/lit/ - Literature

Where did this Finngeans Waks chart come from? I've seen it around before but can never find a source.

>>15472675

Joyce of the polygot

AND THIS... IT TO GO... EVEN... FURTHER... BEYOND!

>>10958147

Am I actually retarded? It takes me 3 minutes per page and My eyes just gloss over some of phrases without any imagery.

Serious, Should I read his other work first?
I always thought I was smart, but this is humbling.

Realistically, what prior knowledge (books, language, theory) do I need to get anything out of reading Finnegans Wake?

>>8868819
If you're a genius scholar with a brain overflowing with canonical knowledge, then you might be able to make some sense of it in an absurd diagrammatic form a la pic related, but its quite a pointless endeavour. Read it for its playfulness of language, instead of trying to make sense of it as a narrative as such.

>>8506380
Shaun's is a longer winded shitpost, which is why I replied the way I did. I do not know entirely the measure to which he is serious, though. I imagine it lies somewhere within "not much."

The point is he doesn't even have >a< thesis. He writes a lengthy paragraph with all the rhetorical construction of a single consecutive train of thought, which in fact turns out to be a pastiche of inconsequent contrasting ideas that distract and add up to the two only possible responses on the reader's part: "well if you say so" and "I don't think so."

It is typical today that any lengthy paragraph, by being intrinsically lineal in display can fool a person into believing a whole bunch of miscellaneous ideas must be automatically connected.

It is a common mistake in the western literary (abcedminded) wit, which is why Joyce writes one has to go west in quest for Humpty's tumptytumtoes. Only the westerner philosophy feels the compulsion to put "Humpty" back together in a convincing, continuous analysis. But to the extent to which with all the glue you can find you still never will manage to recollect his pre-fall organic wholeness, you might as well just not bother.

But I digress. An example of your, I mean his most blatantly pseudo-academockally farsetious claim:

>the triadic explanation of theology is achieved: there is no dreamer, only dream.

Written as if one follows from the other, or as if any of those makes sense. At worse, trying to suggest Joyce smoked weed and listened to Alan Watts' speeches.

Also, >>8502102's sloppy writing makes one assume Joyce's agenda was to fight 'aristotelian' thought all along.

He also then mentions a dualism between cause-effect, and links it to dreamer-dream.

As a response to >>8502034 he might as well have simply even cited Finnegans Wake itself:

>a commodius vicus of recirculation

which at once reveals (1) the influence from Vico's "The New Science" (which is explored in Beckett's essay on Joyce's FW: "Dante... Bruno. Vico.. Joyce") and (2) its circular plot.

>>8488902
Really makes you think...