IJ study archive

Four Hacker News threads on David Foster Wallace (completeness pass)

source

TL;DR

Four Hacker News comment threads about David Foster Wallace, spanning 2016 to 2025, read together because each hangs on a source the archive already holds. Most of each thread is the perennial online conversation about whether Infinite Jest is worth its length, how to survive the endnotes, and whether liking Wallace is a pose. What survives that noise is a handful of interpretive and reception-history points worth keeping: a Hamlet-keyed argument that Mike Pemulis's math mistakes are deliberate character-marking (the "Dubious Math" thread); readers' accounts of how much of the novel's recovery-house material was lifted, names intact, from real Alcoholics Anonymous meetings (the "Depressed Person" thread); a lay reading of the fatal Entertainment as a proto-ASMR or proto-TikTok object (the "final attempt to make art moral" thread); and, threaded throughout, the media-prescience and the irony-versus-sincerity conversations the novel keeps generating. The 2017 thread on D.T. Max's "The Unfinished" is a near-null result for the novel: it is almost entirely reading-difficulty talk and a debate about a supposed backlash against Wallace, with the profile itself barely quoted.

Thread A — "Dubious Math in Infinite Jest"

  • HN item: 44237700 | date: 2025-06-10 | points: 104 | comments: 118
  • Discusses: Mike Strong's essay, which has its own note: hf-strong-dubious-math-in-ij
  • URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44237700
  • What it adds: MODERATE — the thread supplies the interpretive readings the Strong essay deliberately withholds (Strong offers no theory of intent; the thread is almost entirely about intent). Net-new here: the Pemulis-as-Polonius reading, the whole-character reading that Pemulis gets nothing right, a relayed biographical anecdote about Wallace fighting his editor over "typos," and a cross-domain parallel to the novel's much-disputed French.

Key claims (Thread A)

  • The errors are Pemulis's, not Wallace's — and they mark the character. Commenter np. relays a reading (crediting an Infinite Summer forum post) that Pemulis is "the analogue of Polonious from Hamlet" [spelling as in the original]: the court jester (Mario) is the one who actually speaks wisdom, while the king's supposedly wise counselor gets everything wrong. On this reading the wrong math signals that Pemulis "isn't as smart as he thinks and that he doesn't really have everything in control." Commenter e. associates the pair on the phonemic similarity of the names; commenter k. adds a possible echo of "pretentious".
  • The whole-character version. Commenter o. goes further: "They are purposeful, I don't think Pemulis ever gets one thing right in the novel. His explanation of Annular Fusion is a good example". He reads Pemulis as a bright but lazy and arrogant bluffer who grew up the smartest person around and never adjusted to a place with real standards — "forever lobbing but is a bit too slow to get to the net in time."
  • A biographical argument for intent. Commenter l., citing D.T. Max's biography Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story, says there were "hundreds of cases where the editor claimed something was a typographical error, and DFW insisted that actually it was precisely how he meant it to be." They went back and forth for months, until the publisher eventually charged Wallace a fee for the extra labor. The inference offered: any given odd little error was probably intended. A dissenter (th.) counters: "You'd have to assume that every time he got called out on an obvious error and insisted he'd meant it all along, he was telling the truth."
  • The mistakes must be legible to work. Commenter sd.: if the errors are meant to be attributed to the character rather than the author, "you would want to telegraph the math mistakes pretty hard, or they would fly past everyone. Making them obvious and dumb is the only way they'll get attributed to the character, rather than the author." Others (c., g.) add that the 1990s audience had higher baseline math literacy, so a basic-calculus error was likelier to be caught — and thus likelier to be a deliberate joke about someone "giving a lecture while in fact being an incompetent buffoon."
  • A cross-domain parallel. Commenter t. points out this is not the only intentionality-of-errors debate the novel generates: "The book's french is also littered with errors so egregious that most think they could only have been intentional", linking a MetaFilter Ask thread.
  • An independent re-derivation of the corrected tennis-tie odds. Commenter nn. derives them from Stirling's approximation — the chance of exactly N heads in 2N fair flips "asymptotically approaches 1/sqrt(pi * N)", and for the novel's problem "this comes out to 1/(3.14 * 54) which is 0.076776 - not far from the exact value of 0.076599" [the printed "1/(3.14 * 54)" is the commenter's shorthand for the square-root form just stated]. That matches the ≈0.0766 correction in Strong's essay, independently confirming the narrator's printed odds are wrong by roughly seven orders of magnitude.
  • A Hamlet aside. Commenter np., in the same exchange: "(I'd also forgotten about the janitors, who are clearly a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern)".
  • A long adjacent tangent on Wallace's non-fiction infinity book Everything and More and whether it, too, is riddled with errors (Rudy Rucker's scathing review is cited; commenter l. defends the book as literary middle-ground) — relevant only as it bears on the background question of how good at math Wallace actually was.

Theories & evidence (Thread A)

THEORY: Pemulis's mathematical mistakes are deliberate — they mark him as a Polonius-type who overrates his own competence, not as Wallace's own errors

  • Crux: pemulis-fake-math (with intentional-errors, hamlet-frame)
  • Stance: advances (multiple commenters; one relaying an Infinite Summer forum reading)
  • Evidence:
    • [secondary] the Pemulis-as-Polonius correspondence: Mario is the truth-telling jester, the supposedly wise counselor gets everything wrong; the wrong math signals Pemulis "isn't as smart as he thinks and that he doesn't really have everything in control." [np., crediting an Infinite Summer forum post]
    • [text] the whole-character claim: "I don't think Pemulis ever gets one thing right in the novel", his Annular Fusion explanation cited as another instance; read from his lazy-bluffer upbringing. [o.]
    • [inference] for a character-attributed error to register at all it must be made "obvious and dumb" and telegraphed hard, else it reads as the author's slip. [sd.]
    • [inference] the phonemic Pemulis/Polonius (and "pretentious") echoes as naming support. [e., k.]
  • Notes: The relayer's own hedge is on record: np. is "not sure" — the errors "could have been honest mistakes", harder for editors to check in the 90s, and "The probability error seems harder to explain and likely just a mistake." In-thread pushback that Pemulis isn't a clean Polonius fit — the advisor-to-the-king role would point at Tavis, not Hal (sp.); np. grants the novel isn't a Hamlet adaptation and the allusion can sit in a shifted role. Directly relevant to the standing pemulis-fake-math proposal, whose factual predicate (the n.321 tutoring derivative is wrong) the Strong note already grounds and a check against the print edition confirmed faithful print; this thread supplies the intent argument Strong explicitly declines to make.

THEORY: Wallace's odd "errors" are generally intentional — he defended them to his editor as meant, not mistaken

  • Crux: intentional-errors
  • Stance: entertains (relayed from Max's biography; one dissent on record)
  • Evidence:
    • [secondary] the biography anecdote: "hundreds of cases where the editor claimed something was a typographical error, and DFW insisted that actually it was precisely how he meant it to be." — months of back and forth, ending in the publisher "eventually charging DFW a fee for all the extra labor involved." [l., citing Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story]
    • [secondary] the novel's French is separately held to be so error-strewn "that most think they could only have been intentional". [t.]
  • Notes: Counter on record: "You'd have to assume that every time he got called out on an obvious error and insisted he'd meant it all along, he was telling the truth." (th.) The bio anecdote is second-hand (a commenter relaying Max), not verified here; flag before any downstream use. Intent-agnostic sources (Strong) settle only that the math is wrong; this thread is the intent side of the same question.

Thread B — "The Depressed Person" by DFW

  • HN item: 12738823 | date: 2016-10-18 | points: 212 | comments: 150
  • Discusses: Wallace's 1998 Harper's story, which has its own note: bi-depressed-person
  • URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738823
  • What it adds: LOW-MODERATE — the largest thread but the thinnest per comment: the bulk is reading-difficulty talk (where the novel finally takes hold, Kindle versus paper) and close reading of the story's run-on sentences, which belongs to the story, not the novel. Net-new for the novel: readers' accounts of how directly Wallace lifted recovery-house material from real AA meetings, and the recurring autobiographical question.

Key claims (Thread B)

  • How autobiographical is Infinite Jest? The thread opens on it (hp.: "i wonder how much of it is basically autobiographical with a thin veneer of difference" [casing as in the original]). Pushback (cg.): Wallace disliked reading the author off the work, and writing well about suicide, addiction, and depression need not be a window onto his own struggle. A third reader (zw.), having read Max's biography, "was struck by how much matched IJ in terms of experience at both ends of the social spectrum he describes."
  • The AA material was lifted, sometimes names intact. Commenter di.: "a lot of it is lifted from AA meetings he attended. i remember reading an interview with a few of the fellow attendees who seemed a little miffed that he'd taken their stories." Commenter fi. sharpens it: "in many cases he didn't even bother to change names. One person he wrote about, who was a friend of his and a fellow author, told his agent as much before IJ was published and strongly suggested he change the names, but no action was taken." Another reader (ro.) independently notes the story's group-retreat scene "reminds me of his brilliant description of AA meetings in Infinite Jest" and its closed-door rituals.
  • The Mean Value Theorem, again. A sub-thread reruns Thread A's argument: di. calls Wallace's rendering of the theorem "incoherent"; pk. cautions "Don't make the mistake of confusing the text in Infinite Jest with David Foster Wallace's actual understanding of the Mean Value Theorem." (pointing to Everything and More); di. counters that the footnote "seemed to be in the author's voice"; Sn. recalls "it was Pemulis who was explaining it" — a character's voice, not the author's.
  • The novel had a heavier cyberpunk bent before editing. Commenter di.: "apparently the book originally had much more of a cyber-punk bent, and his editor convinced him to trim most of that out" — a folk-memory version of the cut story, offered with the verdict that the trim was "one of the all-time great wins in editing."
  • The book recurses on itself. Commenter cm.: chronologically the first scene takes place after the last, so finishing invites an immediate restart — "Infinite Jest is itself the infinite entertainment it describes." Well-worn, logged as a sighting only.
  • The footnotes may carry a second plot. Commenter ve. hypothesizes that the story has "a completely different plot" without the footnotes, instancing the status of the PGOAT's face as differing depending on whether you read them.
  • The story's target. One commenter (fs.) relays — "My understanding is that David Foster Wallace wrote this about Elizabeth Wurtzel and it was meant to be a kind of slam of her as not being depressed but merely narcissistic." — with another elaborating the Prozac Nation context. A point about the story, not the novel; recorded for completeness.

Theories & evidence (Thread B)

THEORY: Infinite Jest is substantially autobiographical, with its recovery-house material drawn (sometimes verbatim, names intact) from real AA meetings Wallace attended

  • Crux: ij-autobiographical
  • Stance: advances / entertains (readers split; one relaying an interview with attendees)
  • Evidence:
    • [secondary] fellow AA attendees, in an interview one reader recalls, "seemed a little miffed that he'd taken their stories." [di.]
    • [secondary] in many cases Wallace "didn't even bother to change names"; a friend-and-fellow-author subject asked (via Wallace's agent) that the names be changed pre-publication, and "no action was taken." [fi.]
    • [secondary] reading Max's biography, the novel's range of social experience "matched IJ" closely. [zw.]
    • [inference] the story's group-retreat scene reads like the novel's AA meetings — same observed ritual texture. [ro.]
  • Notes: Counter on record (cg.): Wallace resisted biographical reading, and skill at depicting depression is not evidence of experiencing it. The names-intact claim is second-hand (a commenter's recollection), unverified here. Bears on hal-dfw-surrogate at one remove (the autobiographical read is the general frame that surrogate arguments sit inside).

Sightings in passing (Thread B, no blocks)

  • annular-structure: the book-recurses, is-itself-the-Entertainment observation (cm.); consistent with existing sightings, adds no page-cited weight.
  • endnotes-function: the footnotes-carry-a-second-plot hypothesis (ve., instancing Joelle's face), and the two-bookmark / practical-reading talk; reception texture.
  • ij-cuts: the originally-more-cyberpunk, editor-trimmed-it folk memory (di.) — the wild-band version, not the checkable Moore record.
  • eschaton-math-error: the Mean-Value-Theorem sub-thread duplicates Thread A; the load-bearing point (a character is speaking, not the author) is already in the Strong note's Carlisle counterpoint.

Thread C — "The Unfinished: DFW's Struggle to Surpass Infinite Jest"

  • HN item: 14442463 | date: 2017-05-30 | points: 47 | comments: 50
  • Discusses: D.T. Max's 2009 New Yorker profile (paywalled; NOT in the archive — every account of the article here is a commenter's paraphrase, never the article itself)
  • URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442463
  • What it adds: NULL-to-LOW for the novel. The profile itself is barely engaged — one commenter (Lo.) notes only that "The author of the article keeps referencing DFW's use of marijuana but stops short of condemning it." The rest is (1) a show-of-hands about not finishing Infinite Jest and how to get past the first 200–300 pages, and (2) a debate about whether there is a "fad of hating" Wallace (ja.). No reading of the novel turns on anything here.

Key claims (Thread C)

  • The reading-difficulty consensus, restated many ways: it "clicks" somewhere around page 200–300, after which readers report it becomes a page-turner; the standard survival kit is two bookmarks or a Kindle. Commenter gg. offers the most developed reading: treat the novel "less as a singular linear story, and more as a large portfolio of short stories", enjoyable on their own terms, with Wallace "a masterful composer of short stories".
  • The "maximalism" defence of the form. Commenter tc. frames the density and the endnote apparatus as a deliberate aesthetic Wallace adopted to counter "the clever minimalism so popular in commercial speech of the late 90s" — "He called it maximalism." — and reads the two-bookmark burden as "a meta-satire of two voices always present in late 90s US anti-depressant ads and the fine print"; in the commenter's summary, "The form of the novel reflects the content of the message it presents, this is feature not a flaw."
  • The Pale King reception debate (br.): whether it is over-esteemed by fans, whether it "lacks a center of gravity", with the 100-page 'As the world turns' IRS chapter singled out as the only part approaching Infinite Jest. About the later book, not Infinite Jest.
  • The backlash question. A sizeable branch debates whether liking Wallace became "middlebrow posing" — a subculture/virtue-signal dynamic (br3.) with a reflexive anti-postmodern strain from some quarters. Reception history only.
  • The withheld center, in passing (be.): "the central event of the plot is completely absent and up to the reader to figure out."

Theories & evidence (Thread C)

No THEORY block. The thread advances no plot or interpretation theory; the one interpretive move (the endnote form as maximalist meta-satire of antidepressant-ad rhetoric) is a form/reception reading, logged as an endnotes-function sighting. Recorded null result.

Thread D — "David Foster Wallace's final attempt to make art moral"

  • HN item: 32278701 | date: 2022-07-29 | points: 98 | comments: 78
  • Discusses: a 2022 New Yorker piece on The Pale King and moral art (paywalled; NOT in the archive — every quotation of the article here is a commenter's quotation, never the article itself)
  • URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32278701
  • What it adds: LOW-MODERATE. Much of the thread is about "This Is Water" and The Pale King. For Infinite Jest specifically: a lay reading of the fatal Entertainment as a proto-ASMR / proto-TikTok object; a clean media-prescience branch (videophony and face-filters); a New-Sincerity reception quote; and the now-standard branch on how the abuse allegations color the reading.

Key claims (Thread D)

  • The Entertainment as proto-ASMR / proto-TikTok. In a spoiler exchange the commenters ROT13-encoded (decoded here), commenter jr. proposes: "it seems to me that the actual infinite jest in the book, aka the video that hypnotizes everyone, is essentially just an asmr video and dfw had his finger on the concept before asmr became a thing" [casing as in the original]. Commenter fr. qualifies: "It's vastly more powerful than that, at least apparently" — it doesn't "work" on people that knew Joelle personally, and it has "some kind of connection to the mysterious drug DMZ". A third (ne.) answers flatly: "It's TikTok."
  • Media prescience. Commenter et.: "Predicting the rise of video calling and the backlash against having to look like you’re paying attention and of being prettied up, solved by the face filters then people completely replacing themselves with virtual avatars? Incredibly prescient." Commenter ne. gives the novel's own line on audio-only calls (as the commenter quotes it, not checked against print): "Audio-only phone conversations allowed you to presume that the person on the other end was paying complete attention to you while also permitting you not to have to pay anything even close to complete attention to her".
  • New Sincerity reception. Commenter pl. quotes a Salon piece: Infinite Jest "transformed private torment into a vast metafictional diagnosis of our entertainment-bedizened cultural condition, and, weirdly, sounded the first notes of a quest for an irony-free sincerity that has become a ruling style of David’s generation and the ones that followed."
  • The allegations color the reading. Commenter Ar.: "I wish I could still love DFW's work the way I used to" — but it's colored by what the comment hyperlinks as allegations of significant relational abuse. Another (rc.): "The fact that he killed himself colors every bit of his work to me." A quotation of the New Yorker article (relayed by redt.) carries its claim that friends' accounts produced "a fairly consistent picture of a selfish friend, a manipulative—and likely abusive—boyfriend, and a jealous and self-mythologizing writer", and its thesis that "Wallace’s great subject was the morass of selfishness, self-rationalization, and intellectualized narcissism" of his cohort. Reception/biography; recorded here, not read as a theory of the novel.
  • Adaptation trivia. Commenter ig.: the Decemberists' "Calamity Song" music video is based on the Eschaton chapter; a follow-up (dr.) adds it was directed by Mike Schur, "who once definitely owned the film rights to Infinite Jest, not sure he still does or not."
  • The Marathe/Steeply spine. Commenter lo. describes the hilltop Marathe–Steeply conversation as probably "the main recurring scene", the one to follow to assemble the grand narrative; commenter rk. answers "The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, if you will." — a second, independent Hamlet-keyed pairing (cf. Thread A's janitors-as-R&G aside).

Theories & evidence (Thread D)

THEORY: The lethal Entertainment is best understood as a proto-ASMR (or proto-TikTok) object — Wallace intuiting an attention-capture form before it existed

  • Crux: entertainment-contents
  • Stance: entertains
  • Evidence:
    • [inference] the hypnotic cartridge "is essentially just an asmr video" [as-written], a concept the same commenter notes "didn't really exist as a thing at the time". [jr., ROT13-decoded]
    • [text] qualification from the novel's own logic: the cartridge is "vastly more powerful than that, at least apparently"; it doesn't "work" on people that knew Joelle personally; it has "some kind of connection to the mysterious drug DMZ". [fr., ROT13-decoded]
    • [inference] the blunter present-day gloss: "It's TikTok." [ne., ROT13-decoded]
  • Notes: A reception-side, present-day analogy, not a claim about the cartridge's literal contents; sits alongside the archive's media-prescience sightings rather than resolving what the Entertainment shows. The Joelle-personal-acquaintance and DMZ details are the commenters' recollections ("If I remember correctly"), not verified here.

Sightings in passing (Thread D, no blocks)

  • media-prescience: videophony, the look-like-you're-paying-attention backlash, face-filters and avatars (et.), with the audio-only-call line given from memory (ne.). Consistent with existing sightings.
  • irony-and-sincerity / sincerity-definition: the Salon quote on an irony-free sincerity becoming a ruling style (pl.); a lay carrier of the New-Sincerity reception the archive already tracks.
  • Reception / biography (no theory routed): the allegations-color-the-reading branch and the suicide-colors-the-work branch. The archive already logs the Wallace–Karr relationship material as not attaching to any theory of the novel; recorded here as thread content only.
  • Adaptation / reception trivia: the Decemberists "Calamity Song" Eschaton video and the Mike Schur film-rights claim — trivia, no bearing on any reading of the novel.
  • hamlet-frame: the Marathe/Steeply-as-Rosencrantz-and-Guildenstern pairing (independent of Thread A's janitors reading); sighting only.

Themes (all four threads)

The intentional-error question (are the math and French mistakes characterization, jokes, or slips); math and its misuse; the autobiographical question and the ethics of lifting real people's stories; addiction and recovery (the AA-meeting sourcing); entertainment/attention and media prophecy (the Entertainment-as-ASMR, videophony, face-filters); irony versus sincerity (New Sincerity reception); and the perennial difficulty/where-to-start discourse Infinite Jest generates online, with its recurring argument about whether liking Wallace is a pose.

Cross-references

  • hf-strong-dubious-math-in-ij — the essay Thread A hangs on; Strong catalogues the four errors and offers no theory of intent, which is exactly the gap Thread A's readers fill.
  • bi-depressed-person — the story Thread B hangs on; the Wurtzel claim and the run-on-sentence close reading belong there.
  • chiply-sierpinski-gasket-two-ways — companion Hacker News thread digest; same privacy handling, and commenter o. appears there too.
  • general online discussion — a community-thread digest of the same family.
  • The medical-attaché paternity insinuation restated in Thread A (commenter s.'s list: Hal "atavistically dark-complected", the shared byzantine-erotica interest, the Avril/attaché Brandeis timing, James finding that affair particularly upsetting, Avril's preference for Canadians, the attaché "one-half ethnic Arab and a Canadian by birth and residence") is the lay form of the Hal-paternity question the archive has already weighed (majority-JOI reading favored; attaché-minority read strained).

Notable passages

Short verbatim comment quotes, attributed by handle-initial (local archive only; line-wrap collapsed, punctuation as in the original posts):

"They are purposeful, I don't think Pemulis ever gets one thing right in the novel. His explanation of Annular Fusion is a good example" — commenter o. (Thread A)

"the analogue of Polonious from Hamlet. In Hamlet, the court jester (the "fool") is actually really wise and always speaks the truth (=Mario), while the King's supposedly "wise" counselor, Polonious, actually gets everything wrong." — commenter np., quoting an Infinite Summer forum post (Thread A; spelling as in the original)

"in many cases he didn't even bother to change names. One person he wrote about, who was a friend of his and a fellow author, told his agent as much before IJ was published and strongly suggested he change the names, but no action was taken." — commenter fi. (Thread B)

"the actual infinite jest in the book, aka the video that hypnotizes everyone, is essentially just an asmr video and dfw had his finger on the concept before asmr became a thing" — commenter jr., ROT13-decoded; casing as in the original (Thread D)

"sounded the first notes of a quest for an irony-free sincerity that has become a ruling style of David’s generation and the ones that followed" — commenter pl., quoting a Salon piece (Thread D)

Advances