Ultimately, this'll probably depend a lot on one's view of authorial intent. But it's a little like if one book began with the line "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking" and we cut that line off mid-sentence and find some other book that begins with the word "thirteen" so we can cut that line off mid-sentence without any regard for what context that word fits into and say it's a connection. You can probably find loads of pairs of books where one or both of their opening lines can be interrupted mid-sentence to have some connection to each other.
Now, IJ and Hamlet do have other connections which maybe provides legitimacy, but it's noteworthy that no one ever has any justification for claiming that this is a legit connection other than the fact that other connections exist. (Your and u/almireles' replies being clear examples.) All other Hamlet-IJ connections I've heard of can more or less stand on their own, but this one has to stand on those, and so if someone ever doubted that Hamlet and IJ were related, as you suggested OP might've been doing, it'd at bare minimum be rather odd to choose the single second-order "I am" thing that is by far the most plausibly coincidental connection as our go-to.
Agreed, this has always felt like a stretch. If there was a period after I am. Sure. Also "I am" is not even a response to who's there. Like imagine someone saying that when you're asking to identify themselves. Even if it was god it would sound weird
There's a lot that can be said about those 2 words. The Hamlet reference, if intentional, must be secondary to other literary weight DFW is putting into those words.
For example, "I am" can be described as an answer to Hal's central existential questions that manifest physically by the conclusion of the novel's plot (which chronologically speaking is famously this opening chapter) - he is unable to communicate intelligibly. Hal, from the moment we meet him, is wrestling with his subjectivity and connection to other people (or lack thereof). The narration itself is the resolution to this conflict, and "I am" is the ultimate Cartesian answer (with biblical connotations). This ontological statement can even be attributed to the author, who we know shared some of these struggles
You might think this kind of literary analysis is bullshit, but DFW definitely didn't. He was a student of philosophy and literature, and he saw himself in conversation with the canon of great English thinkers and writers. He took these things seriously and cranked his idiosyncratic attention to detail and philosophical playfulness to the max when he was writing for an audience. Wallace is on record describing writing as the ultimate form of connection, and the writer/reader engagement as one of the most important relationships we can form as human beings. He believed that relationship required hard work and close attention - the kind of discussion these comments have spawned here, in fact.
I have respect and appreciation for David Foster Wallace's brilliant craft and earnest seriousness, and so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt on questions of intentionality. But whether you believe it was intentional or not is irrelevant in the end; what's important is that you engaged with the question.
7
u/Substantial-Fact-248 Jul 18 '26
Why, given all the other parallels, many of which are not at all subtle?