Item — HN Reader

Using the three plots of Infinite Jest as the vertices doesn't really work, there is nothing fractal like about the plot itself and plot is not the structure. How I see it is that the vertices would be family, education, and society, which are all deeply interrelated. For the majority of the characters we learn their relation to these three things, in Hal and Gately we get a very well developed view of it, not so much for Marathe and Steeply where the family and education aspect is abbreviated and I think this is where the mentioned mercy cuts happened.

I don't think I would say Infinite Jest has three plots, it feels like it does because the plot never happens, we get the setup and then it is dropped right when it actually starts. We can view it as three plots but those plots don't provide anything useful towards understanding. They would be more accurately viewed as triangles, they are containers for information.

Edit: I also don't think we can fully interpret Infinite Jest through the Sierpinski structure, that was the structure of the first draft which was something like 500 pages longer and had the bulk of the novel in the end notes. It has been too long since I last read it to say what the structure of the final form of the novel is but I think he may have just made the gasket more linear; he keeps repeating the full triangle but each time he goes a bit deeper with the iterations.

1 comments

Ah, maybe I made my claim unclear. So my claim is that the 3 vertices are the institutions (ETA, Ennet House, the Wheelchair Assassins), not plots. I agree that IJ is kind of plotless, and that to me is what the voids in the Sierpinski Gasket could represent, but this article was more about the two-ways-to-construct-the-triangle thing.

But I like your vertices (family, education, and society).

You're making me think that there's something to the fact that you could 'seed' the Gasket with different vertices as well. Something I learn when re-reading is that you can bring so many interpretations and perspectives to this novel and still come out with an entertaining and valid experience of it. In that respect, I like the idea that you can use different triplets to seed the Gasket!

You're correct that we can't lean fully on the Sierpinski idea. Wallace mentions in his interview that after those edits, the book became more like a 'lopsided' Sierpinski Gasket "it looks basically like a pyramid on acid" (https://www.kcrw.com/shows/bookworm/stories/david-foster-wal...).

Separate from the Gasket thing, but I like your point about the footnotes. I wish people spent more time on those. I've heard commentary on the structure of those. Some folks talk about the 'self referentiality', as text (obviously) references footnotes, and there are even instances of footnotes referencing the main text! I've also heard that the back-and-forth emulates the back-and-forth in a tennis match, although that one seems less interesting.

Edits: fixed spelling mistakes Edit: I added your 3 vertices idea and the fact you can invert the 3 vertices to the post, thank you! I attributed back to this thread.

I've tried three times to read it and got a few pages in before giving up on it.

Would it make more sense to just dive into the middle and see what converges out then?

What put me off it is it just kind of reads like a rambling stoner conversation.

Wallace was a masterful writer of short fiction, and I think IJ is best read as a (very) long series of short pieces with much that interrelates them.

Past a certain point on my first successful read through, maybe ~300 pgs in, I started realizing that, with very few exceptions, the more abstruse, boring, or frustrating the vignette, the more powerfully it ended; and at that point, I couldn’t put it down. So, in my opinion, skipping around would not make it more fulfilling, and would certainly not make it make more sense (and I do think it would be easy to understate how much they do compose together into a functioning plot for the novel). I could only advocate cultivating an appreciation of the individual vignettes themselves as more-or-less complete short stories.

I feel like ~300pgs in is where infinite jest reaches critical mass. before that, it felt like a slog.

after i had enough context to start making connections, I couldn’t put it down

I think the order in which the different elements of the book are introduced is crucial, as it leads to a lot of "aha!" moments.

> What put me off it is it just kind of reads like a rambling stoner conversation.

Yeah well, that book may not be your cup of tea then. The book _is_ rambling, plus a lot of the characters _are_ actual stoners/addicts/recovering addicts. But keep in mind that most of the book is in the third person, not in the first (as the first few pages would make you assume).

I like some of David Foster Wallace's writing, but I'm afraid Infinite Jest never did much for me. My copy is copiously annotated and I listened to the audiobook as well, so I doubled up.

I found Ulysses more engaging. I have a copy of Gravity's Rainbow which I will try to get into at some stage.

"rambling stoner conversation". Lol, you've clearly made it to Ken Erdedy's section, which is literally that. That's a brief passage in the book, and honestly one of the hardest parts to read.

I'd say there's a lot of groundwork laid in the first 60 - 100 pages or so. After that, I honestly don't think it would be harmful to cherry pick interesting passages from the book. You could research interesting sections of the novel and target those for a first pass read through, then maybe later read it sequentially. There aren't really plot spoilers as the book is somewhat plotless.

Even still, I'd recommend the first read through be sequential. My first read through was, but I also skipped around a little bit. My favourite thing about DFW is his writing style. Also might help to whet your appetite for his voice by reading something like "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again", which is a hilarious anecdote and commentary about his trip aboard a cruise liner.

In general, I'd say the best advice is to free yourself from the burden of 'understanding' the novel on your first read through and just enjoy the chaos. Besides, there is so much ambiguity in the novel that, even if you do crystallize some understanding, there's likely many alternative interpretations. That's where the re-reads get really fun.

Erdedy's vignette is one of my favourite passages! The Wardine section was the one that had me second guessing, but after two full read throughs I'll be approaching a third next year with the Sierpinksi Gasket in mind :)

Try the audiobook, although I’m sure purists would consider it cheating. You can zone out and it keeps going and something will pull your attention and you can rewind to get the context.

There are so many footnotes and back notes that the audiobook does it a disservice. However, I have used both to try and get through it.

I read IJ in a two (three?) day binge shortly after it was published and never returned. Although I will say I really liked it. Since you're an experienced reader, I'll ask a question bugging me since the 1990s -- my intuition post-read was that you would get a totally different plot line out of the novel if you skipped the endnotes. Holding the novel in one's head is a lot to ask, especially of someone who just read straight through very quickly, so I'm curious what the current literary establishment thinks about the end notes, and how the main text interacts with them from a more formal or structural standpoint.

Any thoughts appreciated!

I don't have anything sophisticated to say about this, but I know the footnotes are critical. There are some plot points in there. They are also an important aspect of the book's structure and the methodology of reading the text. I'd say skipping the end notes would be a disservice to the reader as they would miss so much.

Something I want to do is read the footnotes alone in 1 whack and see what that experience feels like. I haven't done this yet, but I feel like it could illuminate exactly how much of what I latently remember about the novel is located in the footnotes.