Infinite Jest

[jbor at bigpond.com]

On 25/05/2006:
>
> Quite frankly I think the biggest killer for the book was that the
> footnotes were in the back, so you couldn't tell if it was just
> another one-line footnote referencing a fictional movie or if it was a
> three page, important addition to the story.  I really, truly hope
> that one day they'll reprint it with the footnotes at the bottom of
> the pages so that you can tell right then and there instead of
> flipping to the back five times per page.  Half the page might be
> footnotes but I think it would make a world of difference.

I didn't have a problem with the footnotes at all, because you just 
slip your bookmark in place at the back while you're reading and it's a 
quick flick. I think it's important that the footnotes are where they 
are because the physical experience of flicking backwards and forwards 
mirrors and accentuates the way the narrative is constructed and its 
intended effect.

But I found after a while that I was reading on because I felt I had to 
rather than because I really wanted to. The style of humour becomes 
monotonous, and you can get a better fix of it watching the Marx 
Brothers or Arrested Development, for example. I ended up reading 
backwards from the end, reading parts in the middle, flicking through 
semi-randomly and reading chunks, until I'd read enough. Didn't feel 
wrong to do that with it.

Makes it sound more negative than it should, I know. It's an important 
American book and a monumental achievement.

best


> The parts
> that were good, were really good, but I couldn't reconcile myself with
> it as a whole - then again I didn't bother flipping back to every last
> footnote, so it's possible I missed some important bits.  Then AGAIN,
> the parts that were bad, were really bad.  I don't know where he got
> his information on marijuana, for example, because unless it was
> supposed to be BS he seems to have really screwed that facet of it up.
>
>