Ich finde die ganze Jahres-Benennung so ein bisschen Margaret Atwood artig, aber generell finde ich dass es ein sehr komischer Fall von 'near future' ist, weil quasi alles Gegenwart ist bis auf den nicht-Fernseher, die nicht-USA und die Jahresbenennungen (bis jetzt).

Und die Beschreibung der Tennisakademie war ja mal eine einzige Frechheit, wenn sich jemals jemand über langatmige Beschreibungen bei Tolkien oder GRRM aufregt sollte er echt niemals dieses Kapitel aufschlagen

Okay, so basically I think this is one of the better tips: Do not expect to understand everything immediately, or in 200 pages, or ever. Something funny happens when you begin to embrace the ambiguity: you begin to have a lot of fun with it. When it gets tough, slow down. It's not evenly paced like most of what people are used to.

You should also realize that an honorary Masters in English degree doesn't pop out for you at the end.

As many point out, a real understanding of it (or anything) would come from multiple readings or comparative analysis. Mind you, this isn't necessary to enjoy it, but you'll still only have a layman's understanding of it if you sail through once. Since that's unrealistic for most of us, I'd recommend reading some academic essays about it. Or follow up with Hamlet, or The Brothers K. The book is pretty transparent about its influences (I mean, it has to be, because that's sort of the point.)

--
Chances are that in your first read-through, you missed over half of the plot mechanics. The novel's most crucial event, for instance, is only referenced on page [...] and page [...] . Once you start connecting the whole thing together, you'll want to read it over and over (it's a lot like Entertainment)

--
My advice from what you say: don't "power through." It's just not worth it. You might have heard this before, but the pleasure is in the journey, not the destination. So if you're focused on "getting somewhere," then it's not going to work for you.

One thing to note is that DFW is a trained short-story writer, so the peaks and valleys are throughout, rather than your typical novel crescendo-type plot. And if you're familiar w/ short story work like Ozick or Carver, you'll know that the work can be subtle, cerebral, and will often times do their work on you long after you've read them. So the only thing that makes IJ like a novel is that all the stories are sort of intertwined, exist on the same world, and deal w/ similar themes.

Ich hab mich jetzt relativ frei gemacht von dem Anspruch, krampfhaft den Überblick zu behalten und konstant nach Verbindungen Ausschau zu halten. Viel kriegt man ja mit, auch wenn die Zusammenhänge der einzelnen 'Kurzgeschichten' (Handlungsstränge würde ich sie bis jetzt noch nicht alle nennen) oft nicht kausal wichtig sind sondern eher so wie zwischen Lone Star und Lord Helmchen (und zu was macht uns das? zu garnichts). So kann ich es ganz gut genießen bis jetzt, ohne dass ich zu sehr versuche es zu 'verstehen'.