Talk:Infinite Jest/Old resolved issues

Removing Infinite Generator external link?
Revent (talk)

I'm not sure if this new link, Infinite Generator, belongs on this page. It may be interesting, but it doesn't contribute any relevant information about the book Infinite Jest.Wowbobwow12 18:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's interesting, but if you wanted to remove it, I wouldn't object. Catamorphism 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its relevant because it makes a solid critique of the books style that is also amusing and demonstrates the nature of the book. It is not nearly obtrusive enough to merit such close inspection. I say it stays. --Thechosenone02116:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I say remove. It doesn't do much to support the article, and the blatant spelling errors littered throughout just bug me.Deafgeek 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PGOAT's Face
Revent (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I came on this entry for the first time and was surprised to see Joelle described without qualification as deformed. I think this is one of the crucial unanswered questions of the novel -- is Joelle deformed or has she retreated behind the veil because she no longer wants to be judged by her astounding good looks? I don't think you can give an answer for sure one way or the other based on the text. But she is is definitely NOT "definitely" deformed, if that makes sense. --192.206.23.24921:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a question, she is horribly deformed. Her low pH chemist father spilled intense acid on her face. Whether she might remain horrifyingly beautiful is one thing, but she is certainly U.H.I.D. for a reason. thechosenone021March 2nd.


 * I think to the contrary - it's been a while now since I've read it, but the hints that she is *not* in fact deformed come thick and fast at the end of the book (she can't be looked upon because of her Helenesque beauty). At the least, it can be said to be the subject of discussion amongst fans. (By the way, typing four tildes - ~ allows you to sign and date your posts automatically).  Slac speak up! 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The so called hints to me suggest not a "helenesque" beauty but rather a suggestion that she is still incredibly beautiful from the neck down and also that she is perhaps strangely, sadistically attractive cranially. And the organization is called "UHID"Thechosenone021 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From howlingfantods.com:
 * So the conclusion was that Joelle's condition is mostly a matter of opinion, and seems to hinge on whether or not you believe Notkin. Which then leads to the issue of narration -- who's narrating what, can you believe the narrator(s), what's the deal with the footnotes, etc. There are simply too many permutations to list. I think that topic sort of fizzled out because it seems like there's no absolute answer, and maybe we shouldn't be trying to figure it out anyway.


 * This is at the end of an extensive discussion for and against JvD being deformed. The evidence is deliberately ambiguous and subject to interpretation.  I will note that Molly Notkin's extreme and demonstrated unreliability/confusion on matters of fact leads me to be very sceptical of her explanations, but I won't attempt to put that in the article.  Slac speak up! 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is hard to parse. Here are a few comments:

- Orin's relationship with her, even at that time, is more involved with mommy- and daddy-issues than anything. It's easy to read that he'd break up with her because of her being closer to his father than he was.

- Molly Notkin didn't know Joelle pre-incident. The endnotes specifically say that Molly has seen Madame Psychosis naked but never unveiled.

- According to Molly, Joelle's mom killed herself on Thanksgiving of Y.T.M.P., 4+ months before Himself killed, um, himself.

- The bit about Lucille Duquette being Joelle's real name is a lie. Duquette was a film critic.

- Joelle may have been lying (or simply repressing) when she admitted "I'm beautiful" to Gately. When talking with Gately later on, she seems to be repressing the Thanksgiving incident, so the acid could be a part of that.

- None of the Ennet House residents seem to notice any deformities on her face.

- She did look on her beauty as a disability, and it would fit well with Wallace's style if she were wearing the veil to stop people from gawking at her. Cyclone05 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I always wondered how she had low-PH acid splashed on her face and somehow doesn't actually appear to be deformed. Maybe only the surface of her face was affected and she washed it off in time, and the veil's there for some other reason?--Jacj19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been rereading the novel with the Joelle mystery in mind and it's maddeningly ambiguous. You know the Medusa v. the Odalisque? Joelle illustrates this, I think: how deformity and beauty are two sides of the same coin.

Editing Infinite Jest
Revent (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a new user here, admittedly, but I can't find a way to address Icarus of Old directly. I'm just trying to figure out why he removed my addition to the Stylistic Elements section. I'm trying to figure out if I was improperly adding or not, or if this was arbitrary. Thanks for the help, anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added byOrangeseattle (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found your edit to be redundant, especially coming right after the note about acronyms. In addition, your wording was strongly biased. Icarus of old (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks for the word. I actually don't see how it was particularly "redundant" since acronyms aren't endnotes, acronyms, or post-modernisms. I'm also not sure which part is "biased" in the sentence "Abbreviations of terms, people, places occur sporadically and seemingly without an overall uniformity." Maybe you don't love it, but, hey, it's in the book and quite pertinent to the 'dislocation' techniques he uses in general. Now, I don't want to be argumentative--really, I don't--and I accept that anyone can edit anything, but since it's Wikipedia and not Icapedia, I find it odd that a decentered collaboration should have such a gatekeeper. I'd like to add more to infinite Jest, but, quite honestly, I have much better things to do than write things that will be edited away because IJ just happens to be someone's pet project. I'd just like to be in the conversation is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeseattle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How clever. Icarus of old (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reach and Pull, oh the hilarity!
Revent (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted an external link to a blog which provides uniquely mind-blowing jaw-dropping observations and opinions about the book (in a clever way, I must add) and someone removed it? Surely that person did not actually read the blog. I'm going to add it to the external links again, and before anyone else decides to remove it again: PLEASE READ THE BLOG, the whole thing, including all the comments. Here, in case it gets removed from the article again: http://reachandpull.wordpress.com  Don't be, like, jealous and whatnot...if that's the issue. I'm not special, I just happen to be the person who figured out what it takes to figure out the book. There were certainly other people in the same position. But I seem to be the first. Who cares. I sure as hell don't. Wallace probably doesn't care. How about joining me on the blog!!! Talk with me! Or at the very least joining the discussion at GoodReads. Thanks. Wigglestrue (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So...um...Bueller? [crickets] Bueller? [Jeopardy music] Bueller? [twiddles thumbs] Bueller? [NASA countdown beginning from 10,000] Bueller? [yawns] Bueller? [watches paint dry] Bueller? [watches grass grow] Bueller? [reads Infinite Jest a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th time] Bueller? [stares at computer screen, head in hands, drooling] Bueller???? In other words, has anyone begun to begin reading the blog and hence truly understanding the book yet? It helps to start reading the blog from the bottom up, chronologically.  Thank you if you tried -- try again, as often as you must.  And don't forget to thank me for being patient, at some point.  Wigglestrue (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're conducting original research, which doesn't belong as a Wikipedia citation. Regardingsweetness(talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How about letting the page stand as it is instead of shamelessly plugging your blog (especially with all of these ridiculous claims of being the first person to figure out the book--get off yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by174.106.2.164 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about actually realizing that it is still, two years later, so pathetically true that no one, not a single other person in the world (since Wallace himself isn't around anymore), no matter how respectable their credentials, and especially not people like you, lol -- understands this book. Except, unfortunately, Paul Chandler. He went a little (maybe 10-15%) insane a couple years ago. **** happens. Some of the things he fantasized about, regarding the unlikely event that Wallace had been affected at all by finally happening upon a person who (at last!) was at least beginning to understand the book -- bogus, obviously. But the rest of it? True. All true. He gets it. You don't. Let me repeat that to all you sycophants who pride yourself on being big fans of Infinite Jest. YOU. DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND. YOUR. FAVORITE. BOOK. Not in the slightest. It's sad, really. Why do you think Wallace was so depressed? I bet it was because he felt hopelessly misunderstood. Hopefully, you'll get it eventually. Good luck!140.247.214.238 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion
Revent (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be blanked and rewritten by a more nuetral party. That is all. Lots42 (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly since there are continuity issues in plot and details that make some of the 'facts' of the article somewhat selective (e.g. subsidized time: there are conflicting benchmarks. Using Gately's info--as in this article--provides only one 'interpretation'. Scholars tend to agree that YDAU is 2009, not 2011). —Preceding unsigned comment added by74.184.148.147 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cites
Revent (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I love this book, but Wikipedia has changed since this article was first written - standards have become more ridigly enforced. I think someone is going to have to go through and add a huge whack of tags everywhere and delete a whole stack of unreferenced claims. Remember, citing directly from the book itself is only of limited utility; we can't be in the position of offering commentary ourselves; we have to confine ourselves to citing the (reputable) speculation and analysis of others. I'll flag this now without further action but it's an issue that's not going to go away. Slac speak up! 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs Some Work
Revent (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to throw stones, especially since I haven't worked on this article, but it seems like that Infinite Jest is an important enough book to deserve a reasonable Wikipedia article. There was a lot of media attention on the novel when it was published, and there's a lot of critical analyses available online. The "Characters" section is long, and while it manages to give a lot of information, it's not quite as general or as useful as it could be. It mixes some deep plot stuff (past 700 pages into the novel) without giving much context. Plus, some of it's just wrong. John Wayne never has a "televised meltdown," and the Whataburger tourney he is clearly missing is the one in the Year of Glad, as far as I could tell. There are either too many characters, since so many of them are relatively minor, or too few, since it misses so many characters who appear as much as some of the other minor characters mentioned.

The plot section could use some revising too. Making the assumption that the novel is really about the Entertainment is a tough sell, to me; it's a device in service of what the novel is about, and explaining the plot is singularly difficult for a work that tends to spin endless repeating tales of redemption and failure. One possible solution might be to split the plot into sections, examining what occurs within the spheres of ETA, Ennet House, and maybe Arizona. But I understand the temptation to tie together a brief plot analysis using the Entertainment as the element that ties the threads together. It could just be expanded, with a better summary of the action of the novel with explanation of its structure. Also, it'd be nice if it didn't just make OR statements; there's a lot of contradictory information in the novel, so it's impossible to say what really happens off-screen between the Y.D.A.U material and the Year of Glad opening section.

Really, everything here is in a nascent stage. I'd love to work on this, and I might if I get some time here in the near future. I'm just saying that there are plenty of reliable sources on this material, and it shouldn't take too much time to gather the resources and write a proper article on this important novel. Hopefully we can improve this stuff and make it a usable reference.97.73.64.173 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets make the Entry for Infinite Jest use a bunch of endnotes and footnotes!~
Revent (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be cool to try and replicate Dave's penchant for notes by deploying them in the wiki entry?!?! What do you guys think? Dave was a pretty modest dude, but I bet he would dig it if we did it! Does anybody gots ideas on how to do it so as to keep within the restrictions of wiki-ville? — Precedingunsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I do think that would be cool, I'm not sure if it belongs on wikipedia. I'm afraid it would come across as an in-joke or shout-out or something equally unencyclopedic. 71.189.107.71 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Year of the Trial Sized Dove Bar
The link was long ago removed without reversion. Revent (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the hyperlink to Dove Chocolate page is incorrect. I believe the 'Trial Sized Dove Bar' referred to in the novel is a Dove beauty bar (soap). The reason I tend to believe the year is sponsored by the soap and not the candy, is that small pieces of chocolate or not normally marketed as trial size: they're usually snack size or fun size, and they're not usually sold individually, while personal toiletry items at the drug store tend to come in trial or travel sizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by69.107.100.201 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)69.107.100.201 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Title
Revent (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The only source for this would be Wallace himself - do we have any record of him saying the title was taken from Hamlet? DNForever (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Title's a reference to a movie that plays a heavy part in the plot. This movie's title, in turn, is described explicitly in the novel as a Shakespeare reference.

Metamaticman (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Subsidized time "not entirely explained"?
The article now explains it. Revent (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant to make the edit--maybe I'm missing something--but subsidized time isn't instituted "for reasons not entirely explained." On p. 438 (of the 10th anniv. paperback edition) it says, "...the advent of Subsidized Time is historically known to have been a revenue-response to the heady costs of the U.S.'s Reconfigurative giveaway." In other words, government instituted it to raise funds, correct? Certainly this is an explanation. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Metamaticman (talk •contribs) 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)