/lit/ - Literature

>>17762833
What's with all the pen notes

>>17762835
They're supposed to be attempts in deciphering this impenetrable work, not mine of course

bump

>>17762833
>Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek !

Bravo

>>17762833
kek

>>17762833
maximalist works are more about the experience of reading it, I doubt there's much worth in doing a deep dive

A collective case of "The Emperor has no clothes", some retard that you see as an authority figure said that this work has great value and you're to afraid to say otherwise and dismiss is it as the garbage it is.

>>17764522
A corollary: you're so out of the discussion on Joyce, that any time you read snippets of his work it completely filters you.

>>17764803
Why read a novel that can only be made sense of through volumes of literary exegesis that all contradict each other and cannot even agree on what should be some of the fundamental elements of any novel, like form, plot points or even characters? How is this a great novel? Had anyone else written Finnegan's Wake, it would have duly been ignored

>>17764803
Then explain those 2 pages in the OP.

>>17764062
at least it was funny when it appeared in Aristophanes' Frogs and actually served a purpose other than some self-indulgent 'hey look at me I've read Aristophanes' Frogs and I can refer to it in a really meta way!!!''

bump

>>17765688
Perhaps, but after Ulysses nothing by James Joyce can be ignored. Simple as.

>>17765912
>I can refer to it in a really meta way!!!
go back
he's just quoting; it's called citation

There was some manosphere person that did a YouTube video on Finnegan's wake or Ulysses... His sthick was pretending he was the smarterst person ever but very clearly a manipulative charlatan. Popular on /pol/ because of edrama. Only reason I bring it up is it's the most cringe thing you'll ever watch

>>17766812
he's not quoting SHIT

>>17765688
The problem is that you want to read in one week a book that took 17 years to write. Imbecile.
You should read Finnegans Wake as if every page were a poem.

>>17766843
both a bold assumption and retarded argument. Well done.
Go on then, anon. Why do you think Finnegan's Wake is great and what was it about? Don't even think of giving some bs wikipedia tier answer of 'reality' or 'life' or 'the night' or 'dreams'

>>17766843
both a bold assumption and retarded argument. Well done.
Go on then, anon. Why do you think Finnegans Wake is great and what was it about? Don't even think of giving some bs wikipedia tier answer of 'reality' or 'life' or 'the night' or 'dreams'

>>17764803
What discussion? Give us a snippet

>>17762835
the gimmick of the book is that it's written in the gibberish of literally transcribed drunken Irish dialect, so the notes are for translating it basically.

Now, I might not know what I'm talking about, but allow me to offer my uninformed opinion here.

Joyce said this work is meant to be read aloud and, indeed, if you listen to the audio book, you realize it's not really meant to be a story or a narrative. It's more like music in the form of English literature.

What I mean is, search for the free online audio book of it (for some reason I was prevented from posting for a while last time I tried to post a url of it, but a google search can find it easily).

Listen to a few minutes and you'll see what I mean. It's more like music than literature. It's like a genre defying work of art, on the border between being a musical score and a work of extended poetry.

>>17768270
So he wrote a work of literature that, when treated as a work of literature is unintelligible and impenetrable, and when treated like music, always inferior to the works of the great composers and musical minds?

>>17768324
He had an ace up his sleeve: lots of well-placed cultural elites as personal friends, to shill it for him.

>>17762953
why would you need to write on the book to understand it? that sounds counterproductive

>>17768324
Yea, it's an experimental work. It exists on the borderland between two mediums, so it's not going to compete against the shining example of either.

He wasn't trying to write a great novel again. He'd already done that. He wasn't a composer, either. He wrote something that is strange and interesting and completely unique when experienced as he intended it.

Seriously, just listen to a few minutes of this:

https://www.openculture.com/2013/11/hear-all-of-finnegans-wake-read-aloud.html

Maybe you think Joyce's project was a stupid waste of time and maybe it was, who knows? I think it's interesting, at least. There are worse things people can devote 17 year's worth of evenings to.

>>17768385
The recitation was indeed very interesting. Upon your suggestion, I listened to this rendition of the fall.

https://youtu.be/6HgCjtd2iPU?t=56

The ferocity of his delivery real caught me off-guard, at once evoking the dynamism of falling down the stares and also bringing to mind some kind of shamanistic invocation of some chthonic deity, which I think is quite fitting for what essentially appears to mark the descent into the unconscious

And it was infinitely more enjoyable than reading it. Thank you for the recommendation. You are actually the first person I have ever spoken to about Finnegans Wake who didn't just give a cookie-cutter shallow and completely disingenuous reason as to what might make it, if not a great work, one that might be worth engaging, so thank you for that

"According to Hume, perceptions are not in need of a substance that carries them, for all substances are merely composites of simple concepts and thought. These theories of associative thinking always tend to make the associations materially independent. However, to associate is not yet to think; in fact, the special capacity for association characteristic of many a clever head appears to be rather a substitute for independent thought. Hume may be considered the spiritual father of Joyce's Ulysses, a book that makes association independent, and destroys every intellectual order so radically that nothing is left but a great garbage pile of associations."

I'm reminded of John Ashbery's Flow Chart, the book-length post-modern poem that is completely indecipherable. Helen Vendler, the great teacher of poetry at Harvard, once said that Ashbery's poem showed "the entire orchestral potential of the English language."

I mention that here because, from my own experience and reading, it's more accessible and interesting than Joyce's Finnegan's Wake (even though it's just as incomprehensible plot-wise). It's sort of like the same thing, but written by an American in the 90s, so it's more relatable.

I've said it's incomprehensible and relatable and comprehensible. I know that must sound stupid.

>>17768623
really* stairs*

>>17762833
You could start by reading the pic you posted

>>17764522
Based newbie

>>17768769
I suppose it speaks to the often forgotten truth that poetry is, first and foremost, a form of literature that is to be heard and recited, not merely read.
Perhaps if Finnegans Wake was framed more like an Epic Poem, like Ulysses, many of its apparent unintelligible and self-indulgent quirks and pseudery would appear more meaningful and alive

>>17765688
Pathetic.

>>17768982
honestly stfu. People like yourself are so tedious and unfunny

bump

>>17766810
Bug

>>17766843
Start with portrait of the artist and then move to the next ones.

How many languages you speak OP?

He just write in multiple languages portmanteus, is nothing super revolutionary.

>How does anyone make sense of this work?
They don't. Your assessment is right, Joyce was a mentally ill spectacle.
>Why is it even considered great?
Same reason rap music took off in America

>>17768991
People keep memeing "read aloud, sound of the words" without even reading the wake. Most of the sections are subpar musically and patches of heavenly intonations are few and far between, and this is assuming you read it in irish accent. There are readings of the first 3 chapters on YouTube, dramatic reading and really well done, be the judge. It's hardly beautiful.

>>17768659
BTFO

>>17769560
As was said earlier, John Ashbery did a better job this sort of thing, especially in Flow Chart

>>17769494
4
ever since the posts on the importance of recitations were made, I'm beginning to reevaluate Finnegans Wake bc they make interesting points.
My issue wasn't with his use of multiple language. It just reads and is experienced as self-indulgent nonsense and it really remains unclear why anyone would care for a work that at least seems to be a mentally unstable man jerking off to puns and word-play while superficially making references to greater works of art and literature, which, under many appraisal, somehow translates into his own work being considered great. To my mind, disingenuous pseudery, but maybe there is more after all

>>17769589
I will try that but it's believable. Ashbery probably knew what he was sacrificing and reined it in, and he is a much better poet than Joyce.

>>17769001
pseud

I find listening to the audiobook a better experience unironically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgCjtd2iPU

>>17769590
>self-indulgent nonsense
There are only two camps you can fall into as a writer and enthusiast of literature. You either believe that writing is entertainment for the reader and must bend over backwards for him or that it's art and therefore has no obligation to the reader. The first camp is dominant, obviously, but it's nothing more than a collective agreement with bright flashes of groupthink. The first camp is hard for me to defend, because it almost always represents a value-based mindset steeped in the continuing capitalization of art. An unfortunate byproduct of postmodernism run rampant is that since any two opinions have equal merit, the opinion with the greatest consensus behind it is the one which wins. Since publishers gatekeep literature and shape its trends, their opinions are by nature the loudest ones. They largely choose what goes to market and what doesn't. The kicker is something that should come as no surprise: publishers aren't driven by anything but the need to make a profit. It follows, therefore, that the "accessibility" debate is not one which is concerned with the quality of art but with the profitability of a product. The great con is in the way these qualities have been conflated.

Opinions like yours and OP's strike me as way more self-indulgent than the most abstract, nonsensical work you can imagine. People who criticize "indulgence" in literature aren't actually concerned with the indulgence in and of itself; they're actually concerned with the writer not indulging THEM by sacrificing artistic vision for accessibility. They'll fall all over themselves crying elitism, obscurantism, whatever—all to hide the basic, knee jerk reaction over something that goes against the grain. They believe all literature "should" be a certain way, and naturally that way is characterized by being easily digestible and milquetoast. In other words, they've been so heavily indoctrinated by publishers and their academician lackeys that they mistake publishability and marketability for the positive qualities of art. It's incredibly arrogant and I hate it.

>>17770937
Have you read The Wake?

>>17770990
Of course. Don't get me started on "meaning" and "sense."

>>17770999
Best sections? Apart from Anna livia plurabelle.
I don't completely disagree with you but we are consumers of art at the end of the day; this idea that an art enthusiast has to bend over backward (as you put it) to put up with the author's indulgence is nonsensical. Another thing, Joyce had no trouble in publishing this book and even today it has many defenders, even in the publishing industry; and the other anon isn't asking for paring down literature, he praises Ashbery's attempt at "nonsense" and even Gertrude stein's "tender buttons" is enjoyable in its own way. I just felt that you had a knee jerk reaction over it. The artist is bound to no one but his work will not survive if people don't connect with it, art doesn't exist and has never existed in a vacuum, we would not be having this conversation if it did.

>>17771043
>this idea that an art enthusiast has to bend over backward (as you put it) to put up with the author's indulgence is nonsensical
It's only nonsensical from the position of a consumer of products, which you seem to assume as some kind of constant. Nothing obligates you to enjoy a work of art, least of all on account of the opinions of others. What I'm speaking out against is not specific reactions towards Finwake. What I'm trying to address is the mentality which leads to things being "self-absorbed nonsense," for reasons I've explained in my original post. The fact that publishers pay lip service to art does not excuse them for publishing products. Most people are vulnerable to herd mentality, and every time some self-righteous ingenue publicly attacks the more ambitious literature for its inaccessibility, they are reinforcing the idea that there's nothing to be gained from the literature which dares to be art. This in turn reinforces all of the other factors contributing to the death of artistic ambition in literature in favor of the product.

>>17766843
Exactly. I took 6 months off from work to read this. One of the happiest periods of my life.

>>17762833

>>17768659
Based

>>17768347
actual reddit-tier brainlet

>>17772582
if you write the meaning in the book, you're not reading the book anymore, you're reading your notes
also
>taking notes while reading
he fell for it lol

Terrence McKenna does a pretty good talk about it that I found more interesting than trying to read the damn thing

https://youtu.be/Rpeq91hK1Gk

>>17770937
>>17771083

Completely miss the point. I have never encountered a work of art in any medium that is held in such high esteem where its admirers appear to be completely incapable of even expressing even a single element as to why they believe it to be so incredibly great. In all your waffling, you've still failed to actually make a case for what it does for you, how it impacted you, what about it you think qualifies it for greatness or why we should esteem it. You're the one who is just swallowing whatever doctrine or narrative the people who have stake in doing so are shoving down our throats

>>17762833
finnegans wake is probably the single least self-absorbed book in existence

>>17764522
"this book is bullshit because the author is just pretending to be smart"
>>17765912
"how dare joyce quote aristophanes without citation and expect the reader to catch the reference!"
>the duality of /lit/

>>17766843
it has to be read out loud and in a group. there's a reason why it's named after a drinking song

>>17768324
it's neither unintelligible or impenetrable tho

>>17768769
ashbery is in fact full of shit for the same reason gertrude stein was and that's because both considered enjoyment to be retrogressive and suspect in advanced literature

>>17774290
It actually has to be read when you are on your deathbed and in a state between wake and sleep. It's a night book and there is wake in the title.

>>17769560
there was a bunch of sections where i'd be reading it aloud and suddenly realize i was slowly sounding out "john jameson & sons" or "arthur guinness" while the passage still made sense on its own. like the text manages to replicate the superego-ego-id tripartite division in a single line (and trio of course recall the trinity and the triple gods of the pagan celts, but that's beside the point)

these are the people telling you what authors are garbage and which ones you should read. they got filtered by finnegans wake.

>>17771043
an + na (irish "the" for female and male nouns)
anal
liffey
alluvial
plural
plumbum
belle
elle
el (hebrew)

that's just one name and off the top of my head

bump

>>17774349
>t: has never read it in his life

>How does anyone make sense of this work?
uh, you read it. you figure out the portmanteaus and thereby their meaning, you keep reading.

>>17772725
Joyce suggested this

saving this thread

>>17762833
You don't
It's considered great because it's Joyce, and he pushed the limits on aesthetic merit/conventions. There's no way to say if that book is outright good or bad. To do so would reduce it, Finnegans Wake is a force beyond literature, as is Ulysses to a lesser extent.
>self-absored
You assume writers read to be understood or to be read at all, the act of writing itself is vanity. Maybe read Burgess' essay

>>17777355
why are all the Wake admirers in this thread being so dubious and superficial? Not even the most ardent Wagnerites or the staunchest Bachians talk about their works in such vague and meaningless terms. Great bc it happens to be written by a particular man? Force beyond literature? How can you even take yourself seriously when you write such things? Can you at least name one aspect of the work you thought was particularly impactful and meaningful to you personally or one thing about that makes you enjoy and esteem it so much?

>>17777441
It's written by Joyce, duh. Have you read his wikipedia page? He is my favourite author now and I haven't read anything by him.
Imagine being this good.

>>17774344
So you got to be irish to read Joyce?

>>17766843
All my books take 17 years to write, that's because i am INCOMPETENT

Joyce solved the rebus of the universe and crafted for us a microcosm version of its grand, ridiculous story. It's about being able to hold it all in your mind at once, and that feat inducing an experience of gnosis or enlightenment (being awake). Plebs too lazy to engage with it on its own terms and arrogant enough to dismiss it can't be privy to its treasures.

>>17777441
I'm not a wake admirer, my point is Wake is impossible to be criticized or praised, it's merely a force beyond literature. If you say it's outright bad, then you can only relay extremely superficial reasons for why it's bad, and to say it's good assumes anything could be good because there's nothing 'good' about Wake, it's incomprehensible and even if it does become legible at some point then that still doesn't answer if it's good. The people who like it most likely feel satisfaction at the impression they understood bits of it.
You're quite stupid if you think what I said was a praise, you muttering hedonist retard.
>Meaningful to you
>impactful
The book is about the objectivity of being and art as a force beyond a person's senses and you want me to apply that same logic to a book that aims to defy that, it's an experiment on objectivity of art both affirming and denying it. Yes, it's vague, because it's not a conventional book, it's closer to painting or music theory.

>>17777495
KYS tranny, I don't even like Joyce, but my point still stands, the only reason people read Finnegans Wake is because it was written by Joyce, otherwise it'd be some odd work attracting various odd people on the internet.

Letting middle class people read was a mistake.

>>17777641
>I can't be bothered with it so it's incomprehensible
>it's only experimental
>it's only music and aesthetic
>I haven't studied it but let me tell you what it's about
Why do you people bother having an opinion at all?

>>17777694
Yes tranny no single book is worth studying, but please tell me the Marxist race and gender theory analysis of Finnegans Wake that ought to finally crack the code

I hate Joyce.

'ate Joyce.

>>17777731
>>17777785
FUCK. THE GET GODS 'ATE ME!!

>>17777998
They sure do like questionable translations of Plato: >>>17777777

>>17777513
no, in fact it's an advantage not to be

>>17777641
You know both nothing about painting or music theory

bump

>>17779731
You're right I do not, I meant that in a non-literal way, meaning it's a different sense of art, maybe I'm out to lunch or something, but I think I've been explaining it quite clearly and I am not a fan of Joyce at all. I didn't like Ulysses and I don't like purely gimmicky writing.

>>17768769
>I know that must sound stupid.
I don't think so. Do you mean to say that, while the comprehensiveness of the poem is gibberish, that its components are something that would make sense to us in the way that Joyce's gibberish would make sense to those used to the sound and intonation of Ireland? It is like the words being heard feel familiar, and that feeling is comprehensible, it's the meaning that isn't. Have I understood you rightly?

>>17781243
>purely gimmicky writing
but it's deeply meaningful and beautiful as well, and the "gimmicks" aren't done just for the sake of it but are part of the meaning in both Ulysses and FW
what Joyce wanted to accomplish with the Wake couldn't have been done without breaking down the language as he did, so it's not a "gimmick"

>>17781350
Please explain the two pages in the OP to me!

idc meaning i read for fun

>>17769589
john ashbery is dogshit though

>>17781423
That's one page

>>17781423
It would take multiple pages to fully explain one page of the wake, and the first pages are the densest of all; I do have the Bygmester Finnegan paragraph committed to memory, but why would I put so much effort into spoonfeeding some arrogant retard? You're at the stage of being incredulous of the book being possible to comprehend at all, so clearly you haven't even done the most basic bitch research about it. Why don't you read the Skeleton Key instead of waiting for someone to spoonfeed you?

>>17781635
>muh spoonfeeding
Bullshitter as expected. Mckenna puts his hands up, ofc you don't know because your retarded poser ass didn't bother with that either.

>>17781635
This pseud has only read Ulysses' wikipedia page yet.
>"it's beautiful and deep"
>"Waaah read the skeleton key to get on my level first.
Stop pretending, you retard autist. You arrogant ass understands shit.

>>17781672
>durr you won't spoonfeed me so the book is gibberish
A nice self-fulfilling prophecy to justify your laziness in approaching a difficult text, because no one will ever do what you want.

>>17781731
I don't care for the book, and i never said it was gibberish. You claimed it was beautiful and deep, so I asked.
>no one will ever do what you want.
Anybody who really found it deep and meaningful and wasn't just posing would throw a bone, instead of writing arrogant smudge as to why he wouldn't do it. Ironically your insecure ass thought I was being arrogant.

>this thread
Number of Joyce pseuds is on the rise lately.

>>17781350
I didn't find much beauty in Ulysses, compared to other writers, and I have not read all of Finnegans Wake, I assumed most people have not either.

>>17781635
That wasn't the anon you've replied to. I have stated that Finnegans Wake is a force beyond literature unable to be reduced to a superficial literary analysis predicated on senses and conventional structures. I never said beauty is wanting, I said it's closer to music theory, number theory, or painting than conventional literature. I've only received unduly criticism for such for something that appears so obvious to me. I don't wish to 'understand' FW, as the experience is more important than a shallow understanding.

>>17768623
is this irish or just made up words?

>>17781800
100+ replies later and not a single Wakeian has actually said anything that isn't just a larp

>>17782905
>"read Skeleton Key if you want to know how to make sense of it"
>RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NO YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME PERSONALLY OR ELSE I WIN!!!!
>WHY CANT I CONSOOOOOOM A BOOK THAT TOOK 17 YEARS TO WRITE IN A SITTING IT'S NOT FAIR REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17783142
Are you actually stupid? I'm not even asking you to explain it. Not a single Wakeian in this thread has sad something meaningful or personal about a work they all claim to love or posit as 'great', 'beyond literature' or whatever meaningless term they can come up with. Even experiences of the sublime in nature, which are beyond all art as such, can at least be expressed, even if the description doesn't do it justice. All of you larpers are acting as though Finnegans Wake were the pinnacle of existence itself, so great, that you can't name a single thing about it that makes it so great, bc it should only be experienced. So great, that it defies the category of greatness. Do you people even read the kind of nonsense you have been spouting in this thread? Are you so lacking in self-awareness?

>>17781315
Yes, that's precisely what I meant! Very well put, anon. Thanks.

>>17783570
>Did you like this book?
Yes.
>Why or why not?
Finnegan's Wake is a good book because of the suspense of the plot and because of the witty dialogue of the characters.
>What are some of the major themes of the book?
It has themes about many things like love and religion and also mortality.

Final grade: A-

>>17762833
Hard-to-read literature is fine if you enjoy abstraction and inconclusive storytelling, but anyone who bashes another reader for not enjoying or "understanding" it is just being a pedantic prick.

>>17782107
>is this irish or just made up words?
Is there a difference?

>>17784702
>t: didn't read the post
contemptible twat

>>17784764
how can i understand it if it´s gibberish?

>>17784797
How can you understand Irish in the first place?

>>17784813
how?

>>17784827
?

>>17771242
did you really do this? can you tell us some more about your experience?

>>17783142
Confirmed for not reading the skeleton key and the book.

>>17766810
"simple as"

>>17784754
They deserve to be hit over the head (not with a book but with a lead pipe) if they proclaim that the book is gibberish or isn't worth the effort instead of simply admitting that they don't understand it and don't care to try.

BUMP

Is this the literature equivalent to merely pretending to be retarded?