nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Bloomsday

Arghus

...yes I said yes I will Yes.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Yourself isit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Must be autocorrect huh. I distrust anybody who likes Finnegan's wake (there it goes again). It's clearly unreadable. It's not in English. It's the choice of best novel for people who don't particularly like reading.

Yourself isit

RayM wrote: »

I think most people who have read Ulysses would acknowledge that it's a book that takes a lot of time and dedication to read and understand properly, and would not view those who haven't read it as "philistines".

It's readable, though. Finnegan's (oops) wake is clearly unreadable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RayM

Yourself isit wrote: »

Must be autocorrect huh. I distrust anybody who likes Finnegan's wake (there it goes again). It's clearly unreadable. It's not in English. It's the choice of best novel for people who don't particularly like reading.

It's for people who really, really like reading... so much that they're happy to read the same page a hundred times over, constantly Googling words like "pftjschute" and "Mrkgnao" in the hope of eventually being able to move on to the next page.

pumpkin4life

Ulysses is a funny one.

It's a book which is written by an astonishingly bright man, has and remains extremely original and has a lot of psychological depth to it. Up there with Dossi lads' big four in that regard. It's a character study, and one hell of a character study at that. You can admire it, in a kind of whoa man, people can be that gifted, that high up there?

Problem is, it leaves me kind of cold in all honesty. I don't think its the classic that people say it is for that reason. It also suffers a bit from "look how I'm the smartest **** in the room because I know this obscure bit of Irish mythology" which adds nothing to whats going on. I never got that feeling reading War and Peace or The Lord of the Rings say, both written by extremely learned, highly intelligent men.

Finnegans Wake is bollocks, though Anthony Burgess has some interesting stuff on it. My favorite of his is Dubliners in all honesty.

pauliebdub

His collection of short stories "Dubliners" is terrific and well worth a read. I have Ulysses got to 30 pages, it's pure stream of consciousness stuff and didn't grab me. I'll try and give it another bash.

Arghus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not once, but multiple times? I'm sorry Permabear, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and all, but I am highly skeptical of that claim right there! Who knows, maybe you do indeed dutifully read a page or two every night before bed - I have no way of honestly knowing - but, man, I don't know...

I'm typing all this with a hearty smile on my face. Because, if you speak the truth that's some achievement, you should probably - sincerely - consider a career in Joycean scholarship, because by reading Finnegans Wake - multiple times!!! - you've probably spent more time with one of the primary sources than would have many an academic feverishly beavering away in some English literature ivory tower somewhere. And if you're lying... Well, if you're lying, I kind of admire your chutzpah - Not only is your claim pretty audacious, it's also completely unverifiable! Either way, I salute you! Bibliophile par excellence or spoofer extraordinaire!

Now. Not to unduly pursue you remorselessly on this, but what the hell...

To claim quite boldly that FW is the key work of twentieth century literature and then to simply leave it at that, without any further elaboration, is as close to equivalent to a mic drop in any literary debate. So I had to query this - it begged to be queried! I want to understand. I enormously respect Joyce's work and the man was such a literary genius that no doubt even his most dog-eared doggerel has some merit in it and I do think, yes, that for it's sheer otherness alone FW is a significant piece of literature. But is it really toppermost of the popermost? Amongst all of his work? And not just his - everything in the twentieth century?...Everything? Finnegans Wake?

Now let's look at that sentence - "It is an literary achievement of such magisterial immensity that we have only begun coming to terms with it."

I have an appropriate riposte for that, taken from the dirty 'oul pages of Jimmy Joyce himself - shite and onions.

I can see the lofty intellectual appeal of such an idea. But, honestly, that argument is weak and does it even make any sense? That FW is simply so dense, so brilliant, so allusive and elusive that we can simply not get around it or fully comprehend it? That's a cop out! What exactly does "we have only begun coming to terms with it" really mean? Is humanity soon to be laden down with the latent immensity of the hitherto incomprehensible profundity contained within the bewildering eddies and whirling dervishes of the inky pages of Finnegan's Wake? (In my defense, you were grandiloquent first) Whose power is only now to be unleashed! Perhaps a more pertinent question is - If we are only beginning to come to terms with it, as you say, then how, exactly, can you be so certain of its quality?

Also, to say Joyce himself rated it as his best, ah, well, sure, are artists always the best judge of their work? Noel Gallagher thinks he's the best songwriter of his generation after all...

Now, Beckett. I was hoping you'd mention Beckett. To call him the most appreciative of Joyce's early readers is fair, but that just means he liked it more than most. And he would want to - considering that he literally wrote large portions of it under Joyce's dictation. Was he the most perceptive reader of Joyce though? That I don't know. What I do know is that while it has it's defenders, a lot of Joyce's fellow writers hated it. The only one I can think of off the top of my head at this very instant was Vladimir Nabokov - but, as ones go, he was a big one. And I'm sure if I dig enough I could find a few more dissenting names to add to his. Apart from my own, of course!

Now, I like Finnegans Wake. Or, to be more precise, I like the idea of Finnegans Wake. It's not about something: it is something. Oh man, that's enough to get my literary loins pumping! That's an undeniably cool concept, but if Finnegans Wake is truly of such enormity how come you - who has read it so many times! - feel obliged to fall upon that somewhat glib assessment by way of an explanation of its merit - a tired and hackneyed assessment that has been heard by English undergraduates the world over since the year dot. Have you nothing further to add? I've heard that before! I want more Permabear.

I don't think Finnegans Wake is a spoof.It's place in the Western Literary Canon is completely secure. But I would argue that's largely thanks to it's exalted position as a cultural touchstone and it's reputation as The Alpha and Omega of obscurity. Finnegans Wake is a work that is neither widely read, widely loved or - most crucially - widely understood. When people claim that it's the greatest, the best, chiefly on account of its impenetrability, because of its obscurity, I think then that obscurity can be used for just about any purpose - or any argument. Give me tour-de-force prose, married with experimentation and full bodied characterisation instead, please. Give me Ulysses.

Yourself isit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nobody dreams in the manner that Finnegan's wake is written, since people don't know 70 languages. In fact Joyce clearly makes up his own language. He didn't really know 70 languages after all, that is mere interpretation after the fact.

And after you have deciphered this tosh what have you got - besides a headache? Anything like the great humanity of a Shakespeare soliloquy? The brilliant characters of dickens? The social commentary of Austen.

What's the actual story? An interesting experiment is to ask some body who read it to explain it, or explain a passage. This inevitably fails so they are reduced to saying that they like the made up words. Which is why I believe it isn't for people who really like books.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Heckler

RayM wrote: »

I think most people who have read Ulysses would acknowledge that it's a book that takes a lot of time and dedication to read and understand properly, and would not view those who haven't read it as "philistines".

Well I am. Books should be accessible and enjoyable. Why have to put "time and dedication" into a book to "understand" it ?

What great insight did you garner from wading through that ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Heckler

I do look elsewhere. Seriously this statement has so much **** and pomposity to it

"It is an literary achievement of such magisterial immensity that we have only begun coming to terms with it.".

Its a fcking book.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Heckler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really who's "we" in coming to terms with it ?

What does "coming to terms with it" even mean ?

Were "we" all staggering around in a daze and eventually the brilliance of this book started revealing itself and "we" all shook ourselves from our stupor ?

Fourier

May I ask what are the insights in Finnegans Wake? I've heard contradictory answers.

The difficulty of the ideas does interest me as it is very different from science. For example Schwinger's ideas in Quantum Field Theory (possibly the deepest insights into physics since the 30s) are not only beginning to be understood, they simply are understood. What causes ideas to take longer to decipher in literary studies.

(This is a genuine question. I say this as the post may come off as a "ha ha science is better", but that's not the intent)

buried

Fourier wrote: »

May I ask what are the insights in Finnegans Wake? I've heard contradictory answers.

The difficulty of the ideas does interest me as it is very different from science. For example Schwinger's ideas in Quantum Field Theory (possibly the deepest insights into physics since the 30s) are not only beginning to be understood, they simply are understood. What causes ideas to take longer to decipher in literary studies.

(This is a genuine question. I say this as the post may come off as a "ha ha science is better", but that's not the intent)

That's a good question Fourier. I think some literary works, like a lot of art itself, music also for example, speaks directly into our human subconscious mind. A area of our thought and mindset that is currently beyond the reach of any real scientific explanation. Not that any of Joyce's work did that for me, but his works obviously did the same for other people. I've read books that have literally changed my mindset and beliefs, music too, even architecture. It's hard to pin down why. Very interesting question all the same

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fourier

buried wrote: »

That's a good question Fourier. I think some literary works, like a lot of art itself, music also for example, speaks directly into our human subconscious mind. A area of our thought and mindset that is currently beyond the reach of any real scientific explanation. Not that any of Joyce's work did that for me, but his works obviously did the same for other people. I've read books that have literally changed my mindset and beliefs, music too, even architecture. It's hard to pin down why. Very interesting question all the same

True, I also wonder is it because writing about literature or commenting on it is itself an additional piece of literature, i.e. the field continuously creates/develops. Where as you simple learn Schwinger's works for example.

I also suppose it might depend on what is meant by "understanding" it. Knowing all Joyce intended or fully developing everything thing that may come from discussing it.

buried

Fourier wrote: »

True, I also wonder is it because writing about literature or commenting on it is itself an additional piece of literature, i.e. the field continuously creates/develops. Where as you simple learn Schwinger's works for example.

I also suppose it might depend on what is meant by "understanding" it. Knowing all Joyce intended or fully developing everything thing that may come from discussing it.

Very true, it means so much to fans of his work and then very little to the likes of me, its hard to find a consensus to what actually makes it work! That's what makes any kind of artistic creation so magical and enjoyable. And you're totally right, once a artist creates a piece of work to be shown to their audience, that work becomes a total part of those people too, and they find additional comment or feeling beyond what the creator may have even intended themselves! Very cool stuff! It's an area that modern science should investigate!