> a film, Infinite Jest, also called "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film is so compelling that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
I think parent is referring to the film in the novel, also named Infinite Jest. The film is so compelling that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
> These narratives are connected via a film, Infinite Jest, also called "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film is so entertaining that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
But you can’t possibly make a work like “Gravity’s Rainbow” or “infinite Jest” into a movie. Hell, most adaptions of Hemingway are awful (original “Old Man and the Sea” not withstanding) because literature is not easily adapted to other mediums. It can only exist as writing because it is writing that challenges what reading is.
Lots of non-literary fiction, like “Game of Thrones” translates well and having read the books and watched the show I’d probably agree with your assessment here - optimize for time. But real literature is only good as literature.
Funny you should mention DFW. When I read the "Give It Up" story it reminded me of one of the films in his book Infinite Jest called "Wave Bye-Bye To The Beaurocrat", where a man hurries to the train late for work and knocks over a child who mistakes him for Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the short films in the book were inspired by Kafka.
I'm amazed literary critique is a job. Definitely Ark B material. This book fetishism always rubs me the wrong way. A book is a conveyer of thought. Like a conversation, phone, film, comic, game, diagram, chart. As much as I appreciate your agonising over Infinite Jest your opinion of it based on not having read it is not convincing. There is a solution to your conundrum you face in this article - don't talk about Infinite Jest.
The whole idea of the Great Conversation or the like is preposterous and not only because it's not physically possible (and hasn't been for decades). You don't have to have been to all the countries on the planet to find common ground and common language to talk about travelling and contribute to the conversation.
Team sports primarily consists of human interaction. You practice with your team, have meetings with the coaching staff, film sessions, team meals, travel together, team training sessions, and that's before you even set foot on the field or court.
And the leadership and communication skills are directly transferable and valuable to a business setting. The business unit as a sports team idea is a bit tired and cliche at this point because it's been a comparison made for at least 50 years.
But that speaks to the cliche's validity. David Foster Wallace wrote in Infinite Jest "cliches earned their status as cliches because they were so obviously true."
The samizdat refers to a film (after which Infinite Jest is named). This film is so entertaining that, once seen, a viewer will want to do nothing but continue watching it, endlessly.
Ebert is criticizing games without actually playing them, just watching other people talk about them. This is like saying movies aren't art, because if all you do is read movie reviews, you will never read a movie review that can compare with Infinite Jest or The Grapes of Wrath.
Braid is better art than any movie that came out last year.
Hacker Cinema
13 comments on Hacker News
or perhaps infinite jest once it hits tiktok
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest
> a film, Infinite Jest, also called "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film is so compelling that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
I think parent is referring to the film in the novel, also named Infinite Jest. The film is so compelling that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
> Are you only here to be entertained?
Personally, yes. I'm counting down the days until we have the movie from Infinite Jest.
I tried to read Infinite Jest, and it just pissed me off. It was such an annoying text to try and read. I think I read at most 10 pages.
Likewise, I have “rage quit” reading other books in the past as well.
It’s solid advice. Don’t waste time reading something you are not enjoying. Same goes for movies.
> These narratives are connected via a film, Infinite Jest, also called "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film is so entertaining that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest
And directed by Office, Parks Rec, Good Place Mike Schur - who once definitely owned the film rights to Infinite Jest, not sure he still does or not.
But you can’t possibly make a work like “Gravity’s Rainbow” or “infinite Jest” into a movie. Hell, most adaptions of Hemingway are awful (original “Old Man and the Sea” not withstanding) because literature is not easily adapted to other mediums. It can only exist as writing because it is writing that challenges what reading is.
Lots of non-literary fiction, like “Game of Thrones” translates well and having read the books and watched the show I’d probably agree with your assessment here - optimize for time. But real literature is only good as literature.
Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest discusses this, only it's a film.
Funny you should mention DFW. When I read the "Give It Up" story it reminded me of one of the films in his book Infinite Jest called "Wave Bye-Bye To The Beaurocrat", where a man hurries to the train late for work and knocks over a child who mistakes him for Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the short films in the book were inspired by Kafka.
I'm amazed literary critique is a job. Definitely Ark B material. This book fetishism always rubs me the wrong way. A book is a conveyer of thought. Like a conversation, phone, film, comic, game, diagram, chart. As much as I appreciate your agonising over Infinite Jest your opinion of it based on not having read it is not convincing. There is a solution to your conundrum you face in this article - don't talk about Infinite Jest.
The whole idea of the Great Conversation or the like is preposterous and not only because it's not physically possible (and hasn't been for decades). You don't have to have been to all the countries on the planet to find common ground and common language to talk about travelling and contribute to the conversation.
Limited human interaction?
Team sports primarily consists of human interaction. You practice with your team, have meetings with the coaching staff, film sessions, team meals, travel together, team training sessions, and that's before you even set foot on the field or court.
And the leadership and communication skills are directly transferable and valuable to a business setting. The business unit as a sports team idea is a bit tired and cliche at this point because it's been a comparison made for at least 50 years.
But that speaks to the cliche's validity. David Foster Wallace wrote in Infinite Jest "cliches earned their status as cliches because they were so obviously true."
The samizdat refers to a film (after which Infinite Jest is named). This film is so entertaining that, once seen, a viewer will want to do nothing but continue watching it, endlessly.
(Also, IJ is a great novel.)
Ebert is criticizing games without actually playing them, just watching other people talk about them. This is like saying movies aren't art, because if all you do is read movie reviews, you will never read a movie review that can compare with Infinite Jest or The Grapes of Wrath.
Braid is better art than any movie that came out last year.