Just one more day, my friends.
One more day before a meme gets a new face.
Starting tomorrow, this is the cover of Infinite Jest.
>>7730368
It sucks almost as much as the book itself.
>>7730368
So many great entries to choose from and they picked that bland shit.
>>7730387
Can we see them? Was there a contest?
>>7730368
>Inhnite Jest
>>7730398
>Inhindsight Shite
>>7730391
There was a few months ago. If warsou was up you could've seen the threads about it.
Better than the airplane manual tier old one
So shitty
What edition is the sticky note one?
>>7730455
DFW would've vastly preferred that one though, what with his discomfort at people reading his books based on reputation and everything
>>7730455
The old one is a reference to an intense scene in the book, and fits perfectly as cover art due to the themes of that scene and the lack of spoiler potential.
That original cover is one of the most appropriate book covers that isn't hand-stitched leather.
>>7730470
Bro, he wanted to slam Fritz Lang on the cover. Don't kid yourself. He was a hack.
>>7730478
DFW didn't even like the old cover and made a point of talking about how he had this "totally brilliant" idea for a cover that got shot down and replaced with that one.
>>7730459
type "Infinite Jest" into amazon and you'll probably find out
>>7730522
He's an author, not a graphic designer. This was DFW's master plan for the Infinite Jest cover image. I think what we got was better both commercially and as a statement about the book.
>>7730522
That's probably one of of the reasons he became an hero
>>7730553
that image from the set of metropolis was the one he wanted to use for the cover?
>>7730553
I remember reading something about another one he proposed where it was going to be a photo of various types of garbage molded into a sculpture.
>>7730459
That's the UK version.
>>7730578
That'd be better than this joke of a cover. Does this cover do anything other than inspire disgust?
>>7730553
Still didn't have to be so bland.
>>7730594
>ywn be british
>>7730634
Beyond the obvious 1984 vibe, I like the idea of the television that radiates like the sun, as if it has replaced it as our main source of life.
>>7730670
I think the first edition cover plays up the mystique of the book the way a more complex cover wouldn't. Think about the first edition of Gravity's Rainbow, with urban skyline, and compare that to all the other ones with rockets and rocket accessories.
wait, what? didn't they just release a new one with sticky notes and zadie?
>>7730679
What is the first edition? The clouds?
Does anyone know if the pagination of this edition is the exact same? All previous editions had the exact same number of pages and the same words on every page(except for a few minor corrections and typos from the 1st edition.) Only curious because I believe it impacts my interpretation of the novel and the experience of reading it in a variety of ways. Like reading IJ on a eReader would completely ruin the experience.
>>7730699
Probably the same. It would require effort on their part to redo it.
>>7730689
That's the UK version.
>>7730379
>There are people actually too stupid to understand DFW
My my my...if it isn't the boy who cried meme...
>>7730699
>Like reading IJ on a eReader would completely ruin the experience.
Can you clarify?
It's out today. Go get it.
>>7733719
It's got corrections in it, so if you don't get it, you're not going to have the definitive version of Infinite Jest, and if you don't care about having it, then what the fuck are you doing on /lit/, my man?
>>7730762
>he thinks there's some underlying meaning to the bullshit DFW spews in his works
wew
>>7733731
Do you know how to fucking use commas? Also, why are you shilling this so hard? Are you his wife? Post feet if that's the case.
>>7733753
I'm just a fan of David Foster Wallace... you know, the greatest writer of the last fifty years? Ring a bell? Infinite Jest? Hello? What board am I on.
>>7733731
The pre-existing editions are the ones all IJ criticism is based on. Quit being a perfectionist faggot.
>>7733764
Wallace scholarship is in its infancy... This is the version of all future scholarship will be based on. Quit living in the past.
>>7733758
Not /lit/, since people here do not read books.
>>7733769
The new body of scholarship will exist fucking 10 years from now, shut up.
>>7733758
Kek this is good bait. Keep up the good work
No, this can't be.
PAPER BACK ONLY RIGHT?
So what was the UK edition before the sticky notes?
>>7733731
>It's got corrections
like what? couldnt have been too bad if they waited 20 years to fix them
>>7730368
Just got my copy in the mail earlier. I actually kind of like the new cover art.
: ^ )
I got a serious question, should i read Infinite Jest? No memes
pls
>>7734395
I like it too.
Is it a bad idea to buy a used copy of IJ? I'm way too cheap and poor to spend $30 on a book and the B&N marketplace has them for as little as $5 but "there may be writing in the margins, underlining and highlighting of text". Normally I'd just read it on my Kindle for free, but I've gotten the impression that IJ is better to read as a hard copy.
>>7734156
>corrections
Not that anon, but one in particular I'm curious about is a Greek word that's used, I'm having trouble finding it, but I think at the top of a page late in the book. It's a trainwreck, with seven errors over the span of five letters.
>>7734479
yes
>>7734513
why?
>>7734709
It's a pretty hilarious book (not uproarious like Confederacy, but the chuckles do sneak up on you) that makes you feel smart when the seemingly disconnected plots come together.
It's a really good book. It's not my place to say whether it's a masterpiece of post-modernism or new sincerity, but you'll like it if you read it.
>>7733731
There's no such thing as a definitive version. Text is fluid, homie.
I was at the store today and they had already had a copy of it.
Got my copy today. If you have the old version, you may remember, if you turn to p. 990, one of the pages of the filmography, there's a bunch of superscript everywhere for no reason. They fixed that.
Also, p. 701-2, they moved 701's text as a whole down the page. In the old version, there's a space at the bottom, implying on the next page a new section begins, but it's the same section, so in the up-to-date version there's no space at the bottom, so this is clear.
Also, the front flap has a blurb by Stephen King.
>>7733856
thats my edition
Oh, also also - didn't expect this - the pages are deckle-edged. So for people who don't like that, you are hereby warned.
>>7735638
Can't I just chop the edge myself with a stack trimmer?
>>7735659
Uhhh
>>7735673
The answer is yes, yes I can, fool!
The cover's growing on me. It doesn't compete with either of the sky covers, of course, but if the text itself is improved... should I just get both? I'd get free shipping and I could give whichever I like less to someone else
>>7735697
Try not being an idiot from the 20th century. Buy the new edition, print a high quality scan of an old edition as a cover jacket.
Not far into Tom Bissell's foreword he makes a pretty glaring error.
>Wallace felt that the "mimetic deployment of pop-culture icons" by writers who lacked DeLillo's observational powers "compromises fiction's seriousness by dating it out of the Platonic Always where it ought to reside."
He didn't feel that way. That quotation Wallace was paraphrasing the writing professors he butted heads with at Arizona. It was Wallace's and his peers' position that you absolutely could use pop-culture references in fiction. Throughout his career, in interviews, Wallace would often say that pop media and brands were just part of the environment, like "trees and babbling brooks were for the Romantics" (paraphrasing or quoting, depending how good my memory is). So Bissell's misunderstood where Wallace was coming from, and it's no small error, since this was a subject that Wallace had addressed over and over.
He also seems to have read Eggers' foreword for inspiration or guidance because he, too, gets carried away.
>We return to Wallace sentences now like medieval monks to scripture, tremblingly aware of their finite preciousness.
Do we.
>Infinite Jest is a peerlessly gripping novel of character. Even very fine novelists struggle with character, because creating characters that are not just prismatic snap-off versions of oneself happens to be supremely difficult.
Big fan of the book, but come on... That's what he does!
>>7735367
So that was just an error? I couldn't tell if my book was fucked up or if it was DFW memeing from the grave
>>7735810
Yeah, error.
>>7735367
post a pic of the error
>>7736046
Left - errors
Right - error-free
>>7736082
wow that's crazy. I wonder how that ended up there to begin with
Bonus pic, from the front flap
>>7736162
Wow what a humble man. We all know the second is actually Wolves of the Calla
>>7736162
King is even less well read than I thought.
>>7736162
Confederacy of Dunces is always left in these
This is the only meme trilogy I need.
>>7736641
WOW the bottoms of those spines got fucked up
>>7734498
I'd be distracted by another person's highlights and notes. It'd be like a laugh track to a TV show- don't tell me when to laugh, I'll figure it out for myself.
>>7734498
if you're in the US you can get the paperback, either this new 20th anniversary edition or the normal one, from Bull Moose for $14
>>7732602
You're meant to physically flip back and forth between the main text and endnotes. It's part of the experience of reading it that an e-reader ruins.
>>7736652
Yes, they did.
Thank Amazon for that. All three were loose in a medium-sized box with nothing but four small air pillows to jostle around with.
The copy that's on top of the stack, you can't tell by the picture, but where the top of the back cover meets the spine has a rip.
I'm not too miffed about it because a thousand-page paperback is going to get pretty messed up by the average reader.
>>7736663
I read it on an e-reader and trust me, I felt the flipping. Damn Kindle froze half the time I swapped back and forth. Had to tap several times, open/close it before it'd snap to somewhere 10 pages before where I actually was.
>>7736663
Are you really supposed to flip back and forth? I thought you were meant to read them at the end, because, well, they're at the end. Treat them like an extra few chapters
>>7736652
I'd be raging if I got that edition
>>7736672
...bait, right?
>>7736680
No, I'm serious. If he wanted people to read them as they came, they would have been footnotes. Am I wrong?
>>7736681
Yes
>>7736683
Welp, that's Little, Brown's fault, not mine
>>7736680
Not bait. I'm being serious.
It didn't feel like a tennis rally like DFW might have wanted, but it sure felt like something.
If you want to fault me for reading IJ on an e-reader for anything, it's getting to the ending without knowing I was at the ending. Then turning the page and seeing "NOTES AND ERRATA."
>>7736654
That's what I was thinking. The highlights/notes is just part of the general definition of an "acceptable" condition though. I figure there's somewhat of a chance that the pages are free of that stuff, but the book itself has just been through normal wear and tear.
>>7736660
I even have a hard time paying $15 for a book though because I've gotten so used to stealing everything I read as an eBook. I can't remember the last time I paid for reading material, tbqh.
I guess the main question is this. What'd be worse: reading IJ on an eReader, or a used copy that already has someone else's highlights/notes?
>>7735721
haven't read the intro or know the quote but girl with curious hair features several celebrities. But Wallace probably thinks he has the observational powers of delillo. But I don't know the context so this may be a useless comment
>>7736698
So why would it be a good idea to get this 20th anniversary edition? Wallace never gave the OK to it.I seriously doubt he'd give the OK to that fuckin' cover art
>>7736708
idk? how does this have to do with what i said
this will always be the best cover, my eyeballs just really like looking at the bright blue. I fucking hate the cover in the OP
other (better) entries coming through, I really would've much preferred this one
>>7736919
I thought that Canada got Alaska when ONAN was formed.
I hate eReaders, but it's just silly to sag that one's IJ reading experience is seriously compromised if you aren't going literally "back and forth" in a way that cutely mimics a tennis game. In fact, you are still going back and forth between the main text and notes, you just aren't pushing pages around. But the sense of 'back and forth' is still there.
One of my personal favorites.
ubmp
