will ever write, and yet are only 1/100th of the whole.
Confession: Endnote 40 marks my first genuine irritation at Wallace’s “pretentiousness” (real or perceived). It (the endnote) begins with “In other words”, implying that it is going to help the reader understand Marathe’s true allegiance, and then provides an explanation even more opaque than that found in the body of the novel. Maybe it just caught me in a bad mood, but I was confused, I wanted clarity, and phrases such as “the even-numbered total of his final loyalties” failed to provide.
Question: Has anyone yet deduced the meaning of the glyphs that sometimes precede chapter headings?
I have a sneaking suspicion that these are the true chapter delimiters, and that the year headings are but chyrons.
You are correct, they are the major divisions, chapters if that’s the word. It’s an ‘annulus’, a lopsided ring shape. Annular things are involved.
I actually found the “even” descriptor of his allegiances clarifying. Then again, I’m a math guy, so I picked up pretty quick on the parity analogy he’s making here. Namely that Marathe’s “true” allegiance can be tracked simply by the parity (even/odd) of the number of times he “flips”. Which I thought was a pretty cool (if simplistic) way to think about it.
James is right, but the year headings are not unrelated. And, of course, they’re annular too.
The glyphs mark chapters in the Kindle version.
I know the print version doesn’t have a TOC, but on the kindle it is truly off putting.
The Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
…many times
I agree in full with your assessment, and it’s cool to know someone is having the same frustration/hopefulness I have. I keep getting the feeling…”this is gonna get good”…but it goes away for a bit when reading end-noted endnotes.
I remain committed.
Thus far IJ feels very much about nothing and about everything. It’s a Seinfeld episode and an epic onion of meaning. Luckily, it has not been nearly as torturous as I expected. Endnote 24 contained several hilarities and the book as a whole is incredibly clever.
Endnote 40, which, yes, made my head explode, but despite the maddening fact that things were no more clear than before, I did take the time to laugh at the ridiculousness of the ‘pretending to pretend to pretend,’ although that may have been heavily influenced by continuing descriptions of a man doing a very bad job of appearing woman.
I sort of feel like my whole reading of IJ is tending more toward the “floating on the narrative’s surface” aspect (which probably explains why I’m pretty far ahead), but I also feel like it is one of those works that deserves (demands?) multiple readings. Right now I’m more focused on just getting through it all.
I totally agree, Allen. I didn’t get far into IJ before realizing one read is just not going to be enough. For the first reading, I’m trying to take it as it comes and not worry about every little nuance (although I will take advantage of the insights of those who are reading more closely).
What have your strategies been for the endnotes that lead redirect to “304 sub”? I’ve avoided reading endnote 304 so far mostly because it seem like it’ll take a lot of time: it seems to lay out in serious detail the history of the Quebecois Separatist parties in 10 or so pages. Any veterans of IJ have thoughts?
There’s actually a lengthy discussion about this in the forums.
I personally have not yet read 304, but perhaps I will this evening.
Not at all meant to be glib: you’re committed to a 1000+ page book; why hold off on a 6 page endnote? Honestly, the endnotes are placed insanely well, and the fact that you get to read 304 twice is huge for comprehension of plot and character, as well as sense of subsidized time.
I’ll tell you something about the Dead Sea feeling…you’ll long to luxuriate in that float again after you’ve read it once. Because the salinity decreases by 10% with each full read.
You need to follow where the author leads because that is the only way to get the narrative in the order intended.
I’m at p. 165-ish, and this is my first reading. I took Endnote 24 to be a kind of biography of James Incandenza…it seemed to me there was a lot there illuminating who several of the other characters are as well. It seems to possibly set up the ETA as a point of origin for the Entertainment, seeing as some of the people listed in the film credits are employed at the academy… (I wonder if it’s significant that the initials of the school are ETA?)
What I’d REALLY like to know is how the names of the years are determined. I’m guessing corporate sponsorship. I’m also guessing it’s probably not going to be explained.
Fortunately, the naming of the years does get explained. But it’s not for a while. As some of the characters introduced later might say, “Keep coming.” 🙂
It is explained, the third page of footnote 304. Very missable if narrative surface-floating.
Right. Endnote 304. We get there in 600 pages or so? In August, I think. Looking forward to it.
Good to know…I was hesitant about reading 304 now (like I can’t do what I want with my own book). But I’ll get right on that. Thanks for enabling.
It’s not skipping ahead to read note 304, since endnotes 39 and 45 both tell you to read 304. Go on. It won’t hurt ya.
I felt the same way about endnote 304 – “I can’t skip ahead to 304, I’m not there yet.” As though I hadn’t paid for this book, as though I would lose points or cred or something if I jumped ahead. Even though the narrator was telling me to jump ahead. Just goes to show how trained we are to read in a certain way.
PS – least reliable narrator ever, Y/N?
Least reliable narrator … which one? The narrative viewpoint shifts around in tricky ways in IJ. Like the blogger’s comment about DFW’s “pretentiousness” in endnote 40. My response to that is, what makes you assume it’s DFW himself we’re supposed to think is speaking there? I agree that endnotes tend to seem like Wallace speaking to us directly, but you’ll see when you get to the endnote about Eschaton that Pemulis interrupts to take over the narration from (it seems like) Hal.
I’m trying to track the narrative shifts this time, buit not having a lot of success!
Yeah I liked FN 40. I was so looking forward to getting those allegiances sorted out and DFW (or whoever) just pulled the rug out with a “Silly reader, easy books are for kids!” Props.
I thought your first paragraph was going to lead to a discussion of surface vs. depth in fiction, and it certainly could. If you put DFW into the ‘postmodern’ boat (and I do, but the term is losing its meaning), there is nothing but surface. That is because the narrative of such works resists the formation of meta-narratives. Instead, the reader must stay constantly engaged with the what is presented on the page, actively helping to construct the narrative, fill in the gaps, join in the wordplay, etc.
Jean-François Lyotard outlined this concept in his book, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. The following quote helps explain Lyotard’s thesis:
One answer is that legitimacy resides on the surface. It is no coincidence that the term “it is what it is” has become so prevalent in American English. The narrative is what it is and your job as reader is to figure it out and in doing so, you are a participant in creating it and giving it meaning. Don’t look for those deep meanings, because, like diving into the Dead Sea, it will pop you back up to the surface.
Fair point Rich, but from what I can gather from the interviews I’ve read, etc. DFW seems very reluctant to fully buy into the whole postmodern “thing”–I’m not sure he’s outright *combating* it so much as he’s giving it close scrutiny and tweaking it for certain ethical/literary purposes.
Incidentally, does anyone else get the sense that DFW is in many ways an ethicist? I mean IJ and beyond, the whole oeuvre. (Some interesting comparisons with Dostoevsky are being made over in the forum…)
Yes, I have noticed that. I’ve been catching up on reading interviews. That said, his work supports the classification in many ways, but as I noted, the term IS problematic. It has so many definitions and none of the regulars fit comfortably under all of the definitions.
He certainly explores ethics regularly in the narrative, but I still never get the sense that he is coming down on one side. It is more like “look at the way people act. Is this right or wrong. You figure it out.”
I felt the same “glidingg, not diving in” experience, but thought it would be, because Im a non-native speaker and I just dont get the language. Good to know that the “natives” have the same experience!
My husband and I were discussing the annular ring glyphs the other night, and we’re both of the opinion that in addition to being year markers for the story’s many scene shifts (from a technical bookmaking point of view, this book has no chapters, just line space divisions signifying time changes), it is also a likely homage to Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow.
The scene shifts in Gravity’s Rainbow are symbolized by film sprockets, suggesting that the reader consider the book as a motion picture, while at the same time being forced to realize it is unfiilmable.
The “unfilmable” quality of various movies, meanwhile, is itself referenced many times in the filmography note, reinforcing (at least for me) this connection.
As Gerald Howard reveals in his excellent article “Pynchon From A to V” (Bookforum, Summer 2005), those “sprocket holes” in Pynchon’s novel are in fact censor’s marks (used in correspondence from World War II Soldiers). Your point is still valid, though: When DFW wrote Infinite Jest, Howard’s article hadn’t been published yet and the chapter divisions in GR were still widely regarded as sprocket holes.
Tore, thank you for that wonderful bit of information! I’m so pleased to learn about this essay and look forward to a closer reading, albeit a number of years too late. I’m disappointed to learn, however, that my grandfather didn’t write anything censorable; none of his WWII letters contain these rectangular holes.
Right, they were inserted by Edwin Kennebeck, but Pynchon was not consulted. Kennebeck later commented that he wasn’t aware he was making a contribution to literary history with them.
I read the circular glyphs as the letter O. When I get to I just say “oh” — perhaps there’s a deeper meaning.
Agreed on FN 40. It annoyed me.
I’m a huge fan of Hal and I wish there were more of him in the first 100 pages.
At FN 304 at the end there’s an “a. Pimple Cream” but I don’t see an “a” note in that FN, on that page or even on the preceeding page. Am I losing my mind?
Must find out what the Entertainment is soon or else I’ll break down and google it which would be WRONG.
The subnote “a” for 304 is at the end of the chemical formula in the first sentence of 304. The “a” is hiding, since it looks like part of the formula for the cream.
[…] is all a bit overwhelming. It really does kinda feel like you’re just floating around the surface of the narrative as Matthew Baldwin suggests. I get the distinct feeling that there is so much more here that a deeper reading could reveal, but […]
Reading about reading Infinite Jest,
Is more than the novel a patience test.
All have a theory,
and most are quite dreary.
Just enjoying the book is my ultimate quest.
🙂
I’ve decided I want to read EN 304, but I’m having a hell of a time figuring out
how to find it on my iPhone Kindle, since the reference in the other EN doesn’t link to it. Anyone know the location off the top of one’s head?
The dreaded (or wildly anticipated)Endnote 304 can be found in the Kindle at location 24792-96. (I haven’t read it yet, but was curious enough to at least find out where it is.)
I always thought the glyphs were the chapter dividers and have always been curious about the thicker black line to the right, like maybe it’s one circular object passing over another (i.e. an eclipse that had just happened). On the last page of the text proper in my hardback version there is a half-glyph at the bottom rh side of the page, any thoughts on that? Is that in the paperback as well?
I’m about to finish the book for the first time, maybe today and I read fn 304 every time it is referred to. It’s loaded with information and details that you will miss the first time you read it (the fn).
I, too, have employed the Kottke-an “floating on the narrative’s surface” method. What I find most interesting is that IJ holds more of my attention than any novel I can remember reading – ever. This may be due to the cleverness of the #infsum phenomenon and the excitement of belonging to this meme but I’ll take it.
Now on to EN 304.
I found fn 40 pretty funny in its convoluted single sentence format. Although I’ll admit it’s not exactly the most clear way to express what’s going on.
Really, alot of the beginning of the novel doesn’t really make sense until further on, when all the storylines weave together (sorta).
[…] Jest and am keeping pace with the schedule. As Matthew Baldwin said in his Infinite Summer write-up (I’m just [seemingly] going to link to everything on infinitesummer.org), the first one […]
I remember someone somewhere mentioning that those divisions were gibbous moons (referred to somewhere in the text), though I guess the main point has to do with the cyclicism (not cynicism) of portions of the plot. By the way, 27-37 makes for a good short story, but the experimental short story contained in James O. Incandenza’s filmic biography (footnote #24) is way more awe-inspiring/depressing to me. Not only will you see plenty of James’s own history reflected in the sort of films he makes, but you’ll also find events from his actual LIFE (such as the scene where he dresses up as the voice coach). To say nothing of Infinite Jest itself, which appears in various unfinished incarnations. And the years, which have been commercially subsidized (or so I assume), are pretty much laid out if you pay attention to the chronologic order of #24. Tres impressive.
The achievement unlocked graphic made my day. Brilliant.
Yeah I’m treating them as the true chapter headers, and the sections between any two do seem to hang together (or flit back and forth between perhaps juxtaposing scenes), regardless of whether the year is the same or changes within. I’m only on p.200, so that might change as I go on, but it’s something I’m looking out for (while I miss 20 other things I’m sure).
Also re above: gibbous moons, sure. Or tennis balls? (But I’m reminded of the Gravity’s Rainbow manuscript, with divisions that one or more scholars pointed out as probably film reel sprockets, when they ended up being random shapes chosen by the publishers, not by Pynchon at all. I see this is mentioned above as well.)
I was reminded of the endnote 40 complaint from this post when I read endnote 304. Specifically Struck’s difficulty with the Wild Conceits article, becoming frustrated and envisioning slapping the author. Struck is more or less criticizing him at every turn, thinking that the author is “hallucinating details,” and criticizing his word choice, transitions, etc. (despite finding the work fit to copy). Wallace seems to know, and refer to as he does here, of the frustrations readers will have at times with this text. I don’t think he would have been surprised to read such criticism, and I think when he said “in other words” it was because he playing with the fact that the endnote was even more convoluted than the text it was explaining. For me it’s not pretentious, but rather another way to bring the reader in on the theme of the difficulties of communication.
Is it only my copy of the book that has typos on page 990 within endnote 24? (I have the newest paperback with the forward by Eggars.) There are superscripts (1s) in all multi-word film titles which lengthen the titles, causing them to run into the word immediately following. Anyone?
Those typos are in my version too.
I’m a clochard so I had to look up what “chyrons” mean.
“Complaint: It totally sucks that pages 17-27 of Infinite Jest (Erdedy waits for pot) are 100 times better than any short story I will ever write, and yet are only 1/100th of the whole.”
While it may be well-written, I was bored to shreds with those ten pages. I think the subject matter was uninteresting.
It took me 9 months to trudge and battle my way thru the first 300 pages of Infinite Jest (I started in October 08). I read it in short, horrified bursts right before bed. But a couple of weeks ago something clicked, and I read the final 771 pages in 6 days. I was by myself in Belize, diving during the day, and reading IJ in beach bars and restaurants at night (or locked in my hotel room). I read it obsessively, compulsively, and in shocked awe. Probably the best read of my life…