NP - Infinite Jest

[Robin Landseadel]

I found the end of Infinite Jest absolutely harrowing. At the same  
time, the book felt like it was obsessed with detail beyond the point  
of distraction. But the way the lines singled up in the end made for a  
very powerful statement. On the other hand I doubt I'll re-read  
Infinite Jest. I've been reading and re-reading Inherent Vice since it  
came out. Each new pass unearths new meanings.

On Sep 23, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:

> I like Matthew, too and I am one who stopped out of reading some BIG  
> novels due to work overload and life pressures (including GR back in  
> the dark ages)------BUT I am firmly of the camp that we should take  
> the time with (the right) big books.......The world is hugely hard  
> to get right....
> So, size matters.
>
> Here's one major problem as I see it: How do we feel the big books  
> relatively whole, positive or less than?  We have to have some sense  
> of the cumulative themes as they come together---or don't. (see the  
> plisters
> on whether Aginst the Day works as a whole or doesn't. I had more  
> time than when I first tried to read GR (or Proust for that matter)  
> and/but I did feel it build to its ending(s).....
>
> Others feel there is much that is extraneous in Atd, as I did about  
> IJ, say.
>
> Just sayin'...
>
> --- On Wed, 9/23/09, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> Subject: NP - Infinite Jest
>> To: "P-list" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 2:37 PM
>> Matthew Yglesias, one of my favorite
>> political bloggers just finished IJ:
>>
>> http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/09/infinite-jest.php
>>
>> After working at it on-and-off all summer long, I’m
>> finally done with
>> Infinite Jest and I feel . . . well, I don’t quite know
>> how I feel. I
>> was determined not to let reading this difficult book
>> become a
>> “difficult” process and just resolved to read a page
>> then turn the
>> page then read the next page (modified, as necessary, for
>> footnotes
>> and such) and not spend too much time worrying about
>> whether or not I
>> was understanding everything that’s going on.
>> Consequently, I enjoyed
>> myself reading the book—it’s funny, clever, etc., has
>> some great set
>> pieces, blah blah. Also some weak points. But by the end
>> this has
>> added up to . . . what, exactly? I don’t really know. A
>> sprawling
>> meditation on addiction and the over-entertained American,
>> I guess.
>>
>> But in a fundamental sense it struck me as very
>> unsatisfying. Not just
>> in terms of the weird ending, but in terms of definitely
>> not feeling
>> like I got more out of reading it than I could have gotten
>> out of
>> reading three books that were one third the length. That in
>> turn is
>> really making me glad that I was made to read Anna Karenina
>> and Moby
>> Dick in high school. I really loved both those giant
>> honking books,
>> but does it really make sense for a busy person in the
>> modern world
>> who maybe doesn’t care to dedicate all that much time to
>> classic
>> novels to read them?

The obsessiveness of Moby Dick struck me as apt and Anna Karenina is a  
book overflowing with emotion. So I would say yes to both—they are  
more than satisfying enough. Certainly more satisfying than 500  
episodes of "Law & Order."

>> Seems like it might make more sense to
>> read some
>> short Tolstoy like “Family Happiness” and “Hadji
>> Murat” and then move
>> on to other things.
>>
>> Adding new possible ways to entertain ourselves naturally
>> starts to
>> squeeze out the viability of some old ways. And maybe the
>> long novel
>> is among the squeezed. Which seems in some ways regrettable
>> (which I
>> take it is part of the point of Infinite Jest) but at the
>> same time to
>> really be a feature of the world.