I don't think it ever received "universal critical acclaim," I actually think critics generally didn't like it, or had strong reservations, but a small, vocal group of readers loved it. I find it unreadable, personally, but I can barely get through his short stories.
I think your criticism of AA is mostly unwarranted. While it is true that AA has certain cult-like characteristics, it is factually incorrect to describe AA as having a cult-like structure. It is too decentralized and anarchic.
The claim I've heard, and think is probably true, is that Wallace should have just written a short novel about a guy in AA. Maybe it would be a little sentimental and probably would not have become a cultural touchstone, but I tend to think he would still be alive if he'd written that novel.
I'm glad that Infinite Jest (and Wallace) seem to be getting reexamined after about a decade and a half of fervid, desperate praise, and then another decade and a half of the backlash bandwagon. The more lucid and honest assessments will, I think, comport with your reading here: Infinite Jest is staggeringly ambitious, thoroughly flawed, but above the waterline at the very least—and any novel that can drive conversation like it still can must be doing *something* right.
I’ve never read the book but I’ve always had a (almost certainly completely unfair) dislike of Wallace based purely on the constant tongue baths people give his Federer essay
If I see one more reviewer marvel at the supposedly magical insight that 1mm difference in the racket can lead to inches of difference where the ball lands (I mean every single fckn reviewer mentions this passage as if he’s the first person ever to think this, when literally everyone who has played a stick and ball sport made this realisation when they were 9) is so infuriating it makes me want to murder people
So yes, it’s no doubt borderline insane of me to hate a writer because he gets unearned OTT positive reviews but here we are
Bought the book 5–6 years ago. Tried to read it. Made it about 100 pages in. After reading this, I put it on Vinted, figured I might get something out of it after all. I’ll give his short stories and essays a shot, though.
1 paragraph in and had to comment that as a Southwesterner, I always think of Dallas Fort Worth whenever people post about Infinite Jest. Got a giggle - a chortle, really - out of me
I missed the original hype and the backlash due to life-other-plans reasons, coming to IJ cold years later after picking it up at random in a charity shop. I liked it, but realised that I'd missed a lot because of the confusing structure and needed to reread it. It's of its time, and the representations of women and black men are highly questionable, but DFWs portrayal of trans people is particularly bad. There are at least six trans people in the book and most of them are the worst fucking people in all of literature.
Also, word of warning- if you're going to listen to the audiobook, it's a great reading, but the narrator does the worst Irish accent in the history of audio books. I had to stop playing it and simultaneously reach for the phone and my paperback copy to find out what was going on with this character and to call the publisher to see if the narrator was having a stroke. I should have called to make sure.
I've also thought the same thing about the Write Conscious guy. He really aims for the 96 DFW photoshoot vibes (the one with the lamp.) I'm surprised he hasn't commented here.
Thank you for the thoughtful and original take on Infinite Jest. The IJ haters and lovers often have a performative quality, like debates about Nickelback the last twenty years but in reverse.
I was confused why people told me Infinite Jest was really funny. It was funny in the way a local community theatre play is funny: bad accents and someone in silly drag. That is to say, not funny at all.
You also hit the debt Wallace has to Postman, which is weirdly untouched by most writers. Seriously, you might be the first to point it out in an essay. But it's so obvious, particularly Amusing Ourselves to Death but also Technoply, which was published right when Wallace was in the full-swing of writing the novel.
I think Wallace's religious drive towards a kind of certainty messed up his fiction. Parts of Infinite Jest are really reassuring if you're in recovery. Guy could write about addiction like a war vets. Personally, his work in Oblivion and the Pale King is far better. He drops a lot of gimmicks. Of course, the Pale King has the same Macguffin plot, but there is some really strong writing there. Good Old Neon from Oblivion is, to me, the only time Wallace truly dropped the mask and just let the ugly negative capability rip, let everything sit out there in the open, and it is, for my money, the best and most haunting thing he ever wrote.
Franzen's assessment of Wallace post-suicide in that New Yorker piece just gets better with age, no?
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for writing this. Cheers.
I don't think it ever received "universal critical acclaim," I actually think critics generally didn't like it, or had strong reservations, but a small, vocal group of readers loved it. I find it unreadable, personally, but I can barely get through his short stories.
I think your criticism of AA is mostly unwarranted. While it is true that AA has certain cult-like characteristics, it is factually incorrect to describe AA as having a cult-like structure. It is too decentralized and anarchic.
The claim I've heard, and think is probably true, is that Wallace should have just written a short novel about a guy in AA. Maybe it would be a little sentimental and probably would not have become a cultural touchstone, but I tend to think he would still be alive if he'd written that novel.
I'm glad that Infinite Jest (and Wallace) seem to be getting reexamined after about a decade and a half of fervid, desperate praise, and then another decade and a half of the backlash bandwagon. The more lucid and honest assessments will, I think, comport with your reading here: Infinite Jest is staggeringly ambitious, thoroughly flawed, but above the waterline at the very least—and any novel that can drive conversation like it still can must be doing *something* right.
I read it twice. It’s a waste of time. It’s an infinite jest.
on the other hand, 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑖𝑟𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐻𝑎𝑖𝑟 i would gladly reread
I’ve never read the book but I’ve always had a (almost certainly completely unfair) dislike of Wallace based purely on the constant tongue baths people give his Federer essay
If I see one more reviewer marvel at the supposedly magical insight that 1mm difference in the racket can lead to inches of difference where the ball lands (I mean every single fckn reviewer mentions this passage as if he’s the first person ever to think this, when literally everyone who has played a stick and ball sport made this realisation when they were 9) is so infuriating it makes me want to murder people
So yes, it’s no doubt borderline insane of me to hate a writer because he gets unearned OTT positive reviews but here we are
Stoner lit: pretty much as boring as most stoner 'philosophy'
I have slogged through Infinite Jest once, but it was a long time ago. Those excerpts feel uncannily AI-like, maybe because of their 'associativeness'
Bought the book 5–6 years ago. Tried to read it. Made it about 100 pages in. After reading this, I put it on Vinted, figured I might get something out of it after all. I’ll give his short stories and essays a shot, though.
1 paragraph in and had to comment that as a Southwesterner, I always think of Dallas Fort Worth whenever people post about Infinite Jest. Got a giggle - a chortle, really - out of me
I missed the original hype and the backlash due to life-other-plans reasons, coming to IJ cold years later after picking it up at random in a charity shop. I liked it, but realised that I'd missed a lot because of the confusing structure and needed to reread it. It's of its time, and the representations of women and black men are highly questionable, but DFWs portrayal of trans people is particularly bad. There are at least six trans people in the book and most of them are the worst fucking people in all of literature.
Also, word of warning- if you're going to listen to the audiobook, it's a great reading, but the narrator does the worst Irish accent in the history of audio books. I had to stop playing it and simultaneously reach for the phone and my paperback copy to find out what was going on with this character and to call the publisher to see if the narrator was having a stroke. I should have called to make sure.
Been to DFW; wasn’t worth it.
Haven’t read DFW; is it worth it?
I've also thought the same thing about the Write Conscious guy. He really aims for the 96 DFW photoshoot vibes (the one with the lamp.) I'm surprised he hasn't commented here.
Thank you for the thoughtful and original take on Infinite Jest. The IJ haters and lovers often have a performative quality, like debates about Nickelback the last twenty years but in reverse.
I was confused why people told me Infinite Jest was really funny. It was funny in the way a local community theatre play is funny: bad accents and someone in silly drag. That is to say, not funny at all.
You also hit the debt Wallace has to Postman, which is weirdly untouched by most writers. Seriously, you might be the first to point it out in an essay. But it's so obvious, particularly Amusing Ourselves to Death but also Technoply, which was published right when Wallace was in the full-swing of writing the novel.
I think Wallace's religious drive towards a kind of certainty messed up his fiction. Parts of Infinite Jest are really reassuring if you're in recovery. Guy could write about addiction like a war vets. Personally, his work in Oblivion and the Pale King is far better. He drops a lot of gimmicks. Of course, the Pale King has the same Macguffin plot, but there is some really strong writing there. Good Old Neon from Oblivion is, to me, the only time Wallace truly dropped the mask and just let the ugly negative capability rip, let everything sit out there in the open, and it is, for my money, the best and most haunting thing he ever wrote.
Franzen's assessment of Wallace post-suicide in that New Yorker piece just gets better with age, no?
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for writing this. Cheers.