Talk:Infinite Jest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Why "endnotes" and not "footnotes?"-Tribe 16:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Because traditionally footnotes appear at the foot of each page; endnotes appear at the end of the text, as in this instance. Lacrimosus 00:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As I recall, Infinite Jest has not only footnotes (appearing at the bottom of a few pages), and endnotes (the last 100 pages of the book), but also footnotes to the endnotes (appearing at the bottom of the respective endnotes). Fun fun! -Yourcelf 14:36, Sep 18 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The AFR and a minor note on Hal

Previously, this page said that the Assasins des Fauteuils Rollents created the samdizat, and also made several other claims that are totally unsupported by any textual evidence. I've edited that section accordingly. Please direct any questions to me.

Also, though it is implied in the other descriptions, nobody bothered to mention that Hal is the youngest of the Incandenza children. So I threw that in too. - Cakedamber 16:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The samdizat & AFR

My understanding was that the samdizat--we're talking about The Entertainment here, right??--was of uncertain origins, like the Book of Mormon--it's been awhile since I read it, so maybe I'm forgetting here. I like to think of it as a sort of Holy Grail, an entertainment so good you could plotz over and over again. I also vacillate between hating him & worshipping the ground Remy Marathe walks on--should he not just let the bitch die, and do I really care one way or another? I don't know. Somebody should make the story of the AFR into a really sweet spy movie. AllenGinsberg 06:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It's samizdat. It's not of uncertain origin. The auteur James Orin Incandenza created it.--Cyclone05 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

From my point of view, details about the year naming convention and the other future dystopian circumstances are gradually revealed over the first couple hundred pages, which is part of what keeps you going through the book. I would kind of think that it would be good to have this information listed under the spoiler heading. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of anything in the book that wouldn't be a spoiler if known in advance. What do you think? --- Mike 02:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In two days

I plan on removing the word dystopia from the intro text. Its really not true. Unless we have some sort of objection.

I put it there, and yes it is. It's an ironic dystopia - like the Entertainment itself, it's arguably what we've always really wanted, despite the negative side-effects. It's also a parody. Slac speak up! 02:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the same anon poster from before, sorry for taking awhile. However, it remain to be convinced. There is a strong lack of social engineering and despite the best intentions of rodney tine the portrayal of most of america, esp. boston suggests that there is a pretty similar lifestyle to ours. things like the videophones are not used by main characters, the drugs except dmz are commonly synthesized today. Reflecting from a time period very near to the YDAU in reality, there isn't much futurism to IJ. Dystopia also is loaded towards political intentions, which my god wallace has none.

I agree with Anonymous. The book is not intended to describe a dystopia, and it's not a parody. He intended it to be sad. Check out Westward the course... to see the reason he included the bit about the Entertainment; check out interviews with Wallace at the bottom of the page to hear his opinions on irony. Not an encyclopedia-type inclusion, but most of this book can be considered character development; I think Wallace wrote in the near future to emphasize American Utilitarianism.--Cyclone05 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PGOAT's Face

I came on this entry for the first time and was surprised to see Joelle described without qualification as deformed. I think this is one of the crucial unanswered questions of the novel -- is Joelle deformed or has she retreated behind the veil because she no longer wants to be judged by her astounding good looks? I don't think you can give an answer for sure one way or the other based on the text. But she is is definitely NOT "definitely" deformed, if that makes sense. --192.206.23.249 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a question, she is horribly deformed. Her low pH chemist father spilled intense acid on her face. Whether she might remain horrifyingly beautiful is one thing, but she is certainly U.H.I.D. for a reason. thechosenone021 March 2nd.

I think to the contrary - it's been a while now since I've read it, but the hints that she is *not* in fact deformed come thick and fast at the end of the book (she can't be looked upon because of her Helenesque beauty). At the least, it can be said to be the subject of discussion amongst fans. (By the way, typing four tildes - ~~~~ allows you to sign and date your posts automatically). Slac speak up! 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The so called hints to me suggest not a "helenesque" beauty but rather a suggestion that she is still incredibly beautiful from the neck down and also that she is perhaps strangely, sadistically attractive cranially. And the organization is called "UHID"Thechosenone021 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
From howlingfantods.com:
So the conclusion was that Joelle's condition is mostly a matter of opinion, and seems to hinge on whether or not you believe Notkin. Which then leads to the issue of narration -- who's narrating what, can you believe the narrator(s), what's the deal with the footnotes, etc. There are simply too many permutations to list. I think that topic sort of fizzled out because it seems like there's no absolute answer, and maybe we shouldn't be trying to figure it out anyway.
This is at the end of an extensive discussion for and against JvD being deformed. The evidence is deliberately ambiguous and subject to interpretation. I will note that Molly Notkin's extreme and demonstrated unreliability/confusion on matters of fact leads me to be very sceptical of her explanations, but I won't attempt to put that in the article. Slac speak up! 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is hard to parse. Here are a few comments:
- Orin's relationship with her, even at that time, is more involved with mommy- and daddy-issues than anything. It's easy to read that he'd break up with her because of her being closer to his father than he was.
- Molly Notkin didn't know Joelle pre-incident. The endnotes specifically say that Molly has seen Madame Psychosis naked but never unveiled.
- According to Molly, Joelle's mom killed herself on Thanksgiving of Y.T.M.P., 4+ months before Himself killed, um, himself.
- The bit about Lucille Duquette being Joelle's real name is a lie. Duquette was a film critic.
- Joelle may have been lying (or simply repressing) when she admitted "I'm beautiful" to Gately. When talking with Gately later on, she seems to be repressing the Thanksgiving incident, so the acid could be a part of that.
- None of the Ennet House residents seem to notice any deformities on her face.
- She did look on her beauty as a disability, and it would fit well with Wallace's style if she were wearing the veil to stop people from gawking at her. Cyclone05 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I always wondered how she had low-PH acid splashed on her face and somehow doesn't actually appear to be deformed. Maybe only the surface of her face was affected and she washed it off in time, and the veil's there for some other reason?--Jacj 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Infinite Generator external link?

I'm not sure if this new link, Infinite Generator, belongs on this page. It may be interesting, but it doesn't contribute any relevant information about the book Infinite Jest. Wowbobwow12 18:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, but if you wanted to remove it, I wouldn't object. Catamorphism 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think its relevant because it makes a solid critique of the books style that is also amusing and demonstrates the nature of the book. It is not nearly obtrusive enough to merit such close inspection. I say it stays. --Thechosenone021 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I say remove. It doesn't do much to support the article, and the blatant spelling errors littered throughout just bug me. Deafgeek 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Monty Python

The seed for this book's premise sounds like it may have come from an old Monty Python sketch about "the world's funniest joke". Has anyone referenced this in interviews or reviews? 193.129.65.37 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Err. I thought this page made some reference to that. I believe there is some sort of like, deadly entertainment catagory or something. Or maybe somebody told me about this. You could totally put a link to that somewhere on the page just for a concept comparison, but I'm nearly certain that this books relation to that is only coincedental, not thematic. The purpose of the samizdat's power is to be disturbing; it is a critique of hedonism in modern society.Thechosenone021 12:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you thinking of Motif of harmful sensation? Slac speak up! 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching the Monty Python episode "Whither Canada", saw the Funniest Joke sketch, and automatically thought of Infinite Jest. So it's not just you. The similarities are eerie.Cyclone05 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollents?

I haven't actually read this book, (though I should and probably will) but as a Québecer myself, I can't help but notice "rollent" isn't a word in French. Wheelchair is fauteuil roulant. I assume it was written rollents in the book, but I still wonder if it should be mentionned.

Above post written by User:74.57.195.75 (Sign your comments please)

Hey, as someone who did read the book, if thats totally true than nothing would be more fitting than using "Sic" after every instance of the AFR in the article. Someone totally look into this! Thechosenone021 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Err. Uh. That wasn't a go ahead to institute the correct french spelling. A. lets verify with the book. B. i don't parlevouz but it could be quebecois spelling? C. it would still be awesome to follow the spelling with [sic] Thechosenone021 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't speak for whether or not it's correct French, but I did get the book for Christmas. Il y a endnote 39's footnote a: "Les Assassins des Fauteuils Rollents, a.k.a. Wheelchair Assassins, pretty much Québec's most dreaded and rapacious anti-O.N.A.N. terrorist cell." --Jacj 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, here's something interesting: I googled fauteuil rollent and got only four hits, one of which was about Georges Perec, the French writer. After writing a novel without using 'e', he wrote a novella using no vowel other than 'e', Les Revenentes, an intentional misspelling of Les Revenantes. Recall that Georges Perec is given a shout-out in Infinite Jest: Luria P____'s last name is in fact Perec. Adking80 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exuse me for this but..

  • Did it occur to anybody to write a plot?--Rex Imperator
Possibly not to Wallace. Neil Hunt 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooooo, burn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.250.143 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Himself - insane?

The text reports:

"It is suggested that he can create and view the Entertainment without becoming entranced because at the time of its creation he is already insane."

Could someone exactly tell me where, in the book? I've just finished reading it, but I can't remember this - thanks.

I too just finished rereading the book, and I'm pretty sure that line does not appear anywhere in it (for one thing, it doesn't sound like DFW; for another, nothing is suggested by way of saying "It is suggested." There are no narrators in IJ who would suggest something that way.) It may be from a discussion elsewhere, or a review--something along those lines. Wangoed 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall this line either. To be safe, I searched an electronic version of the book and couldn't find any of several of those phrase parts anywhere. Orangeseattle (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne

is in fact not not directly quoted in the text. His lone actual quotable utterance can be found on page 115 ("Plateaux. With an X.") Further vocalizations are summarized by various narrators but the question of them (the vocalizations, as in their existence) is never in doubt. Wangoed 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End Zone - inspiration

Mention should probably be made of DFW's "borrowing" of certain elements from DeLillo's End Zone and other works, see http://waste.org/mail/?list=wallace-l&month=0102&msg=11100&keywords=end%20zone%20delillo Tchernobog (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Montesian

The following text appears in the main article as part of the description of the character Pat Montesian: "It is implied that Mars owns the only non-lethal form of the Entertainment, and that their daughter is hopelessly addicted to it. Pat is especially fond of Don Gately, perhaps because of his recovery from addiction and his survival of being 'Entertained'." To the best of my knowledge, this entire statement is pure speculation, not supported in any way by the novel. I cannot find any passages in the novel that could possibly be interpreted as evidence that Pat M.'s husband "owns the only non-lethal form of the Entertainment" - nor is there any evidence that a "non-lethal form of the Entertainment" exists at all - and Don Gately definitely does not view the Entertainment at any point in the story. I feel this statement should be deleted from the main article, unless someone can offer evidence of its validity. JulesDassin (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Icarus of old (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Infinite Jest

I'm a new user here, admittedly, but I can't find a way to address Icarus of Old directly. I'm just trying to figure out why he removed my addition to the Stylistic Elements section. I'm trying to figure out if I was improperly adding or not, or if this was arbitrary. Thanks for the help, anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeseattle (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found your edit to be redundant, especially coming right after the note about acronyms. In addition, your wording was strongly biased. Icarus of old (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks for the word. I actually don't see how it was particularly "redundant" since acronyms aren't endnotes, acronyms, or post-modernisms. I'm also not sure which part is "biased" in the sentence "Abbreviations of terms, people, places occur sporadically and seemingly without an overall uniformity." Maybe you don't love it, but, hey, it's in the book and quite pertinent to the 'dislocation' techniques he uses in general. Now, I don't want to be argumentative--really, I don't--and I accept that anyone can edit anything, but since it's Wikipedia and not Icapedia, I find it odd that a decentered collaboration should have such a gatekeeper. I'd like to add more to infinite Jest, but, quite honestly, I have much better things to do than write things that will be edited away because IJ just happens to be someone's pet project. I'd just like to be in the conversation is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeseattle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How clever. Icarus of old (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, Icapedia. It's funny, cause Icarus is a douchebag. Funny funny funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.250.143 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stylistic elements - lack of sources

Does the stylistic elements section really need to cite any sources?

  • Endnotes are used frequently throughout the novel. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Wallace characterized their use as a method of disrupting the linearity of the text while maintaining some sense of narrative cohesion.

^ There are ~100 pages of endnotes = frequent use of endnotes. Maybe a link to the Charlie Rose interview would be in order, I think that the DFW interview video is available on his site.

  • Acronyms are another signature device in Wallace's work, and used frequently in the novel.

^ There are a lot of acronyms.

  • Wallace's writing voice is a postmodern mixture of high- and low-brow linguistic traits. He juxtaposes, often within a single sentence, colloquialisms and polysyllabic, highly esoteric words.

^ Open the book to a random page.

In before "original research bla bla bla" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.178.252 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)