This is intended to be a response to Peter's post. I tried but apparently I'm not a "team member" whatever that may mean? Anyways...

I definitely agree that it's becoming much more manageable. I remember when I came into the first class and I told Graham that I hated the first Prince Q----- section, and he's like "That part is hilarious!" The comedy just didn't make sense to me. I think the comedy comes more naturally because as readers, we've become used to the ridiculous prose Wallace applies. Instead of reading a section and saying "GOD, THAT IS STUPID, WHY DID HE USE THOSE WORDS," we can be like, "on one hand, that's hilarious, and on the other hand horrible" which connects directly back to what we discussed in class. I think the reason he does that with nearly every section in IJ is because it always creates an interesting dichotomy. I kind of think that DFW is a bit sadistic in that sense. He purposely creates this thin line between comedy and tragedy as a poke in the eye to the reader (less like a poke in the eye, because that hurts a bit too much). I think one of the biggest thing he likes to do is leave it up to the reader. Is it tragic? Is it hilarious? It's up to you, and everyone's going to be different. I like that you brought up the title again, because I think it relates directly to this. There actually is infinite jest in this book, and I think it is derived from these stories and how you think of them. As you continue to analyze them, there are always new and interesting parts that you may have missed before, and I think that's pretty cool.

P.S. sorry for the late post, I got home at 10.