Rating: 
Summary: If I Were Trapped On A Desert Island
Review: Look there are books better then IJ, but not many and the few that are better just can't make you laugh out loud. (With the possible exception of Catch 22.) DFW reaches for something great with this book and comes pretty damn close to doing it. At time the tennis can be a bit much, if you are not a fan of the sport, but what other structure would find an excuse for a man to lick the sweet off young boys without it breaking all sort of obsenity standards. The use of different narrative devises is brilliant, ie. the focus of a color(blue), the multi mini set pieces in the big buddy sequence and the presidential transcripts. DFW also constantly reminds us we have more then 5 senses. The use of the round while not original rarely has seen such good execution.
Rating:
Summary: Soul Sibling to the Acme Novelty Library?
Review: Okay, let me get it out of the way: This is, with the possible exceptions of Steven Millhauser's "Edwin Mullhouse" and Jim Bouton's "Ball Four", my favorite book that doesn't have pictures. I even like the lack of an ending, and am glad that Wallace allowed the implications of the book to resonate on their own instead of doing the literary equivalent of ending The Ring Cycle with "Shave and a Haircut." That said; interesting points have been made in this review thread, with the expected comparisons (Pynchon, who doesn't do much for me, DeLillo, who's pretty cool but no Steven Millhauser, Gaddis, who I'll get to eventually, really, I promise, etc.) being made. But, to me, Wallace's closest relation is Chris Ware, author of the supernally brilliant comic book "Acme Novelty Library." Now, before you all tease me for comparing Gen-U-Ine Lit-Ra-Ture to a goshdarn comic book (though anyone who gets Infinite Jest probably doesn't have too many silly high-low culture hangups), consider these points: 1. Both authors have, essentially, invented their own inimitable non-linear form, a form that both have, in interviews, expressly and repeatedly compared to music. Although it's as difficult to describe Acme's form to someone who hasn't read it as it would be to describe IJs, the word "symphonic" comes to mind for both. Not necessarily opposed to linearity, but more concerned with refracting experiences into themes and motifs. Jeez, was that pretentious enough, or what? 2. Both author's have an extremely strong mathematical sensibility about them, and tend to express things schematically: compare the second part of Wallace's story in July's Esquire, "Adult World," to one of Ware's mind-bogglingly intricate multi-dimensional flowcharts, and you'll see what I mean. With both authors, this tendency is often mistaken for coldness, but is really an attempt to circumvent the defenses of the readers and express intense pathos in a non-ironic manner! . 3. On the musical tip, both authors also tend towards using what could be termed either "call-and-response" or "parallel-processing" features - i.e., where instead of there being one narrative voice, there are two whose interaction and contrast often point towards some sort of third, unspoken voice. This, of course, refers to Wallace's footnotes - with Ware, it's a little subtler, but generally tends to be felt in the way the ostensible content of the comic interacts with the fictional voice of the omnipresent Acme Novelty Library. 4. Both are in love with words and language for their own sake - the sesquipedalian glee of IJ is without question, but Ware actually tops Wallace in this departnment, with his missives under the fictional voice of the Library being coded works of sheer demented brilliance. 5. They're both kinda tall. Okay, I'm stretching here... Anyway, I could go on, but I get the feeling I'm just digging myself in a hole here. Really, the most striking similarities between their work are difficult to express in words, though I do find it interesting that both men admit to not owning TVs because of acknowledged addictions to pop pablum, and that both are clearly obsessive perfectionists striving for greatness in a very classic sense of the word. I guess my point here is this: if you felt a kinship with Infinite Jest - not just an intellectual fondness, but a genuine feeling of, uh, agape - do yourself a favor and track down Ware's gorgeous work. I guarantee you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: A dense, maddeningly written prose paradigm buster.
Review: This book will confuse, enrage, engage and entrance you. So many new thoughts, new ways of thinking about things, in so many pages that the development of the story gets sidetracked. However, the writing is so well crafted and the descriptions (and footnotes) so unbelievably woven that the plot disappointment is forgiven. I have loaned my book out to several friends and most of them return it, saying they just couldn't finish it, too much "content" there. Like the Mozart story about "too many notes"! You gotta read it!
Rating: 
Summary: Infinite Geste: I quit 50 pages from the end
Review: yep, just lost interest in one thread after another, until there were no interesting threads left. also, most of his science & math were wrong, which i found even more distracting than the (in some cases already proven wrong) "near-future" stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Still haunted after over a year...
Review: I already own a well-worn copy of this book, but I wanted to write a review because even though I read it over a year ago, I still think about it often, and my boyfriend (who was skeptical at first but later read it - TWICE!) and I still make references to it in conversation. What still amazes me about this book is the combination of sprawling scope with perfect details. Read this book and pay attention to the way in which the characters' slang evolves from the fictitious historical events of their past (for those of you who've read it, I'm thinking of things like the way "de-mapping" is used as slang for killing). For those who've complained that they "don't get it", I'd encourage you to try again...for the person who wondered about what happens to Don, I suggest re-reading the opening section. It doesn't solve the mystery totally, but it gives you a hint. Give this book a shot...it's well worth the challenge and the length.
Rating: 
Summary: snooze snooze snooze
Review: To compare this book to Pynchon (among others) does Pynchon a great diservice. At least Pynchon, has humor, literary references, etc. With this book you get 300 pages of sob story amatuer tennis stories and a few paragraphs of interesting subjects. My advice to Mr. Wallace cut the semi-autobiographical tennis crap (no body wants to hear it anyway) and write a good story.
Rating:
Summary: amazingly thougtful and insightful
Review: IJ is probably the best piece of fiction written in the ninties. Challenging but worth the effort, the storytelling itself underlines one of the subtle premises of the book; namely that Americans have had their attention spans burned out due to the instant gratification of television and other modern entertainment. This story will grip you by the throat and force you to think more deeply about what it means to be a tv-adled American. The dedication it takes to stick the story out to the end and grasp all the varied threads as they coalesce is well worth the effort. A superbly crafted work that stimulates and challenges even the most jaded reader. Don't skip the footnotes!
Rating: 
Summary: Huge intellect, medium-sized cojones, small wonder.
Review: That David Foster Wallace writes from genius I haven't the slightest doubt; that he has a heart as big as all-outdoors and the personal courage to step on the toes of so-called American culture, ditto. And so, the periodic failure of this novel to hold my complete attention isn't the result of a lack of talent, but rather is due to the form the novel takes, call it what you like. Postmodernist literature at least since Nabokov has demanded tremendous self-indulgence from the Author, is the thing. And we readers, after all, are supposed to like reading, goes the tale. Wallace never shirks his duty in this regard. Brilliant dialogue and narrative and set-scenes of painful hilarity are rudely interrupted by massive doses of information (and advertisements), just like TV, and like TV too much for me to enjoy for more than an hour at a time. I never got lost in this book, but I didn't always want to be there, either. No problem, Dave, Tolstoy and I have the same problem! And so then, but what is the bottom line? I think Wallace suggests in his novel that the pursuit of happiness (sanctified by our Declaration of Independence) has become an addiction from which nearly every American suffers (perhaps every human being). Ego demands it. And more to the point, despite what appears to be an unlimited number of choices in our great country, we really have only one choice to make at any given time: do or don't. Do results in addiction; don't, in rehab. Thus 'twixt the two swings our mood in this infinite jest where, as Nietzche claimed, "Even the gods contend in vain against boredom." Not a shabby moral lesson for us to learn, we who have made a fetish of selfhood in our postmodern world. A few passages of extreme clarity and insight: pgs. 200-211; 343-366; 418-430; 443-449; 589-593; 612-619; 692-698; 864-876; 900-906.
Rating:
Summary: Must own this book.
Review: I loved this book. The library hardcover is out of my hands now. But I have to own this book. I can't stop thinking about this book. I keep making connections between things. Right down to the initials. How much was planned versus how many connections came to life in the writing? I don't have to be so analytical. Enough to last the rest of my life. I have to own this book.
Rating:
Summary: Totally over-rated
Review: Mr. Wallace seems more impressed with his own writing than he is with telling a good story. I couldn't MAKE myself finish this book. The reviews of this book were great. It makes me wonder if the reviewers were too embarassed to admit they didn't "get it" so they went along with everybody else. I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm not stupid either although I kind of felt stupid because I just didn't "get it".
|
