Scan barcode
blueisthenewpink's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
5.0
Wow, was this book frustrating! Including the end. A thousand pages of parallel, sometimes intersecting stories, endnotes¹, characters speaking in nonstandard English, some others using a superstandard variant, with unnecessary grammar nazism, all extremely dysfunctional, with some truly horrific stories in their lives, some absolutely abysmal events the reader has to witness irl.
Often, it was like wading through mud, waist-high. It is not a story, it is life. With all its complexity, revolting scenes and quite depressing hopelessness. Also, it was very engaging, I was deeply interested in these stories, most of them at least, still, it was too dense to ever read it quickly².
Following the timeline with all these crazy names for the years proved to be so challenging that I simply gave up trying to understand the order of events after a while. It all started to converge towards the end though and despite not getting any closure, the interconnectedness of these fates became clear.
I loved the sense of humour though. Things like “you have to take what Orin says in a fairly high-sodium way” or “Not exactly the swiftest ship in Her Majesty’s fleet in terms of like upstairs” and “the parents apparently being not exactly the two brightest bulbs in the great U.S. parental light-show” not to mention “Pemulis invites Ingersoll to do something anatomically impossible.”.
And the vast vocabulary.
When narrating from one's point of view, even though it's 3rd person singular, the text becomes like that person's thoughts, with mistakes, with forgotten words. Not to the level of unreadability, but the pace, the choice of words tell that we are inside of this character's head now (often not the happiest places).
Most of the text is this way, but towards the end, there is a sudden switch to 1st person singular at times, making it much more personal even though we heard all this character’s thoughts in the 3rd person before. It turns out to be a completely different experience, more involved to the extent that it feels like being trapped in this character’s situation.
It hasn’t always been easy to read, but I grew to care about most of the characters and I definitely salute the accomplishment. I haven’t enjoyed it as much as Joyce’s Ulysses, but I appreciate it just the same.
¹ one hundred pagesª of them (b)
ªlike this
(b) 388 altogether*
* one of them 8 pages long with 6 sub-endnotes, another 5 pages long
²with the only exception ofDon Gately's standing up for the tenants of Ennet House, and the parts after, when I really wanted to see whether he would be okay. And of course I never quite knew. Or I did. But not explicitly.
ªlike this
(b) 388 altogether*
* one of them 8 pages long with 6 sub-endnotes, another 5 pages long
²with the only exception of
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Animal cruelty, Drug abuse, Physical abuse, Torture, Violence, and Medical trauma
ciarafor's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
I’m taking away a star for the sheer amount of racism and sexism in this book - every single female character is objectified so extremely this book can be difficult to read as a woman sometimes.
Taking away another star for the number of times I grew exasperatedly bored with long passages about the individual hallway patterns and structures of buildings and longest backstories that sometimes were crucial and other times entirely useless. And for the way this book made me want to crawl out of my skin way more than once.
But I can’t justify taking away any other stars, because outside of those two (pretty significant) things, this book was one of the most intelligent, intriguing, and powerful books I’ve read. I will not subscribe to the Myth of Male Genius or allow DFW to be venerated as faultless, but this work really is something you kind of have to put a capital G on the Genius for. The entire book, DFW tells you exactly what he’s doing and going to do, and when he does it, it’s still somehow earth shattering. It’s bold, it’s boundary-breaking, and it has left me reeling on more than one occasion. I personally believe the point of literature is to make you feel things, experience things you haven’t had the occasion to touch or think on, to live through someone else’s creation. At its core, Infinite Jest will make you feel, and think, and live through all kinds of stuff you didn’t want to, and may be better off or far worse off for. Read at your own risk - but if you want to experience something unlike anything else you have thus far, and you can stomach what comes with it, Infinite Jest might just be worth picking up.
Taking away another star for the number of times I grew exasperatedly bored with long passages about the individual hallway patterns and structures of buildings and longest backstories that sometimes were crucial and other times entirely useless. And for the way this book made me want to crawl out of my skin way more than once.
But I can’t justify taking away any other stars, because outside of those two (pretty significant) things, this book was one of the most intelligent, intriguing, and powerful books I’ve read. I will not subscribe to the Myth of Male Genius or allow DFW to be venerated as faultless, but this work really is something you kind of have to put a capital G on the Genius for. The entire book, DFW tells you exactly what he’s doing and going to do, and when he does it, it’s still somehow earth shattering. It’s bold, it’s boundary-breaking, and it has left me reeling on more than one occasion. I personally believe the point of literature is to make you feel things, experience things you haven’t had the occasion to touch or think on, to live through someone else’s creation. At its core, Infinite Jest will make you feel, and think, and live through all kinds of stuff you didn’t want to, and may be better off or far worse off for. Read at your own risk - but if you want to experience something unlike anything else you have thus far, and you can stomach what comes with it, Infinite Jest might just be worth picking up.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Body horror, Bullying, Child abuse, Cursing, Death, Domestic abuse, Drug abuse, Drug use, Eating disorder, Emotional abuse, Gore, Homophobia, Incest, Misogyny, Pedophilia, Physical abuse, Racial slurs, Racism, Rape, Sexism, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Sexual violence, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Toxic relationship, Transphobia, Violence, Blood, Excrement, Vomit, Medical content, Grief, Medical trauma, Suicide attempt, Death of parent, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Pregnancy, Gaslighting, Alcohol, Sexual harassment, and Injury/Injury detail
cecdex's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Alcoholism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Child death, Domestic abuse, Drug abuse, Drug use, Gore, Racism, Suicide, Violence, and Alcohol
Basically every triggerlizburny's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
It is a book that pulls you in and pushes you away.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Bullying, Child abuse, Cursing, Death, Domestic abuse, Drug abuse, Drug use, Emotional abuse, Gore, Hate crime, Homophobia, Incest, Infidelity, Mental illness, Panic attacks/disorders, Physical abuse, Racial slurs, Racism, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Sexual violence, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Transphobia, Violence, Forced institutionalization, Islamophobia, Grief, Medical trauma, Suicide attempt, Death of parent, Murder, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Cultural appropriation, Alcohol, and Injury/Injury detail
beansrowning's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
It took several months of non-committal reading and a month of solid reading to knock this out.
Wow. Not sure where to begin. I both loved many sections and hated an equal amount.
I get why so many people just don't finish it, but I'm happy I did. Not my favorite book, but one that has (maybe a bit too much) to say.
Wow. Not sure where to begin. I both loved many sections and hated an equal amount.
I get why so many people just don't finish it, but I'm happy I did. Not my favorite book, but one that has (maybe a bit too much) to say.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Alcoholism, Drug abuse, Drug use, Racial slurs, and Alcohol
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Suicide, and Suicide attempt
lenas_books's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
The ending was a bit disappointing bc everything was left unanswered. Still, very well written, funny at times (especially the part about the Eschaton). Even though I didn't give it the highest rating, it's still one of the best books I ever read.
Very complicated in the beginning and a lot of things are only explained later on, that would've made more sense in the beginning.
Very complicated in the beginning and a lot of things are only explained later on, that would've made more sense in the beginning.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Drug abuse, and Drug use
phigerinadon's review against another edition
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
Content Warnings
Graphic: Drug abuse
goroshyna's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Ця книжка виявилася не такою заплутаною, як я очікувала (добре). Основна складність полягає в тому, щоби запам'ятати всіх персонажів у цьому дуже довгому романі.
Якби в мене була необмежена кількість часу, я би точно перечитала «Нескінченний жарт», щоби ще раз зв'язати все докупи. Для мене все почало складатися в один сюжет десь на останній третині книжки, а до цього персонажі хіба що з'являлися на тлі окремих ліній оповідання. Було очевидно, що автор сам професійно займався тенісом і, напевно, мав досвід відвідування зустрічей анонімних наркоманів. Тема залежності та тверезості відіграє одну з провідних ролей роману.
Ще одним мотивом твору виступає мистецтво, а саме його вплив і підходи до його реалізації. Один з героїв «Нескінченного жарту» знімає незалежні фільми, які запрошують аудиторію до метааналізу безпосередньо під час сеансу. Читаючи розділи про режисера, я замислювалася, чи автор також хоче вирвати читачів із занурення в події роману та змусити їх усвідомити, що вони читають текст, написаний людиною в реальному світі.
Я помітила спроби автора коментувати політику, але далі, ніж прирівняти політиків і дітей, які грають у ядерну кризу, він не пішов.
Якщо двома словами, то це дуже довга метамодерністська книжка, яку можна читати, а можна не читати. Вона точно наштовхнула мене на цікаві роздуми.
Якби в мене була необмежена кількість часу, я би точно перечитала «Нескінченний жарт», щоби ще раз зв'язати все докупи. Для мене все почало складатися в один сюжет десь на останній третині книжки, а до цього персонажі хіба що з'являлися на тлі окремих ліній оповідання. Було очевидно, що автор сам професійно займався тенісом і, напевно, мав досвід відвідування зустрічей анонімних наркоманів. Тема залежності та тверезості відіграє одну з провідних ролей роману.
Ще одним мотивом твору виступає мистецтво, а саме його вплив і підходи до його реалізації. Один з героїв «Нескінченного жарту» знімає незалежні фільми, які запрошують аудиторію до метааналізу безпосередньо під час сеансу. Читаючи розділи про режисера, я замислювалася, чи автор також хоче вирвати читачів із занурення в події роману та змусити їх усвідомити, що вони читають текст, написаний людиною в реальному світі.
Я помітила спроби автора коментувати політику, але далі, ніж прирівняти політиків і дітей, які грають у ядерну кризу, він не пішов.
Якщо двома словами, то це дуже довга метамодерністська книжка, яку можна читати, а можна не читати. Вона точно наштовхнула мене на цікаві роздуми.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Animal cruelty, Child abuse, Drug abuse, Incest, Pedophilia, Suicide, and Death of parent
thepurplebookwyrm's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.75
Fuck this book. My brain hurts.
Several days later...
My brain still hurts, but I shall do my best to structure my thoughts and feelings about this bish into a semi-coherent review.
Premise:
Sike! Just kidding, this fucker doesn't really have a plot.
But fiiiiiiine...
-> Ya got Harold (yes, seriously) Incandenza, a teen prodigy studying at a tennis academy founded by his father, bopping along with his friends and getting addicted to cannabis.
-> Ya got the rest of the Incandenza family doing stuff and things.
-> Ya got a bunch of drug addicts doing drugs, fucking up their lives because they do drugs, and trying to turn their lives around at the Ennet Recovery House, all more or less centring on a character named Don Gately.
-> Ya got a government agent from the US conversing (for way too long, holy shit, and over lots of separate chapters) with a double agent from a group of Quebec separatists, about the merits and demerits of 'Murican Freedom™, and how this all relates back to brain-washing (literally) entertainment.
And it's all more or less set in a quasi-dystopian near-future when bits of north-eastern America are no longer inhabited because... something to do with "nuclear" waste actually re-wilding shit à la Area X, kinda (if I got that right). And bits of Canada aren't really... independent anymore (if I got that right). Calendar years are sponsored by various brands because not-so-subtle theming on consumerism and entertainment (and addiction). The Internet isn't really a thing like it actually is in the real world, but nor does it actually resemble cyberpunk-ish propositions. Rather, people watch a lot of tailored content on 'teleputers', and that's about it.
Oh, and there's a fuck ton of endnotes, most of which are pointless (don't fucking @ me), given they just give you pharmaceutical information on various mood- and consciousness-altering substances (a fair few of which aren't even in circulation anymore, but whatevs).
Rambling thoughts (because why shouldn't they be giving the book itself is an abject rambling mess):
1) Plot, structure or rather lack thereof: I want to formally apologise to every book I ever criticised for their lack of proper and/or conventional structure. I was but a Sweet Summer Child who clearly didn't know what true chaos of form entailed in literature. Because holy shit: Infinite Jest, in my book, barely even qualifies as a novel. There is no real plot to speak of. The structure is a sprawling mess of indulgent excess. And no, I don't give a fuck that this was probably by design, and part of the supposed "point". This shit, right here, is why peeps make fun of 'Post-Modernism' in the Arts, gah dayum. Fiction literature is a storytelling art form: I will die on this (subjective, sure, but so what!) hill, and given Infinite Jest barely, just barely, tells a cogent and meaningful story, it barely qualifies as fiction literature, as a novel. That's just how it is for me.
It was a mess: nothing justified those 1400 pages. Because what little meaningful commentary, theming, emotionality there was in this text was completely obliterated by the sheer mass of "litbabble" inflating, bloating, padding it out. Reading Infinite Jest felt like I was being force-fed words! And it made me realise that 'Horseshoe Theory' can in fact be applied to literature: if flat and too-sparse writing seldom achieves much in terms of conveying ideas, emotions, meaning, what have you, neither does its indulgently, bloatedly excessive counterpart! I sure learned that the hard way... fuck me. 🥲
2) Prose, I guess: not that it was all bad in terms of prose? I'll give Wallace this: I can tell the man could, in fact, write, in the sense that he could competently, and more or less effectively at times, switch between different writing styles. But being able to do that doesn't mean one should just shove all of them in one book, and cut them up across wildly dissonant chapters like he did. The amount of tonal whiplash I experienced reading Infinite Jest was insane. Hell, the structural whiplash I experienced wasn't any better, to come back to that. Obscenely long walls of text –not to mention obscenely long fucking sentences – alternated with snappy dialogues, drug-fuelled internal monologues, email transcripts, serialised anecdotes and political meeting minutes. Just why the actual fuck was it written that way?! Yes, it did reek of "try-hardism" in places, sue me. I didn't even mind the vocabulary: it wasn't that advanced, all things considered, but like... why am I not bothered by this shit when Miéville or Nabokov does it, hmm? Because their vocabulary gets woven into their narratives in a way that feels seamless and organic!
3) Characters: I didn't care about anyone, or anything in Infinite Jest. What I find really bizarre, however, is that for something that is 1400 pages long, I found Infinite Jest's character work surprisingly superficial, across most of its protagonists. It's not that it was non-existent, or even bad per se, but more so that I expected a lot more depth given the sheer hugeness of this... 'pseudo-tale'.
4) World-building: this one is really freaking weird genre-wise. Infinite Jest primarily reads as general fiction, yes, but it is technically set in the near-future (as imagined in the 1980s/90s by Wallace), and features a North American landscape that is a little different from our own. And I think this genre-bending choice was, not only entirely unnecessary for the book's theming (such as I read it), but just... really poorly executed. Because it was under-developed, or rather developed in a way too narrow, and thus uncommitted fashion. I felt, at times, like I was reading dystopian or lite science-fiction that has aged really, and I mean really badly – think something rather mediocre written in, say, the 1960s. If you contrast this to the kind of mild and subtle world-building you find in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale or Butler's Parable of the Sower, Infinite Jest doesn't come off as thoughtfully prescient, it comes off as incredibly clunky – even old-fashioned in some respects.
And I repeat, its theming did not need this weird, 'speculative literature-lite' framing. Or, conversely, if Wallace really wanted to play with the idea of dystopian 'entertainment-addiction', he should've committed more fully to sheer speculation because, as it stands, I'd argue freaking Brave New World does that shit way better, and in a much more concise, not to mention memorable, manner. Basically, Wallace's chonker suffers from vaguely residing in that wishy-washy nothing genre-space 'magically realist' novels occupy.
5) Theming: the only merit I found in Infinite Jest (because no, it wasn't all negative, hence the two stars) were its bits of commentary, theming... on addiction. And, sure, linked to that: mental illness, despair, and entertainment – kind of. I say 'kind of' because, really, at the end of the day, entertainment itself is critiqued through the lens of addiction, and the destruction it wreaks on individuals and, fine, society with regards to questions of individual freedom, responsibility, etc... Though really, I think the individual tragedy of addiction is what comes through the text the most.
And yes, I'm aware this, alongside depression, is something with which Wallace was intimately familiar. This is probably why the latter point comes through the text as strongly as it does: as a fellow mental illness sufferer, I could definitely tell Wallace wrote a lot of the addiction and depression stuff straight from the source of painful experience. And as it so happens... the best parts, by lightyears, of the book were indeed (some of) those that dealt with the horror of addiction, and/or the agony of severe depression.
What maddens me, however, is that so much of that was then lost in the freaking sauce of the book's inherent, indulgent excess. And I'm left with this question: was the "Haha, gotchu!" aspect of the book – reflecting the indulgent excess of addiction by being, itself, indulgently excessive in style – really worth it, given I felt it took away from its thematic and emotional impact? I really don't think so. It's near impossible to pull off this kind of... meta-critique (I don't think that's the right concept, but fuck it) because, 90% of the time, you just end up reifying the thing you're trying to criticise. And I just don't think Wallace pulled it off.
The ending pissed me off. I'm not sure I fully "got it", but whatever, I was so fucking done with this bish. No, I didn't read every single endnote, because fuck off with that honestly and, quite frankly, if you think that emulates the 'feeling of a tennis match': a) you've never actually watched tennis, and/or b) you've never played tennis. I actually have played tennis, and seen my fair share of tennis because my parents watched a lot of it on telly. Guess what: tennis goes pretty freaking fast. But you know what doesn't go pretty freaking fast? Me having to take 10 to 20 fucking minutes to read a goddamn endnote that takes me out of the main text! So I call massive bullshit.
I was originally recommended Infinite Jest by my ex. I kinda get why he relates to this, in places, and it kind of breaks my heart honestly. But outside of that, I don't understand what he, or anyone else, finds funny about this one. Because for me, Wallace's magnum opus wasn't so much an Infinite Jest as it was, well... a Bad Joke.
PS: okay, fine, the whole 'Eschaton' thing was actually pretty funny, in a very fucked up dark humour sort of way – my ex gets exactly one point there.
Several days later...
My brain still hurts, but I shall do my best to structure my thoughts and feelings about this bish into a semi-coherent review.
Premise:
Sike! Just kidding, this fucker doesn't really have a plot.
But fiiiiiiine...
-> Ya got Harold (yes, seriously) Incandenza, a teen prodigy studying at a tennis academy founded by his father, bopping along with his friends and getting addicted to cannabis.
-> Ya got the rest of the Incandenza family doing stuff and things.
-> Ya got a bunch of drug addicts doing drugs, fucking up their lives because they do drugs, and trying to turn their lives around at the Ennet Recovery House, all more or less centring on a character named Don Gately.
-> Ya got a government agent from the US conversing (for way too long, holy shit, and over lots of separate chapters) with a double agent from a group of Quebec separatists, about the merits and demerits of 'Murican Freedom™, and how this all relates back to brain-washing (literally) entertainment.
And it's all more or less set in a quasi-dystopian near-future when bits of north-eastern America are no longer inhabited because... something to do with "nuclear" waste actually re-wilding shit à la Area X, kinda (if I got that right). And bits of Canada aren't really... independent anymore (if I got that right). Calendar years are sponsored by various brands because not-so-subtle theming on consumerism and entertainment (and addiction). The Internet isn't really a thing like it actually is in the real world, but nor does it actually resemble cyberpunk-ish propositions. Rather, people watch a lot of tailored content on 'teleputers', and that's about it.
Oh, and there's a fuck ton of endnotes, most of which are pointless (don't fucking @ me), given they just give you pharmaceutical information on various mood- and consciousness-altering substances (a fair few of which aren't even in circulation anymore, but whatevs).
Rambling thoughts (because why shouldn't they be giving the book itself is an abject rambling mess):
1) Plot, structure or rather lack thereof: I want to formally apologise to every book I ever criticised for their lack of proper and/or conventional structure. I was but a Sweet Summer Child who clearly didn't know what true chaos of form entailed in literature. Because holy shit: Infinite Jest, in my book, barely even qualifies as a novel. There is no real plot to speak of. The structure is a sprawling mess of indulgent excess. And no, I don't give a fuck that this was probably by design, and part of the supposed "point". This shit, right here, is why peeps make fun of 'Post-Modernism' in the Arts, gah dayum. Fiction literature is a storytelling art form: I will die on this (subjective, sure, but so what!) hill, and given Infinite Jest barely, just barely, tells a cogent and meaningful story, it barely qualifies as fiction literature, as a novel. That's just how it is for me.
It was a mess: nothing justified those 1400 pages. Because what little meaningful commentary, theming, emotionality there was in this text was completely obliterated by the sheer mass of "litbabble" inflating, bloating, padding it out. Reading Infinite Jest felt like I was being force-fed words! And it made me realise that 'Horseshoe Theory' can in fact be applied to literature: if flat and too-sparse writing seldom achieves much in terms of conveying ideas, emotions, meaning, what have you, neither does its indulgently, bloatedly excessive counterpart! I sure learned that the hard way... fuck me. 🥲
2) Prose, I guess: not that it was all bad in terms of prose? I'll give Wallace this: I can tell the man could, in fact, write, in the sense that he could competently, and more or less effectively at times, switch between different writing styles. But being able to do that doesn't mean one should just shove all of them in one book, and cut them up across wildly dissonant chapters like he did. The amount of tonal whiplash I experienced reading Infinite Jest was insane. Hell, the structural whiplash I experienced wasn't any better, to come back to that. Obscenely long walls of text –not to mention obscenely long fucking sentences – alternated with snappy dialogues, drug-fuelled internal monologues, email transcripts, serialised anecdotes and political meeting minutes. Just why the actual fuck was it written that way?! Yes, it did reek of "try-hardism" in places, sue me. I didn't even mind the vocabulary: it wasn't that advanced, all things considered, but like... why am I not bothered by this shit when Miéville or Nabokov does it, hmm? Because their vocabulary gets woven into their narratives in a way that feels seamless and organic!
3) Characters: I didn't care about anyone, or anything in Infinite Jest. What I find really bizarre, however, is that for something that is 1400 pages long, I found Infinite Jest's character work surprisingly superficial, across most of its protagonists. It's not that it was non-existent, or even bad per se, but more so that I expected a lot more depth given the sheer hugeness of this... 'pseudo-tale'.
4) World-building: this one is really freaking weird genre-wise. Infinite Jest primarily reads as general fiction, yes, but it is technically set in the near-future (as imagined in the 1980s/90s by Wallace), and features a North American landscape that is a little different from our own. And I think this genre-bending choice was, not only entirely unnecessary for the book's theming (such as I read it), but just... really poorly executed. Because it was under-developed, or rather developed in a way too narrow, and thus uncommitted fashion. I felt, at times, like I was reading dystopian or lite science-fiction that has aged really, and I mean really badly – think something rather mediocre written in, say, the 1960s. If you contrast this to the kind of mild and subtle world-building you find in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale or Butler's Parable of the Sower, Infinite Jest doesn't come off as thoughtfully prescient, it comes off as incredibly clunky – even old-fashioned in some respects.
And I repeat, its theming did not need this weird, 'speculative literature-lite' framing. Or, conversely, if Wallace really wanted to play with the idea of dystopian 'entertainment-addiction', he should've committed more fully to sheer speculation because, as it stands, I'd argue freaking Brave New World does that shit way better, and in a much more concise, not to mention memorable, manner. Basically, Wallace's chonker suffers from vaguely residing in that wishy-washy nothing genre-space 'magically realist' novels occupy.
5) Theming: the only merit I found in Infinite Jest (because no, it wasn't all negative, hence the two stars) were its bits of commentary, theming... on addiction. And, sure, linked to that: mental illness, despair, and entertainment – kind of. I say 'kind of' because, really, at the end of the day, entertainment itself is critiqued through the lens of addiction, and the destruction it wreaks on individuals and, fine, society with regards to questions of individual freedom, responsibility, etc... Though really, I think the individual tragedy of addiction is what comes through the text the most.
And yes, I'm aware this, alongside depression, is something with which Wallace was intimately familiar. This is probably why the latter point comes through the text as strongly as it does: as a fellow mental illness sufferer, I could definitely tell Wallace wrote a lot of the addiction and depression stuff straight from the source of painful experience. And as it so happens... the best parts, by lightyears, of the book were indeed (some of) those that dealt with the horror of addiction, and/or the agony of severe depression.
What maddens me, however, is that so much of that was then lost in the freaking sauce of the book's inherent, indulgent excess. And I'm left with this question: was the "Haha, gotchu!" aspect of the book – reflecting the indulgent excess of addiction by being, itself, indulgently excessive in style – really worth it, given I felt it took away from its thematic and emotional impact? I really don't think so. It's near impossible to pull off this kind of... meta-critique (I don't think that's the right concept, but fuck it) because, 90% of the time, you just end up reifying the thing you're trying to criticise. And I just don't think Wallace pulled it off.
The ending pissed me off. I'm not sure I fully "got it", but whatever, I was so fucking done with this bish. No, I didn't read every single endnote, because fuck off with that honestly and, quite frankly, if you think that emulates the 'feeling of a tennis match': a) you've never actually watched tennis, and/or b) you've never played tennis. I actually have played tennis, and seen my fair share of tennis because my parents watched a lot of it on telly. Guess what: tennis goes pretty freaking fast. But you know what doesn't go pretty freaking fast? Me having to take 10 to 20 fucking minutes to read a goddamn endnote that takes me out of the main text! So I call massive bullshit.
I was originally recommended Infinite Jest by my ex. I kinda get why he relates to this, in places, and it kind of breaks my heart honestly. But outside of that, I don't understand what he, or anyone else, finds funny about this one. Because for me, Wallace's magnum opus wasn't so much an Infinite Jest as it was, well... a Bad Joke.
PS: okay, fine, the whole 'Eschaton' thing was actually pretty funny, in a very fucked up dark humour sort of way – my ex gets exactly one point there.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Drug abuse and Mental illness
Minor: Animal cruelty and Sexual violence
Drug abuse and mental illness – depression specifically – are central themes/thematic explorations of Infinite Jest. Some characters, who are drug addicts, also talk about their experiences with sexual violence, or with harming animals.scorpion_221's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Drug abuse, Drug use, Sexual assault, and Suicidal thoughts