Have you noticed the similarities in language b/w Pynchon and David Foster Wallace?

[dfw]

Idk if the overlap is significant

but i'm noticing a lot similarities in syntax, vocabulary, and just language in general

i've only read 100 pages of the crying lot of 49
and most of infinite jest

[Desolation]

Pynchon was, arguably, Wallace's biggest influence. By some accounts, it was his reading of The Crying of Lot 49 that gave him the push to write his first novel, The Broom of the System.

[Dean W.]

Hmm. I thought Wallace was influenced by Johnson, DeLellio and Doctorow...but I can see what you mean. I think the structure of both books are similar, the reader is kind of along for the ride, not really sure what's going on and the plot is slowly developed fractured piece by piece...I'm 8 hours into Infinite Jest and I think it's pretty terrible. I love Wallace's essays, he has this incredible way to make the most banal subject matter intriguing...but I feel like he's trying to hard in Infinite Jest. It feels overly insecure, like he needs the reader to know that he's well versed in a million different things...but any writer that uses the word "fart" ever I think gets taken down the legitimate notch a peg or five. There's no reason for Jest to be as long as it is... I think the saving grace behind Lot 49 is that is 180 pages...it also seems such more doused in post-modern anxiety than Jest. Anyway...what are your thoughts on Jest so far? Is it worth it to stick it out to the end?

[ashulman]

The big similarity between Wallace and Pynchon is their erudition - they seem to have read and learned everything. Wallace had a similar insatiable genius and it comes across in Infinite Jest and even his essays. But Pynchon seems to have the ability to laugh at the absurdity of it all whereas Wallace seemed to despair over it.

[tonywalt]

DFW is certainly (see any review) closest to Pynchon. But he wallowed in despair in his writing and his fiction never mentions Love. I think he could easily have been the best non fiction writer there ever was. And arguably the most talented fiction writer.

[Dean W.]

Maybe I'm just having a hard time with Infinite Jest. I don't think it shows an "insatiable genius" of a writer...(I think his essays are much better, perhaps because they're more concise?)...I think it's a palimpsest of insecurity. He's showing us all his toys on the playground hoping desperately that we'll want to be his friend. I read that he kept a word list next to him at all times trying to find ways to fit in the more esoteric words he'd discovered and that's what his writing feels like. It feels like someone made a list of intelligent sounding things and tried to work them in a certain amount of times per page...
With Pynchon's writing, it seems more like a commentary on postmodernism than an actual narrative. We're swept along in a maelstrom of confusion that comes when absolute truth/knowledge is usurped by relativity. There is no real concept of truth, rather its searching for truth or meaning in the rubble of endless interpretation and infinite possibility...I have to admit I felt just as confused as Oedipa throughout the entirety of the book...but I think it's not a book to be read and digested, but like ashulman said, maybe one to laugh at the absurdity of it all/postmodernism?

[Dean W.]

https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/magazine/extra/node/66410

Here's is a Q&A with Wallace where he mentions writers that have influenced/move him... I guess who he was influenced by and who his writing most resembles are maybe two different things...but I would probably say DeLillo's writing is also incredibly similar

[ashulman]

Maybe I'm just having a hard time with Infinite Jest. I don't think it shows an "insatiable genius" of a writer...(I think his essays are much better, perhaps because they're more concise?)...I think it's a palimpsest of insecurity. He's showing us all his toys on the playground hoping desperately that we'll want to be his friend. I read that he kept a word list next to him at all times trying to find ways to fit in the more esoteric words he'd discovered and that's what his writing feels like. It feels like someone made a list of intelligent sounding things and tried to work them in a certain amount of times per page...
With Pynchon's writing, it seems more like a commentary on postmodernism than an actual narrative. We're swept along in a maelstrom of confusion that comes when absolute truth/knowledge is usurped by relativity. There is no real concept of truth, rather its searching for truth or meaning in the rubble of endless interpretation and infinite possibility...I have to admit I felt just as confused as Oedipa throughout the entirety of the book...but I think it's not a book to be read and digested, but like ashulman said, maybe one to laugh at the absurdity of it all/postmodernism?

I had a hard time with Jest as well, and gave up after 200 pages or so. He has some great moments but there is that feeling of trying to get it all in, which is death for a novel I think. Pynchon never falls into that trap; he weaves his endless knowledge into his style effortlessly.

I also love his essays. I don't think there's any question of his brilliance. Anybody who has read his book on Infinity will be awed by his comfort level with so esoteric a subject. But maybe he was better when he was focused on a single subject, like David Lynch, or cruise ships.

[Ruskin Bloom]

Hmm. I thought Wallace was influenced by Johnson, DeLellio and Doctorow...but I can see what you mean. I think the structure of both books are similar, the reader is kind of along for the ride, not really sure what's going on and the plot is slowly developed fractured piece by piece...I'm 8 hours into Infinite Jest and I think it's pretty terrible. I love Wallace's essays, he has this incredible way to make the most banal subject matter intriguing...but I feel like he's trying to hard in Infinite Jest. It feels overly insecure, like he needs the reader to know that he's well versed in a million different things...but any writer that uses the word "fart" ever I think gets taken down the legitimate notch a peg or five. There's no reason for Jest to be as long as it is... I think the saving grace behind Lot 49 is that is 180 pages...it also seems such more doused in post-modern anxiety than Jest. Anyway...what are your thoughts on Jest so far? Is it worth it to stick it out to the end?

I've just had a similar experience with Infinite Jest. I believe I got about 400 words in before I reflected on what I'd read and found that it didn't seem to amount to much. As one might expect there are some potent insights into the depressive mind, but ultimately, for a book seemingly so teeming with life, it all felt quite dry and empty and lacking in humanity. The obsessive tennis academy sections seem to signify nothing beyond Wallace's obsession with tennis. I don't find him much a stylist either. His sentences sometimes took me on an entertaining ride, but mostly I found them clunky, and the narrative voice irritating - such as the repeated colloquial use of 'like', as in "it took him all of like, five minutes to do it"; repeated misuse of the word 'literally'; possibly ironic abuse of the word 'prolix'. A vision of the near future destined from birth to be obsolete (cartridges, really? I'm not saying he should have been able to correctly predict the technology of the early 21st - but why try?). The only passages that really left a mark behind I felt were the more disturbing ones - Hal's seizure, the nightmare of the face in the floor, the fate of the Incandenza patriarch... it got to a point where I felt I was merely accumulating unpleasant images scraped from the bottom of Wallace's psyche and nothing much else. And there's certainly no lack of references to flatulence. I say this as a big Pynchon fan, who was swept away by Gravity's Rainbow, and who has never read anything else by Wallace.

[dfw]

have u noticed how often (or is it frequently?) wallace uses
"which" to modify something (i'm no grammar expert, though) followed by the thing being modified (i guess to specify what is being modified if there is more than one possibility)
it's a construction i don't see used very much, but i encountered it quite a few times reading pynchon

as in "...probability have destroyed the Master Print of the failed piece of art, the same
way he'd reportedly destroyed the first four or five failed attempts at the same
piece, which pieces had admittedly featured actresses of lesser mystique and
allure."

[Dean W.]

I read Consider the Lobster and fell in love with Wallace, everything from the AVN awards to Tracy Austin...to skulking around the McCain campaign, it was the most vibrant fascinating writing style I had come across in a while. His endless footnoting was hilarious...He has a unique way of weaving the threads of a serious subject matter (or in the case of "Big Red Son" disturbing) with his personal observations, making something that could be either boring or horrific seem intriguing and laughable. I love the scene in "Big Red Son" where he's at the award ceremony, thinking at first that this will be the greatest experience of his life, only to find himself having to pay exorbitant amounts of cash to migrant workers for anything to drink and wondering whether to laugh or be disturbed when one of the stars has his little brother accept the award for him in absentia...I took copious amounts of notes (which I lost), his writing was beautiful and unlike anything I had ever seen...so I guess I just thought his fiction would be similar. Instead I felt jaded, disappointed and somewhat betrayed.

I've only read The Crying of Lot 49... so it's good to hear that Pynchon's other works are more accessible. I've been hesitant to start V. or Gravity's Rainbow...

[ashulman]

I've only read The Crying of Lot 49... so it's good to hear that Pynchon's other works are more accessible. I've been hesitant to start V. or Gravity's Rainbow...

I wouldn't say his other works are more accessible. Inherent Vice and Vineland are probably the most after Crying. His other books are a like a roller coaster ride with a blindfold on and that's part of the thrill.

[WyattGwyon]

I've just had a similar experience with Infinite Jest. I believe I got about 400 words in before I reflected on what I'd read and found that it didn't seem to amount to much.

Read those words again. They are brilliant. Harold's palpable unease, his sense of impending disaster, his unwillingness to "attempt what would feel to me like a pleasant expression or smile." In any case, the significance of the opening chapters does not become clear until the end of the novel. Did you get that far? Understand the long-range connections?


As one might expect there are some potent insights into the depressive mind, but ultimately, for a book seemingly so teeming with life, it all felt quite dry and empty and lacking in humanity.

You have expressed your feeling but have indicated nothing in the text to support it. And the stuff about insights into the depressive mind is cheap—you know the author to have been depressive, so you feel justified in attributing depressive content to the novel. Once again, no support in the text.


The obsessive tennis academy sections seem to signify nothing beyond Wallace's obsession with tennis. I don't find him much a stylist either. His sentences sometimes took me on an entertaining ride, but mostly I found them clunky, and the narrative voice irritating - such as the repeated colloquial use of 'like', as in "it took him all of like, five minutes to do it"; repeated misuse of the word 'literally'; possibly ironic abuse of the word 'prolix'.

The book has multiple narrative voices. Of which do you speak? Wouldn't colloquial speech be exactly what one might expect of Harold's narration? And are you seriously going to attribute "the repeated misuse of the word literally" to the authorial voice rather than that of the narrator of the moment, whom, once again, you have failed to identify?


The only passages that really left a mark behind I felt were the more disturbing ones - Hal's seizure, the nightmare of the face in the floor, the fate of the Incandenza patriarch... it got to a point where I felt I was merely accumulating unpleasant images scraped from the bottom of Wallace's psyche and nothing much else.

Left a mark? Sorry, but we don't have a clue about what impressions get left in your mind. Likewise what images you are prone to accumulating has no relevance to a discussion of the book, which book, by the way, you seem reluctant to directly engage. This leaves me to wonder whether you even finished the novel, or whether you had any comprehension of it whatever. The stuff about the bottom of Wallace's psyche is, once again, cheap (see above).


And there's certainly no lack of references to flatulence.

What is the relevance of this remark?

[Ruskin Bloom]

Read those words again. They are brilliant.

Not in my opinion! Your whole post is needlessly confrontational and I'm not really interested in that kind of discourse. I recently read the first 400 pages of Infinite Jest; all I propose to do is share my thoughts on them. You seem awfully defensive about this fellow's work.

[Dean W.]

Wow. I'm new to this literary community...but apparently it is not a safe haven for expressing ideas and opinions. The experience of reading is ultimately subjective so that being said all opinions I think must therefore be of equal value. I think Wallace's constant use of the word "fart" is horrific. It's not funny. I wasn't chuckling as he describes one of the locker boys slowly lifting up his leg to let one loose...what is the relevance of flatulence to the narrative of the story and why are we always apprised of it taking place? I think the comment about disturbing images is valid...although I can't contribute an opinion in this particular case...I've been listening to it on tape and fell asleep through that sequence...although the part about roaches crawling out of the drains and laying eggs in the eyes of little children is definitely the stuff of nightmares...I guess I don't know the rules...are we not allowed to say we find things disturbing without an annotated text to back up the specificity of what we mean? That seems a little extreme. And considering there is no absolute objective truth here...who cares? Have you ever read Ulysses? With that text the reader is aware of a structure and sense of logic even among the chaos. Although the narrative style is constantly changing, it does so in a logical and brilliant way. I often found myself wishing I was better versed in Aquinas and Shakespeare...it often left me wishing I were smarter, in a challenging way. I have read it multiple times, each time appreciating it more. Infinite Jest does not seem to be of the same caliber...I haven't finished it yet so maybe at the end everything will make sense like you say....but then essentially are we dealing with an overly complicated version of Nancy Drew?

Have you read any of Wallace's essays? Would you agree that there is a much different style to his fiction?

[WyattGwyon]

Wow. I'm new to this literary community...but apparently it is not a safe haven for expressing ideas and opinions. The experience of reading is ultimately subjective so that being said all opinions I think must therefore be of equal value.

I respectfully disagree. In evaluating opinions expressed about a given book, I think those expressed by people who have actually read the book deserve greater weight. Moreover, those expressed by people who have read the book with a reasonable degree of comprehension should be taken even more seriously.


I think Wallace's constant use of the word "fart" is horrific. It's not funny. I wasn't chuckling as he describes one of the locker boys slowly lifting up his leg to let one loose...what is the relevance of flatulence to the narrative of the story and why are we always apprised of it taking place?

I'm not sure we are always apprised of instances of fictional flatulence. I think it is highly probable that many cases of gaseous release occurred in the fictional world of the novel of which we have, sadly, been left uninformed. As for its relevance to the narrative, might I suggest actually reading the narrative to find out? Of course, if you find the subject matter offends you so much that you cannot in good conscience read the narrative, then by all means stop reading it.


I think the comment about disturbing images is valid...although I can't contribute an opinion in this particular case...I've been listening to it on tape and fell asleep through that sequence...although the part about roaches crawling out of the drains and laying eggs in the eyes of little children is definitely the stuff of nightmares...I guess I don't know the rules...are we not allowed to say we find things disturbing without an annotated text to back up the specificity of what we mean?

My objection was not to Bloom's taking offense at imagery from the novel. Of course it contains some horrific imagery. It was to the insinuation that it should be devalued because it was the product of a defective mind—scraped from the bottom of Wallace's [depressive] psyche (which he cited elsewhere in his post), as he put it. This, I thought, is cheap. I stand by what I wrote.



That seems a little extreme. And considering there is no absolute objective truth here...who cares? Have you ever read Ulysses?

Yes.


With that text the reader is aware of a structure and sense of logic even among the chaos.

Really? You mean taken in parts without finishing it?



Infinite Jest does not seem to be of the same caliber...

Perhaps not. Perhaps it is a completely different kind of novel, making such a comparison less than apropos. I have an informed opinion on these issues because I have read both.



I haven't finished it yet so maybe at the end everything will make sense like you say....but then essentially are we dealing with an overly complicated version of Nancy Drew?

So, let me get straight what you are trying to say. You are suggesting that novels whose enigmas are not solved until the end should be denigrated because some childrens' mystery books also happen to share this trait? Please forgive me if I don't dignify this with a response.


Not in my opinion! Your whole post is needlessly confrontational and I'm not really interested in that kind of discourse. I recently read the first 400 pages of Infinite Jest; all I propose to do is share my thoughts on them. You seem awfully defensive about this fellow's work.

I expressed a critical opinion only on the first 400 words of the novel. For all you know, I might detest the book as a whole. I was moved to respond to your comments because I found your use of Wallace's mental heath problems as cover for your superficial evaluation and cavalier dismissal of his work offensive.

[Ruskin Bloom]

I expressed a critical opinion only on the first 400 words of the novel. For all you know, I might detest the book as a whole. I was moved to respond to your comments because I found your use of Wallace's mental heath problems as cover for your superficial evaluation and cavalier dismissal of his work offensive.

The first two sentences of this post are utterly incongruous with your first post in this thread. Just nonsense. I don't think you've given any evidence in this thread of the authority your tone is claiming, beyond the fact that you've finished the book - which, since both myself and the poster I was replying to were sharing our opinions on the book in progress, and have not claimed to be doing otherwise, is rather besides the point. Your response to my original post was wrongheaded and no way to foster discussion about an author you appear to appreciate.

[WyattGwyon]

I don't think you've given any evidence in this thread of the authority your tone is claiming, beyond the fact that you've finished the book - which, since both myself and the poster I was replying to were sharing our opinions on the book in progress, and have not claimed to be doing otherwise, is rather besides the point.

Apologies for the delayed response—I was in the wilderness.

Authority? My authority is that I can read with a reasonable degree of comprehension. I will demonstrate by more specifically addressing your comment that: "it [the first 400 words of Infinite Jest] didn't seem to amount to much."

It, along with the next few pages, does add up to something. It adds up to a brilliant, comic portrait of a boy struggling with unease so intense it borders on the pathological, so overpowering that his basic perceptual processes are scrambled, leaving him unable to readily resolve human images into gestalts. ("I am seated in an office, surrounded by heads and bodies," then a few lines later: "Three faces have resolved into place above summer-weight sportcoats and half-Windsor's . . .") Later his psychic distress is expressed in something close to coronary arhythmia. ("My chest bumps like a dryer with shoes in it.)" Contributing to the portrait is his hilariously overwrought awareness of his body and its movements ("My posture is consciously congruent to the shape of my hard chair"; "I have committed to crossing my legs I hope carefully"; ". . . not attempt what would feel to me like a pleasant expression or smile") and his inordinate focus on and tendency to become absorbed in tiny perceptual details ("My fingers are mated into a mirrored series of what manifests, to me, as the letter X"; "The high-traction sole of my complimentary Nike sneaker runs parallel to the wobbling loafer of my mother's half-brother . . ."; "bits of dust and sportcoat-lint stirred around by the AC's vents").

What I find so wonderful about this portrait is that Hal makes the horribly jangled state of his nervous system palpable without once mentioning his feelings, describing his environment with clinical, objective precision while, ultimately, loosing all control of his body and his ability to communicate. Indeed, his failure to acknowledge emotion at all in the midst of an intense emotional crisis, and while being violently subdued (". . . who wrestles me roughly down, on me with all his weight. I taste floor.") is the very essence of the scene. So, when I read your rather unenlightening comment that the scene didn't seem to add up to much, perhaps you can understand why I told you to read it again! Every detail adds up to a very specific something, and the sum is constructed with great virtuosity.

In reading your posts to this thread, I sensed no desire on your part to understand or appreciate the book. It sounded like you were trying to justify your desire to dismiss it. I can't for the life of me understand why you might need to do this. Just because others think it is a unique masterpiece doesn't mean you have to—or that you have to justify yourself if you see it differently. But if you decide to casually dismiss it in a public forum, dragging in the author's mental health problems without citing actual features of the book or its composition, you should expect to be called on it.

[Dean W.]

Good point Wyatt. I do remember how much I enjoyed the first few chapters and you're right, Wallace does often have an intriguing mastery of language...Listening to this on tape, (it is 56 hours long) I find myself getting bogged down by long somewhat irrelevant discussions of the Trojan War from a pontificating undercover agent, or endless discussions of cathode ray tubes, ect. There are moments (8 hours in) where the narrative is clear and focused. The ritual paranoia Hal has trying to hide his smoking, the introduction to Orin...the image of a room full of people immobilized by Infinite Jest, to name a few, were all moments I felt pulled into. I was there watching Hal hide in a maze of HVAC equipment, or the idea that Pledge is the best defense against sunburn (is that even a thing?) Many good moments. It just feels like he routinely gets lost in the narrative and rather than stay on point keeps delving into an infinite supply of details for the vast world he has created...do we really need to know all of the names of the tennis plebes? In my first post in this forum I was feeling somewhat discouraged, the David Foster Wallace I had fell in love with was getting shrouded by seemingly irrelevant and endless details and 8 hours in I was feeling discouraged. I asked if it was worth it...with Ulysses, the reader knows the structure is following the Odyssey...so even when hopelessly lost, there are bastions to tether the reader amidst the chaos...I wish this book was parsed down to the most essential details and therefor more focused...I will probably try to finish it...but listening to it on tape was probably a bad idea...

[WyattGwyon]

Dean,
It is a challenging book on many levels and I respect anyone's decision to say it isn't worth it for them—and no doubt there are many angles from which one might argue it is flawed. All I know is that it was worthwhile, fun, and ultimately moving for me. I could see folks I respect positively hating it.

That being said, I imagine hearing it rather than reading it might make it more difficult. (I found myself underlining and making notes of passages I thought I might need to return to—making myself a map as I felt myself getting lost in the tangle.) I think it also helped to read it in a concentrated way without other intervening reading. And even with this care and concentration it took a great deal of thinking to put it all together in the end—though I don't claim to have a full grasp of it, or even to have had it all under control—ever. I wonder if it is even possible to grasp it at one go—which is enough to dissuade many from committing the effort.

Anyway, good luck and enjoy if you decide to give it a go—and, of course, there are no end of other books should you decide it isn't rewarding for you.