Amusing/frustrating angle in a recent piece over at The Daily Dot by Miles Klee, Bookish troll does nothing but post about David Foster Wallace for a year, about redditor, jeremy1122, who apparently posted only about David Foster Wallace on Reddit for a year:
[...]
In the 19 years since it was published, David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest has gained the sort of cult status that a struggling novelist would kill for. And perhaps because it describes the bottomless black hole of instant, addicting entertainment in late-capitalist America (hello, Netflix bingers), it has enjoyed something like constant low-level virality in that time.
But because it's so long and dense and hipsterish, and was written by a man whose personal struggles have been grossly romanticized all the more following his 2008 suicide, Infinite Jest has also become a headache for people serious about literature. There's no easier way to make a bookseller roll her eyes than by thumping a copy down at the register and expecting her to be impressed—she knows you'll never get through it.
Those intrepid souls who do digest the entire opus, meanwhile, have a tendency to become obnoxious evangelizers for the text. Should someone ask if you've read it, make no mistake: They want you to say "no" so that they can extol its Byzantine style, satirical mastery, and profound insight. They want to be the one who persuades you that Wallace was a genius.
Which brings us to jeremy1122. The redditor—who did not respond to request for comment—first popped up in r/books one year ago to offer "An introduction to Infinite Jest." A trifle presumptuous, you might think: There are plenty of intros to this popular but intimidating book online.
[...]
Continue reading, Bookish troll does nothing but post about David Foster Wallace for a year.
26/11/15 Update with additional publications from David Hering and Lee Konstantinou.
Some interesting looking publications on the horizon, particularly (for me) the one due from Clare Hayes-Brady. Pretty much everything she has written about Wallace that I've read I love, hopefully we'll be able to pick up a non-academic or ebook version...
(Thanks to Dan for the updates)
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 November 2015 00:13
Last Updated on Friday, 20 November 2015 10:35
So this arrived this morning... I know what I'll be doing this evening!
The End of the Tour - DVD and Blu-ray over at Amazon now.
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 November 2015 13:27
Well how about that! Infinite Jest appeared on the Australian satirical comedy sitcom, The Ex-PM, starring one of my favourite Australian comedians, Shaun Micallef. (Episode 4 about 2:30 watch here on iview if you live in Australia).
Interesting to note that it is the 10th anniversary edition which is most certainly not the most common edition to be found in Australia. Excellent visual gag too - if you watch the show and know the characters!
(Cheers to moan, @hotcarl333 for letting me know - I was behind until this evening!)
Last Updated on Monday, 09 November 2015 23:14
|
Casey Henry's (@caseymhenry) just published article in Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction Volume 56, Issue 5, 2015, “Sudden Awakening to the Fact That the Mischief Is Irretrievably Done”: Epiphanic Structure in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, is incredible.
Not only does he pose an interesting consideration of the role of epiphanies in Infinite Jest, but Henry draws from some fascinating correspondence between Wallace and his editor Michael Pietsch about the typographical circle (a symbol very close to my heart):
[...]
Wallace explains these typographical markers in a clarifying letter to Pietsch: “They’re just supposed to be circles. Decoration. Maybe suggesting tennis balls, heads,annular defloration cycles, etc. Maybe just me amusing myself” (Letter to Pietsch, emphasis added).Due to the circles’ lacking any identification marks as heads, or tennis balls, and given the evidence to follow, I believe the most accurate and charged interpretation is of “annular defloration cycles” and the implied process of annulation. Wallace was obsessive about the circles, modifying them when they appeared too bouncing and comic, restricting their number from several to one, and settling on the half-shaded, hangnail-moon–looking glyph that appears in the book (Infinite Jest Typescript, Copyedited). Wallace meticulously stipulated the final annular cycle that appears semieclipsed on the last page of the main narrative, yet to be fully analyzed by Wallace critics. The partially occluded circle, lying just beyond Gately’s final breakdown, is essential to understanding the forward motion and means of breaking the self-enclosed annular rings that we might understand the novel’s arrangement prompts. Wallace was fastidious about this terminating symbol; he corrects a typesetter at Little, Brown in late proofs on a circle incorrectly placed in the middle of the page— whited out and X’d with pen—and another mildly obscured on the middle-right margin, jutting more bulbously (Infinite Jest Typescript, Copyedited). On a near-final proof with the circle in the proper lower-right position, marking the circle’s full, arc-like passage, he instructs further: “No— you have only 1/3 of circle protruding from bottom right, as if rest of circle has been cut off by margin” (IJ Proof Set 6-22). Wallace includes with the note his own marking of his intended eclipsed circle, far more off-page, and of a more unique shape, than the typesetter’s mark (IJ Proof Set 6-22).
[...]
Apart from reading Wallace's take first hand, I was taken by surprise by the part I emphasised above (in bold). The partially occluded circle exists in my first edition hardcover of Infinite Jest (see the photo above), but not in my Abacus paperback or the 10 year anniversary edition. What about your copy? Comment below.
The omission of the p. 981 circle in some editions seems to me to be a MAJOR oversight. I hope it's there in the Infinite Jest Deluxe 20th Anniversary edition due in Feb 2016. (Update: Yep, it's there on p. 981 of the U.S. 20th Anniversary edition - not quite the same though.)
If you have access, I encourage you to read Casey Henry's article. Either directly if you have a subscription, via Google Scholar if you have access, or through your university or library.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 06 July 2016 21:36
|
|
|
|
|
