Pete Hindle

I’m reading Infinite Jest as part of the Infinite Summer project, and I’ve got some reservations.

Infinite Jest is a big book, but I’ve read bigger, and I’ve certainly read better. I think my flatmate summed it up best: when I pointed out the size of IJ, and how I wasn’t really enjoying it, he said that it was the short books that leave you wanting more.

I don’t think Infinite Jest is a well written book. I believe that it has traces of greatness; some of the parts that I’ve read have really stuck in my mind. But I’m up to the mid-six hundreds now – it should have got round to being gripping at this point. The fact that it isn’t says a lot, mainly that the book coasts on those few points of excellence and the dry black vein of humour it’s written in.

Earlier on I said that perhaps the reason that American’s like it is because it’s such a big book. I think I’m going to have to stick with this theory; it’s like the way that Harry Potter is lauded for being good writing. Actually, the Potter books are pretty workmanlike; it’s the fact that they got sold as an event that launched J.K Rowling into her celebrity and subsequent success. I think a similar thing has happened for this book. After all, it’s not like there aren’t other books out there which are as multi-layered and referential. Perditio Street Station, for instance, is similarly tome-like and has a fucking storyline that pumps relentlessly.

I’m reading this book in order to get a better grounding in books that don’t have spaceships on the cover. But I do find that once I step out of the SF getto, there is a lot of muddying about what actually makes a good book – and this time, I got suckered.