I've
been kicking around the idea of discussing literature on here. I read
rather a lot, and a pretty wide range of books at that - though I do
concede I probably should read more non-fiction that I do at present. I
try to stagger the lighter fare...beach reads, Star Wars novels, Jack
Reacher, etc. with works of literary heft, but the books that I feel
have enough substance to bother reviewing are few and far between, and as such I've normally just stuck a few thoughts on my Goodreads page if so
inclined. Beyond that, when it comes to well-known books that have been
around for a while, I sometimes feel that anything I might contribute
would be superfluous.
Even so, with all that
said, I wanted to mention a few thoughts on Wallace's weighty tome, a rather
complex work of fiction that doesn't follow established norms of
narrative structure, and also easily makes the list of 'longest novels
ever written', clocking in at well over 1,000 pages including copious
endnotes. I finished it several days ago, and am still mulling it over.
The
book is broken up into what is probably best described as chapters,
which vary in length between a few paragraph and dozens of pages. The
chapters are only sometimes in sequence, so there's a lot of timeline
jumping, and there are quite frequently paragraphs which go on for
pages. Given Wallace's rather extensive vocabulary and propensity for
technical terminology and tangential addenda, the book could easily be
described in a word as "dense".
Infinite Jest
is not really a plot-driven book, but what plot there is can be divided
into three sections: the lives and training of students at an intensive
tennis academy in Massachusetts, the lives and experiences of recovering
alcoholics and drug addicts at a neighboring halfway house, and the
socio-political discussions between two covert operatives, one American
and one Canadian. (IJ is set in an alternate near-future where the
countries of North America have formed one larger official alliance, the
tongue-in cheek O.N.A.N., with much of New England and southeastern
Canada used as a landfill, and where numbered years have been replaced
by corporate sponsor names.) Revolving around all of these is the eponymous "Infinite Jest" - a film created by the father of one of the
protagonists which is said to be so mesmerizing as to be fatal...viewers
become so addicted to watching it that they lose all interest in life.
The
best parts of the book for me were the recovery sections, as Wallace's
description of their lives - the struggles with depression, hope, and
direction, let alone substance abuse, are evocative, touching, and
fascinating. Primarily revolving around a former criminal bruiser and a
veiled radio personality, these characters reveal a frighteningly raw
sensibility that varies between funny and tragic.
The
tennis sections of the book I often found frustrating, as many of the
characters are far less likable or sympathetic, and the narrative is
bogged down with a lot of discussion of technique, alternate history, or
match statistics. (Honestly, if I never read another book about tennis
again, it'll be too soon.) That said, there are some hilarious
sections with these characters - a short sequence early in the book
about the main character's father badly attempting to impersonate a
therapist had me laughing out loud, and there's a truly bizarre
end-of-the-world game-theory activity that the tennis students undertake
which descends into comical madness.
My
biggest complaint with the book is the same one I have overall with
Wallace's writing - he wants you to know that he is smart. Like, really smart. Look how smart he is. Isn't he just so smart? Aren't you just in awe? He knows
big words. Though to be fair, I often feel that his writing is not so
much evidence of a lexical overflow as it is an illustration of his proficiency with a
thesaurus, as much of his big-wording is profoundly unnecessary. It
reminds me somewhat of vaguebooking - he really wants you to ask him
what he's talking about. There's definitely a smugness to the way he
writes, particularly the tennis academy sections, that made me
wish he'd just get over himself already. But this is a repeat problem I've had
with Wallace...he wants you to believe he's the smartest guy in the room
by far, and will go to great lengths to try and point that out.
Conversely, though, the way he writes
the addicts is markedly different, and ends up being far more honest and true.
Wallace has an odd way of throwing "like" or "so" into non-dialogue
sentences in a very casual way, which is a bit affected but also rather
chummy, making those sections seem more like a story being told than a lecture being given. It just made me wish he'd get past his need to come across like
a genius at other points in the book and just...well, write. It's not a question of ease or
difficulty - compared to something like Ulysses or even Autumn of the Patriarch,
Infinite Jest is fairly accessible, terminology not necessarily
included. It's a question of being able to engage with what he's
saying, rather than rolling one's eyes or wishing he'd just stop
digressing.
The book's not really 'about' any
one thing...families and their relationships (cue opening line of Anna Karenina), depression, the impact of television and film,
hope, recovery, loneliness, physical attractiveness, the effect of technology, human interactions,
political satire, environmental issues, drugs, desperation, and yes,
tennis, all flow together fairly organically. Despite the length and
density, the novel is not really a slog...there are certain sections
that drag, admittedly, but overall it moves along fairly well. This is
somewhat remarkable given the frequent time shifts and narrative jumps,
but once I got into the book I found I had little trouble following the
progression. I do wonder if anyone's tried reading the novel with the
various sections in chronological order; I'd be curious to see how much
of a different takeaway you'd get...but there again, it would have to be
someone reading it that way for the first time, to avoid already
knowing what's to come.
There are times the
book reminded me of Pynchon, times it reminded me of Joyce, and even a
few times where it felt like a somewhat darker version of Pratchett.
It's not easy to sum up...it's an extremely complex work that was very
clearly dear to its author, who we know was himself a complex
individual. It's certainly an experience - sometimes tedious, sometimes
over-written, but often hilarious or poignant, and usually convoluted -
which at risk of being on-the-nose, is frequently true of life itself.
It's not an easy read, to be sure, but it's a worthwhile one.
Ultimately,
I'm not sure what to think of it...in the sense of the traditional
novel structure it falls somewhat short, but in the sense of conveying
powerful and profound ideas, it's rather more successful. To be fair,
Wallace wasn't trying to write a traditional novel, so Infinite Jest
falls into its own category. In so doing, it becomes difficult to judge
against the standards that one might apply to a traditional novel. Is
it engaging? Mostly. Is it pretentious? Possibly. It is entertaining? Mostly. Could it have
benefited from less authorial self-indulgence, or more stringent
editing? Most definitely. Is it a great novel? I don't know that I'd
say yes. Is it a significant work of literature? Yes, I think so.
On
the whole, I'd say I liked it, and I enjoyed it. It was a far better
experience than I'd been expecting, honestly, and I feel it was a
worthwhile read. I don't know that it's for everybody, and certainly
not something to attempt if you're on a tight schedule. But it is
interesting...and in the end, I think the more you're willing to
consider it, the more you'll get out of it.
Which, again, is true of life.
Which might be the point.
FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)
No comments:
Post a Comment