Talk:Infinite Jest/Content Discussion (cleanup to here)

I made this page as a specific archive for the large amount of content discussion that does not belong on the main Talk page, so the main page can be decluttered. Revent (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(The endnotes)
Why "endnotes" and not "footnotes?"-Tribe 16:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Because traditionally footnotes appear at the foot of each page; endnotes appear at the end of the text, as in this instance.Lacrimosus 00:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Infinite Jest has not only footnotes (appearing at the bottom of a few pages), and endnotes (the last 100 pages of the book), but also footnotes to the endnotes (appearing at the bottom of the respective endnotes). Fun fun! -Yourcelf 14:36, Sep 18 2004 (UTC)

Monty Python
The seed for this book's premise sounds like it may have come from an old Monty Python sketch about "the world's funniest joke". Has anyone referenced this in interviews or reviews? 193.129.65.37 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Err. I thought this page made some reference to that. I believe there is some sort of like, deadly entertainment catagory or something. Or maybe somebody told me about this. You could totally put a link to that somewhere on the page just for a concept comparison, but I'm nearly certain that this books relation to that is only coincedental, not thematic. The purpose of the samizdat's power is to be disturbing; it is a critique of hedonism in modern society.Thechosenone02112:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of Motif of harmful sensation? Slac speak up! 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching the Monty Python episode "Whither Canada", saw the Funniest Joke sketch, and automatically thought of Infinite Jest. So it's not just you. The similarities are eerie.Cyclone05 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollents?
I haven't actually read this book, (though I should and probably will) but as a Québecer myself, I can't help but notice "rollent" isn't a word in French. Wheelchair is fauteuil roulant. I assume it was written rollents in the book, but I still wonder if it should be mentionned.

Above post written by User:74.57.195.75 (Sign your comments please)
 * Hey, as someone who did read the book, if thats totally true than nothing would be more fitting than using "Sic" after every instance of the AFR in the article. Someone totally look into this! Thechosenone021 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Err. Uh. That wasn't a go ahead to institute the correct french spelling. A. lets verify with the book. B. i don't parlevouz but it could be quebecois spelling? C. it would still be awesome to follow the spelling with [sic]Thechosenone021 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for whether or not it's correct French, but I did get the book for Christmas. Il y a endnote 39's footnote a: "Les Assassins des Fauteuils Rollents, a.k.a. Wheelchair Assassins, pretty much Qu&eacute;bec's most dreaded and rapacious anti-O.N.A.N. terrorist cell." --Jacj 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, here's something interesting: I googled fauteuil rollent and got only four hits, one of which was about Georges Perec, the French writer. After writing a novel without using 'e', he wrote a novella using no vowel other than 'e', Les Revenentes, an intentional misspelling of Les Revenantes. Recall that Georges Perec is given a shout-out in Infinite Jest: Luria P____'s last name is in fact Perec. Adking80 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Adking: amazing discovery. Bravo. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 66.65.60.243 (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly any one of the French expressions employed in "Infinite Jest" is correct. "Notre rai pays" for instance should be "Notre vrai pays", "Service" does not take an accent aigu and so endlessly on. To someone with a knowledge of French, this makes reading the book slightly aggravating. The same applies to the (admittedly smaller number of) German expressions and names. "Gerhardt Schtitt" for example is doubly misspelled: "Gerhard" as a first name does not take a t at the end, and the Sch at the beginning of Schtitt is incongruous given that "Sch" is pronounced "sh", but "St" is pronounced as "Sh-t", so the name would be spelled "Stitt" (if it existed at all, which I doubt). The "Brockengespenst" does not take "Umlaut"-dots on the o (neither does "Toblerone"). These lapses sit ill with Wallace's precision throughout the rest of the book. Then again, he did commit howling errors of judgment in including, for instance, the episode of the workman who severely hurt himself trying to pull a load of bricks up a building: This is a lame joke that I first encountered in some irrelevant magazine as a teenager in Germany, making that forty years ago. Equally mistifying is the story of Randy Lenz's father suffering from either one leg suddenly growing longer or the other one growing shorter (surely he would have noticed whether one of his pants' legs had become too short or too long?), or Joelle van Dyne's parents getting killed by an errant helicopter rotor blade. Get real! Unfortunately, these rather lame or simply off-putting episodes marr what is otherwise a fascinating read.Provencefan 9:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by87.142.47.224 (talk)


 * Pr&ouml;vencefan: I think you missed the gags there... —Precedingunsigned comment added by 64.81.240.10 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaphs some gags were missed by Provencefan but as a French person having read IJ twice I can assure you that DFW's bad French is really annoying, and not funny. Even Marathe's English doesn't really sound like a French person (even from Québec) with a bad grammar. Barring perhaps the above-mentioned discovery about Perec, none of this seems intentional, although it's hard to believe nobody noticed before the book was published. No matter how hard I try, I can't see a pun in "Notre rai pays" nor in Thierry being a male name, especially from such a writer. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Zappathustra (talk •contribs) 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Exuse me for this but..

 * Did it occur to anybody to write a plot?--Rex Imperator
 * Possibly not to Wallace. Neil Hunt 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooooo, burn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by35.8.250.143 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revent (talk • contribs)

Question About JO Incandenza's Head
This is something that has always bothered/intrigued me... It's right up there with the maddening ambiguity regarding Joelle's face and whether or not she is actually deformed (which is an essential ambiguity, in my opinion, and is not supposed to be resolved). But my question has to do with a very small, one-time reference in the very first chapter: While Hal is being loaded into the ambulance, and his mind is wandering in a typically hallucinogenic pattern (see, for example, the jet plane, the stream-of-consciousness-style associations, etc), he suddenly thinks of "John N.R. Wayne... standing watch in a mask as Donald Gately and I dig up my father's head." What??? Never mind the question of how Don Gately and Hal even make each other's acquaintance. (I suppose we can assume that it is either through Joelle or by way of Hal spending some time in the House.) The really interesting question is: What are they doing digging up J.O.'s head? If J.O. killed himself by putting his head in a microwave oven, then there would presumably be no head left for them to dig up. But even J.O.'s head hadn't exploded in the microwave, even if his head and survived in tact, if rather thoroughly cooked, why would his head be buried alone and separately, as this reference implies? This one tiny reference throws a long shadow of possible conspiracy over the entire incidence of J.O.'s death. But, like the question of Joelle's face, it is a situation that DFW leaves, I think, deliberately ambiguous. That is to say, I'm not asking for anyone to definitely answer the question of what "really" happened; I'm merely pointing it out and asking if this something that ought to be included in the main entry? Xsgenefuzz (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I forget where, exactly, and I don't have a copy of the book with me, but it's strongly implied that Himself had the master copy of "The Entertainment" actually surgically inserted into his head at one point. His suicide-via-microwaved-head was his attempt to destroy the only master. 206.213.251.31 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I remember it being implied that J.O. was buried with the only master copy, but I never got that he had it surgically implanted in his head. If you could post a page number, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Xsgenefuzz (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See page 31 where J.O., disguised as a professional conversationalist, refers to "the gyroscopic balance sensor and mise-en-scene appropriation card and priapistic-entertainment cartridge implanted in your very own towering father's anaplastic cerebrum" when talking to Hal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.90.214 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can guarantee this is the 100% truth, but it's about 100% better than the sorry mental flailing going on here: What is left for the reader to assume is that at some point the separatists overhear something to the effect of "It's in James O. Incandenza's head". And then they send Wayne, who is one of them duh, to force Hal and Don (who in the missing year have inevitably become acquainted, probably thanks to the persistence of wraiths) to dig up Incandenza's head. His skull. The separatists stupidly took "in his head" literally. Tada. What they don't realize is that the master copy IS in a real sense STILL in Himself's head, since he and his mind still exist as a wraithlike entity, and as such he can endow whomever he chooses (with or without them realizing it) at any point in time anywhere with information, diction, visions. The works. It was never implanted in the man's skull, for crying out loud. Hal himself must not have realized this either at the point of excavation, hence "Too late". Or maybe he already knew and was throwing off the separatists. Either way, JOI didn't kill himself to destroy an implant. (And his head was NOT buried alone, WTF!) "Strongly implied"? LMFAO. Dudes: Isn't all that just a strange and amusing way of figuratively describing THE HUMAN BRAIN? Motive for JOI's suicide? I think he killed himself in an excruciating fashion to become a wraith, since it was the only possible way left he could see of communicating with his son, which he had been endlessly and futilely trying to do forever with his films. I'm sure he got the idea from conversing with Lyle. Anyway. Even if there are multiple ways of interpreting the novel, even if Wallace designed it that way...you all are stuck on some of the LEAST INTERESTING unimaginative ways of interpreting the book possible. Wake up. And please hurry? 140.247.214.238 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Joelle Van Dyne's disfigurement
I seem to recall Joelle describing her mother throwing some of her father's (the low pH chemist) chemical collection at him and missing and hitting Joelle with a caustic solution causing the disfigurement. Was this Molly Notkin's less than reliable recollection mentioned in the article or is the article mistaken? I also seem to remember Joelle walking home in the rain after being questioned by some A.F.R. and the rain made her veil cling to her true features. My sense was that she was in fact disfigured but after such a long book it's hard to be clear on it. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.76.252.21.121 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revent (talk • contribs)