Why have you avoided DFW or Infinite Jest? Scared? Afraid its weight will crush you? Or wh

The thread's title may be glib but I'm seriously curious why so many smart seasoned readers still avoid, or once avoided, David Foster Wallace. A new member mentioned having avoided him; I'm not picking on her, I swear, as I think a tendency to avoid him is all too common. How come? Why have you avoided DFW?, Infinite Jest? It's not like either are (or were) hideously or improbably deformed, is it?

I may yet join you folks in your upcoming reading and discussion of Infinite Jest which I prefer not to call IJ. And I prefer not to call David Foster Wallace DFW; the authorial name does well on first mention, and Wallace is good for subsequent mentions unless Mike, say, somehow gets invoked. DFW means Dallas Fort Worth.

I have read The Broom of the System. It was okay but a lot too much of, "See, Pynchon, I can do it, too." I find a similar fault in Vollman's You Bright and Risen Angels. I have gone on to find a lot of merit in Vollman's Europe Central and Uncentering the Earth. Similarly I have found Wallace's Everything and More clarifying and some few essays to hold my attention.

I started Infinite Jest once upon a time and very much admired the description fairly early on of a fellow in his room wanting or waiting for alcohol or some other drug. I meant to get back to it. That one description did not elevate the rest of the little I had read, and the book is long. So I have not yet got back to it. Meanwhile it appears that if I read it once through and make a claim to that fact, somebody is going to corner me and prove that I didn't pay sufficient attention to the quantum explanations of African, but cleverly not Asian, elephant behavior and its latter day reflexes in Inuit story keeping. I could read it and, I suppose, keep it a secret, but I do like to discuss what I have read, even if I am naive and merely looking for some light on what I don't know.

My telephone bill has gone up, and my lease rent (I own my house but not on fee simple land) is about to go up. I noticed, though, recently on Barny Noble's web site that I can have the book for about $11 and may buy it rather than Albion's Seed. There is no chance that I will find the copy that I already own.

Robert

So Bob, How do you feel about A.A., N.A., U.H.I.D., E.T.A., B.S., Y.D.A.U., O.U.S., Y.P.W., C.T., Y.D.P.A.H., ATHSCME, Y.T.M.P., M.I.T. and c.? I'm asking because IJ is riddled with initials and acronyms. I suppose that DFW had no problem with them.

Sincerely,

Bartleby

2> Interesting, Mister D. Would a non-Texan take umbrage with "DFW" signifying something besides a Texas metropolis? Hmmm. Probably not. If you'll join us in January for our read, Mister D., I promise to send you my copy of Albion's Seed. I know right where it is. I'll just need an address to send it to.

3> Your post has made me realize an acronym thread could be very useful at some point.

What about all that ONAN stuff... yeah and the year that had the really long acronym about the video player with the scatological name (avoiding spoilers here)

I've decided to skip Albion's Seed, Enrique Mas Freeque. The book I meant to compare it to will be discussed in two weeks, and then I will drop the subject for awhile. Your offer is kind, and I thank you for it.

It is not umbrage that steers me away from the other use of DFW. I read DFW as Dallas Fort Worth and then have to work at it when it turns out not to be that. I have not been to Texas since the seventies, and had I been setting the agenda I might never have been there.

I plan to place an order with Barny Noble shortly after December 5 (the end of the billing period for that credit card), and if the order includes Infinite Jest I will likely join you.

Robert

Was the OP directed at me? So, reasons I have avoided DFW thus far:

1. He has a reputation for being difficult. His books rank in my mind alongside Eco's and Pynchon's. And while I really enjoy Eco, I have yet to tackle either of those other two.

2. When I think of his books, I think of them in terms of having to be tackled. And I don't like football. Or mountain climbing or any other sport where tackling might be applicable.

3. I have had my butt kicked by a book before. It's not fun to realize the limits of one's abilities. (Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics)

4. I see DFW, correctly or not, as writing experimental fiction. I like some of that (say, Ali Smith for example), but not when the writer is just messing with the reader's mind to show off.

Reasons to read this guy:

1. In the pictures I've seen of him he does not seem to be the kind of pretentious git who enjoys showcasing his own brilliance. There's no soul patch or ironical sneer. Actually, he looked like the kind of guy who would help you clean your gutters and share a few beers afterwards.

2. I like footnotes.

3. Amazon keeps throwing his books at me, and IJ more often than the others, although I think Brief Interviews with Hideous Men has the best title.

4. The deciding factor was being invited here. Thanks, EF. And winter is the ideal time to dig into a substantial book.

7: I didn't find it hard to read per se, though sometimes I had to go back because I forgot who had done or said what. It really flows. You will love it.

7> Sort of directed at you but really more directed at those readers in general who've avoided IJ & DFW -- I've been curious to find out their reasons why. Thanks for sharing yours. I like your avoiding-reason #2 a lot. I do hope that once you meet Orin, a main character, you'll still want to keep reading. But then again, I think, Orin is just a punter, and punters aren't real football players are they? I totally agree winter is best for IJ. Who needs some infinite summer when we've got our own Infinite Winter.

>4 absurdeist: Would a non-Texan take umbrage with "DFW" signifying something besides a Texas metropolis?

It does not need to be a Texan. Anyone that flies a lot for business in USA for example will do nicely. When I see DFW, I am thinking of the airport - and I prefer to call authors with the name they chose to appear on their books - regardless of the style of the said books...

Back to the question - had not read it yet because it is somewhere on the TBR pile waiting to be picked up...

For me, TBR means Totally Bummed, Really, and USA means Upset Stomach Again, as in "Honey, I've got a USA!" I know these are highly idiosyncratic. I have managed to get used to the customary acronyms, though I am constantly brought up short on LT (Lovely Tail!) when I see the term TBR and in news stories when I see USA.

I kid!

For me USA means Universal Standards Act, which is a piece of legislation I would like to see written mandating that all appliances use the same size of plugs.

I'm fine with acronyms meaning different things, with one exception. For me, SEC means the Securities and Exchange Commission, for whom I used to proofread documents, while down here it's the college football region in which I currently reside. Otherwise, acronym away.

I like using DFW, but only because it bothers Robert.

BRIAOK
(bothering Robert is A-OK)

I'm more bothered by the use of acronym to mean merely abbreviation or initialism, but I shouldn't be revealing my vulnerabilities.

Robert

How about just referring to him as the "G.O.D. creator"?

15: I break out in hives when I hear "irregardless" so compared to me you have a soul of cast iron.

Yes, that and the misuse of "literally".

Hopefully we won't see those appear.

I am literally hopeful that we won't. Even so I have to wonder what's wrong with sentential adverbs, or what's wrong with some sentential adverbs.

Robert

Oh no not another G.O.D. book that might scare me off.

Well, I'm afraid all this acronymical banter may have caused the 100th member of the group to flee. You think it's easy making it to 100 members? You know how many invites I had to send to make it to 100? Fifteen for every one who accepted! Frankly, I'm rather incensed that we're now stuck back on 99. I hate double-digits.

However, as an olive leaf of magnanymity to any present or future anti-acronymists (AAs) who might consider venturing forth here, I'm willing to come one-third of the way, regarding the author's acronym. I can do either Dave FW, or D Foster W, or DF Wallace. Acceptable?

IAVSOOHM
I am very sorry, o One Hundredth Member

IHYWCBBJO
I hope you will come back by January 1

But apparently we attracted a new 100th. HELLLOOOOO, 100th member Jasbro! We are Gold-en!

Be frankly incensed no more, but instead be mirthfull.

Dfwaaolvlsaicteder?

Sorry, I'm a bit late coming to this thread but I was struck by Mr.Durick's comment in #2:

"I started Infinite Jest once upon a time and very much admired the description fairly early on of a fellow in his room wanting or waiting for alcohol or some other drug. I meant to get back to it. That one description did not elevate the rest of the little I had read, and the book is long."

I had a similar experience: I was elated by that chapter, and the following ones felt like a huge letdown, it took me several chapters to get back into the book after that. To be honest I'm not sure that anything later in the book came to the level of that specific chapter, but maybe it's just because I had gotten used to his style and it didn't have the freshness of that first experience.

Anyway, after this very rocky start I did end up enjoying the book as a whole. I hope you do too.

I think that particular passage was also excerpted somewhere. I seem to remember that from the bio I read recently. It was a passage everyone seems to like - I remember really liking it too.

26> Yeah that chapter where Erdedy is waiting for his dealer to deliver the pot so he can check out for a week is a winner. I remember being blown away by those five page paragraphs the first time through. And then came the Marathe and Steeply chapters, the tedium in Tucson, pages not nearly as interesting at that time. However, now, with the knowledge of how central the Entertainment (and its acquisition) is to the novel, Marathe and Steeply's discussions I find now more rivetting, filled with clues that seemed inconsequential, boring even, the first time through.

Other sections of the book I found wowing the first time through: Madame Psychosis' radio show; the Eschaton section; U.H.I.D., Hal's secret excursions into the lung; all of the Ennet House sections, but especially the dissections of the 12-step process, passages that shed light on how what sound like jingoistic truisms are in fact powerful, life-altering truths to many of those in recovery.

Yes, the Ennet House sections were my favorites and I really liked what's his name... the ex-burglar. I need to install the book on my iPad again to go back to it.

I also liked Madame Psychosis but she doesn't appear so much. These are the only two characters I felt any connection to, which must account in part for the difficulties I had with the book at the beginning.

The Marathe/Steeply stuff can be rough. Weakest points of the book IMHO in terms of readability and holding your interest and a flawed plot device.

I felt similarly, slick, the first time I read, re. Marathe/Steeply. Subsequent readings, however, have elevated their relevance somewhat in my mind. Certainly not to the point that they're favorite sections though.

And how could I have forgotten the Wheelchair Assassins as being one of the best sections of writing in the novel? And that parody of a men's emotional support group toward the end, something to the effect of a bunch of guys being in collective "caring for their inner infant"?

I love the plagiarization scene that has the story of the wheelchair assassins, written by the addict, with pithy commentary from the plagiarist kid. It is a scream.

>24 A_musing: A_musing: shouldn't that be "myrhh-thful" since it's getting close to XMAS...

>28 absurdeist: "Needs, needs, needs..." Even though the men's inner infant meeting wasn't what Hall was looking for, it connects right back to his earlier conversation with Pemulis about needs and Hope.

I have to say, with that spelling it's a bit of a mouth-thful! Myrhh-thful indeed. Any word with two "h"'s in a row has to be used more often. Anyone know the etymology of Myrhh? Murr?

I just looked it up, it's two "rr"s in a row (we knew there was two of something - this is from the online etymological dictionary):

myrrh (n.) O.E. myrre, from L. myrrha (also source of Du. mirre, Ger. Myrrhe, Fr. myrrhe, It., Sp. mirra), from Gk. myrrha, from a Semitic source (cf. Akkadian murru, Hebrew mor, Arabic murr "myrrh"), from a root meaning "was bitter."

And there we have it. I never realized "Murr" was Arabic for "Bitter". That doesn't sound like the Murr I know.

1753 is the first citation, in Adelheid Winklekkammer's play: The Tailor of Panzance:

oh no not myrhh of that nonsense

apparently the heroine says this on her wedding night. Other than that, the sources are silent.

wel, my sources are. your's must be better.

sniff.

I personally like two hhs better than two rrs. Much less common. I go with Adelheid and the tailors.

36: Yes I can confirm that this is true.

If the word "myrrh," in the sociogrammatico/usage context of posts 33-40 is amusing (even despite the original meaning of "myrrh's" Arabic origins verified by Anna), doesn't that then prove that A_musing is bitter? Or maybe you're all merely avoiding the real issue of why you all avoided David Foster Wallace for so freaking long. I mean, of course, only those of you who did in fact avoid him.

Thank you, JimNoir, for inspiring in a few of our members some "brain pains". ;-)

Bitter. Biter. Blighter. Lighter. Writer. Slighter. It all follows, doesn't it?

36> Oh merrde! I knew I should have looked that up instead of guessing. Well, when I saw frank(ly) incense(d) followed by mirthful, I just had to throw out the myrrh idea...

Want to chime in and say that I found IJ (sorry Mr. Durick but I is lazy) to be one of the most readable books ever. I did not expect to care so much about EVERYONE in it and I think about it all the time. Too soon for me to reread this year but rilly people. There are violent sections, but never careless. I've never encountered a writer who could be simultaneously so tender and bleak and oh my goodness, funny funny funny.

It should probably be in three volumes not one huge brick of a book - why did publishers start doing that anyway???? I LIKE reading shorter books, putting them on the shelf, picking up the next one, gives me a sense of progress.

Oh, I'll disagree with you there, sibyx. I much prefer one large book to buying one book, only to find it's just the beginning of a longer book. Also, it's good for upper body toning.

Looking forward to January. Because I tend to jump the gun, I'm not buying my copy until after Christmas. It may well be the day after Christmas, but I'm holding out until then so I can't be tempted to see for myself what you are all going on about.

Yes but two volumes would make for balanced workouts.

A note: The first time I read it, and after revisiting it, I found it a romp and a half and a lot of fun. Reading it more recently, I find it frighteningly dark under that romp. I do not care whether it is one, two or three volumes, as I'm not planning to use it as the woman on the front page (who, let's face it, would be better off with a bigger format book, forget the volumes).

But, yes, it does scare me. But not the weight of it.

47> Sam, you make a great point regarding whether the woman "would be better off with a bigger format book".

The first edition hardcover is at least one inch longer and has a little more girth as well, compared to her paperback edition, and thereby would have provided her upper-torso w/more area of skin coverage. But that extra weight of the 1st ed. hc, however, must be considered. I wonder if she chose the 10th anniversary pb w/the intro by David Eggers because the 1st ed. hc is significantly heavier? Meaning: Could there potentially have been an uncomfortable "squish factor" associated w/the 1st ed. hc's placement, that would have been too much for even her bosom to bear?

I just love the picture

47> Sam, was it DFWs suicide that illuminated that "frighteningly dark" subtext for you? It's interesting your reaction to it before he died v. after. I'm curious if I'll have a similar experience.

49> Thanks, bas. It's from an article or blog piece that focussed on a topless bookclub that meets in New York's Central Park I think it is. Can't seem to locate the original piece at the moment.

Just to wade in, here. Upon observation, I think that the danger is less one of squishing than one of popping. Implants are expensive!

51> chuckling, for real.

Here's the article I mentioned earlier, if topless book clubs are anybody's thing: http://thegloss.com/beauty/sunday-in-the-park-with-boobs/

Jamie Peck is actually pretty damn close to how I pictured Joelle Van Dyne might look like. Kinda has the same sarcastic sense of humour, too. Coincidence?

Ok, I got a little distracted. BTW, Karl had posted the original topless book club blog elsewhere, perhaps as a reply in the gallery page.

So...where were we...I'm a bit flustered...back to the topic at hand. Very simple. I've so little reading time. This IJ read is a huge deal for me, a big sacrifice, hence the delay. It's like the equivalent of 4-6 much lighter books, off the old TBR pile.

But I'm looking forward to this!