FINGANS WAKE GENERAL

[Anonymous No.14934731]

Seventy Pages into my re-read of Finnegans Wake. I understand it is the best work of western literature but some of the passages go over my head. That being said; here's one of my favourite passages of the re-read:

"But to return to the atlantic and Phenitia Proper. As if that were not to be enough for anyone but little headway, if any, was made in solving the wasnottobe crime cunundrum when a child of Maam, Festy King, of a family long and honourably associated with the tar and feather industries, who gave an address in old plomansch Mayo of the Saxons in the heart of a foulfamed potheen district, was subsequently haled up at the Old Bailey on the calends of Mars, under an incompatibly framed indictment of both the counts (from each equinoxious points of view, the one fellow’s fetch being the other follow’s person) that is to see, flying cushats out of his ouveralls and making fesses immodst his forces on the field. Oyeh! Oyeh! When the prisoner, soaked in methylated, appeared in dry dock, appatently ambrosiaurealised, like Kersse’s Korduroy Karikature, wearing, besides stains, rents and patches, his fight shirt, straw braces, souwester and a policeman’s corkscrew trowswers, all out of the true (as he had purposely torn up all his cymtrymanx bespokes in the mamertime)"

[Anonymous No.14934735]

Don't forget to SMASH that SAGE BUTTON

[Anonymous No.14934750]

>>14934735
I know you don't have friends or a girlfriend because you're always around to sage my threads. Grow up

[Anonymous No.14934754]

>>14934750
And yet you make the same thread, often multiple times in the day, because you DO have friends and a girlfriend? Sound logic, dude.

[Sage No.14934758]

I love FW. One of the pride of the irish - lived all my life in dublin and will never leave hahaha.

[Anonymous No.14934765]

>>14934754
We're in the middle of a quarantine and I'm discussing the book that had the most profound development on my psyche and life choices. I do have friends and a girlfriend, I'm not ashamed to discuss the things I like and find others who want to discuss them. You didn't deny my accusation because I'm correct: you're a sad pathetic waste with crab in a bucket mentality.

>>14934758
I live in Cork but I go up to Dublin for Bloomsday every year to do the Ulysses walk. Shame there isn't a Finnegans Wake walk haha but it would probably involve traipsing into the fourth dimension hahaha!

[Anonymous No.14934766]

>>14934765
Well with the way the country is headed there wont be any walks anywhere with the covid invectoins hahahahaha. It was predicted in finegans wake btw. chapter 3.

[Anonymous No.14934785]

>>14934765
>You didn't deny my accusation because I'm correct
Nope, I didn't deny it because I don't have anything to prove to a sad little man on the internet, so obviously desperate for validation. Its funny watching midwits trying so hard to claw back integrity when they didn't have any in the first place. By all means keep posting, I'll just keep ridiculing you for being the pseud you are. The fact that you've only made like 20 pages since yesterday tells me you don't have any discipline whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.14934829]

>>14934766
Joyce center has been closed the last two weeks.

>>14934785
You didn't deny it because you're a loner who doesn't have regular sex. I'm not desperate for validation, I'm passively seeking intellectually developing discussion with like-minded individuals (i.e. fulfilling this boards purpose).

I will continue to keep posting; I'm in final year of college and I also make most of my money on the computer, I also type with a high words per minute when compared to the national average so it takes about a minute out of my day. You haven't ridiculed me at all, all of your insults have fell flat on their face, the only thing you accomplished here is willingly outing yourself as a loner (not sure why).

And regarding the 20 pages since yesterday? I read books for enjoyment and intellectual stimulation; Joyce himself claimed to have only read 13 pages a day. I know you're still just upset because you don't understand the novel so I'll let you stomp and shout in your corner sage goblin :)

[Anonymous No.14934862]

>>14934785
Please dont turn this board to r/books bro. If you dont like FW (or JJ in general) just leave the thread.

[Anonymous No.14934912]

>>14934829
Nothing but more insubstantial assumptions and flexes. If you actually had a valid response to any of my criticisms you would be able to reply without resorting to baseless shitflinging, but you lack the intellectual capacity to do so.

Tell me, out of all the countless times you've posted this thread, how many worthwhile discussions have you had on it? Because I haven't seen a single one. Every time it gets posted, it simply drops like a stone to the bottom of catalog, to the point you have to repost it before the first one even expired, all the while making petty excuses for the lack of interest. You can posture all you like, but you aren't fooling anyone.

>you're still just upset because you don't understand the novel
Dude, I think you should've guessed by now I haven't even read the novel. I'm literally here just to frustrate you.

>>14934862
Because there's SO much stimulating discussion happening in this thread, right? You're responding to OP's thoughts on the book with your own relevant ideas? lmao. Joyce is good, but to seriously reply to a thread entirely dedicated to satiating OP's vanity is pointless, and as a good honest christian man it is my duty to stand up to midwits wherever I encounter them. If you want to talk about the significance of Bloom's shrivelled potato charm, lets talk about it. If you want to jerk off OP's shrivelled potato without even talking about FW, just fucking take his number already and delete the thread.

[Anonymous No.14934949]

>>14934912
>Nothing but more insubstantial assumptions and flexes. If you actually had a valid response to any of my criticisms you would be able to reply without resorting to baseless shitflinging, but you lack the intellectual capacity to do so.

>You're responding to OP's thoughts on the book with your own relevant ideas? lmao. Joyce is good, but to seriously reply to a thread entirely dedicated to satiating OP's vanity is pointless, and as a good honest christian man it is my duty to stand up to midwits wherever I encounter them.

[Anonymous No.14934960]

>>14934949
>conveniently ignores everything related to the sheer lack of interest and discussion in his thread
Keep living in denial.

[Anonymous No.14934961]

>>14934912
Wtf...

[Anonymous No.14934965]

>>14934960
You're completely delusional: this thread has been to host to some really interesting and freaky theories in the past about the novel. These probably flew over your head however as you're too dumb to have read it.

[Anonymous No.14934982]

>>14934965
>in the past
there's your problem. You think your accumulation of semi-related disjecta membra over countless threads is "a lot", when in reality its probably not much more than a single thread's worth of discussion. Don't delude yourself. You're a literal college student who thinks there is worthwhile discussion to be had on 4chan. You are like a little child.

[Anonymous No.14935016]

>>14934982
>accumulation of semi-related disjecta membra

I think I get it now. You're a psuedo-intellectual and you feel challenged by those that understand Finnegans Wake because it infringes on your Ego. That's fine, just try reading the book (I could even help you if you just asked the right questions), it's probably not as hard as you think.

You also forgot to capitalize the "there's" at the start of your post.

[Anonymous No.14935053]

>>14935016
Oh I'm sorry, did I use a phrase that you had to google? I would've thought someone so attuned to FW would have no problems understanding latin. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual when I use big boy phrases, but when Joyce does it he produces "the best work of western literature"?

>You also forgot to capitalize the "there's" at the start of your post
You're not even trying to contend with the (admittedly indisputable) points I'm putting forward. All you can do is nitpick, a classic midwit coping mechanism, as though grammar or spelling even matters in a contest as casual as an image board.

>I think I get it now
No, you really don't. You won't truly understand until you finally stop making these self-indulgent threads.

[Anonymous No.14935068]

>>14935053
not OP but "a contest" ? what?

[Anonymous No.14935074]

>>14935053

>Oh I'm sorry, did I use a phrase that you had to google? I would've thought someone so attuned to FW would have no problems understanding latin. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual when I use big boy phrases, but when Joyce does it he produces "the best work of western literature"?

Because this isn't a novel; it's a conversation. I trust Joyce did not use "big boy phrases" (I wouldn't consider latin to be a big boy phrase but you do you), I'm sure Joyce was smart enough to converse in a conversational tone like most true intellectuals. You likely lack the social IQ to understand this.

>You're not even trying to contend with the (admittedly indisputable) points I'm putting forward.
I have proven them wrong, I just thought your poor punctuation was funny.

>You won't truly understand until you finally stop making these self-indulgent threads.
They're not self-indulgent, they're a great way of cultivating discussion about the deeper meaning of the novels.

[Anonymous No.14935125]

>>14935068
context*
I was testing OP's midwit coping strategies with an intentional spelling mistake. Or perhaps it was simply an honest error. Either way, it does not matter, which is the point I was making.

>>14935074
So despite calling me out on a single lack of capitalisation, you still claim to be speaking in a "conversational tone"? Consistency is key, midwit.

>I have proven them wrong
Where? I have still seen no valuable discussion taking place. You have not shared any of the insights gleamed from previous threads. I have not seen any of these threads that have not died before reaching the bump limit. How have you proven me wrong in any way whatsoever?

>they're a great way of cultivating discussion
And I ask again, where is it? I am the only one who even considers you worthy of a reply, and even then all I am doing is ruthlessly mocking you.

[Anonymous No.14935187]

>>14935125

>Where? I have still seen no valuable discussion taking place. You have not shared any of the insights gleamed from previous threads. I have not seen any of these threads that have not died before reaching the bump limit. How have you proven me wrong in any way whatsoever?

I proved you a virgin with no friends, your sexually inexperience made me chuckle (out loud) in real life, which set the tone for the rest of this conversation: you willingly making a fool out of yourself for my personal entertainment. It is not my job to teach you how to use the archive, I'm sure you can figure it out. Other JoyceHeads have shared stuff that I didn't notice first read around (first and last lines being connected, Dublin), and I shared observations with them, somebody even purchased the book due to the discussion at hand.

>And I ask again, where is it? I am the only one who even considers you worthy of a reply, and even then all I am doing is ruthlessly mocking you.

Most Americans are sleeping; the thread usually gets active in a few hours.

[Anonymous No.14935266]

>>14935187
What does this have to do with joce?

[Anonymous No.14935339]

>>14935187
>I proved you a virgin with no friends
For someone who is allegedly reading one of the most challenging texts in the western canon for the third time, it is certainly telling you don't understand what "proof" actually entails.

>It is not my job to teach you how to use the archive
not it isn't, but again, if you understood what it means to "prove" something, you'd know that the burden lies with you. You made the claim that these threads lead to valuable discussion, I'm simply asking you to justify that claim with evidence.

>first and last lines being connected
This is the one fact about the book that even people who haven't read the book are aware of. It's literally general knowledge at this point, the point has been made in so many critical papers and analyses of the text that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Even Deleuze gives mention to the structural and formal motif in the first chapter of ATP. This is not a revelation to anyone familiar with Joyce, or Joycean scholarship, or literature more generally, and the fact that you insist upon it only highlights your midwittery even further.

>the thread usually gets active in a few hours.
more excuses. The last two threads died without hitting the bump limit. What makes you think this one will? I have already allowed this thread to stay up far longer than it deserves.

[Anonymous No.14935579]

>>14935339
>For someone who is allegedly reading one of the most challenging texts in the western canon for the third time, it is certainly telling you don't understand what "proof" actually entails.

I don't need proof. My instinctual brain is telling me you're a virgin and you have not rebuked this argument.

>not it isn't, but again, if you understood what it means to "prove" something, you'd know that the burden lies with you. You made the claim that these threads lead to valuable discussion, I'm simply asking you to justify that claim with evidence.
Not*. I'm not autistic so I don't have an obsessive fixation on proof or evidence.

>This is the one fact about the book that even people who haven't read the book are aware of. It's literally general knowledge at this point, the point has been made in so many critical papers and analyses of the text that it doesn't even bear thinking about.
I meant connected symbolically. Those papers mean literally. You would understand had you read the book.

>he last two threads died without hitting the bump limit. What makes you think this one will? I have already allowed this thread to stay up far longer than it deserves.
I prefer small threads. I don't like having viral threads as it defuses from actual discussion around the novel. I just like hosting a discussion for fellow fans to shoot ideas off each other :)

[Anonymous No.14935732]

>>14935579
>you have not rebuked this argument
that's because it isn't an argument, midwit. It is an ad hominem statement that does nothing to diffuse the crippling might of my arguments. Not least because you can't even justify it.

>I'm not autistic so I don't have an obsessive fixation on proof or evidence
and yet you're autistic enough to have an obsessive fixation on minor spelling and grammatical errors. Again, your inconsistency is pitiful.

>I meant connected symbolically
No you didn't. if you did you would've specified this in the first place.

>Those papers mean literally.
and which papers, specifically, might you be referring to? The only one I mentioned is Deleuze, and he certainly doesn't mean "literally".

[Anonymous No.14935780]

>>14935732
>It is an ad hominem statement

It's not ad hominem as it's true.

>and yet you're autistic enough to have an obsessive fixation on minor spelling and grammatical errors. Again, your inconsistency is pitiful.

I was mocking your prior conversational mistakes. I found it hilarious and deemed it necessary to repeat them for eons for all readers to chortle at.

>No you didn't. if you did you would've specified this in the first place.

Yes I did. In this context the obvious implication is symbolically, why would it be literal in a novel such as Finnegans Wake? I do forget you haven't read it *chuckles*

>and which papers, specifically, might you be referring to? The only one I mentioned is Deleuze, and he certainly doesn't mean "literally".

The usual entry level papers that people read as an alternative to having the mental capacity to comprehend Finnegans Wake: Deleuze etc...

[Anonymous No.14936187]

>>14935780
Its ad homenim.

[Anonymous No.14936200]

holy BASED. best threads on this shithole.

[Anonymous No.14936204]

Imagine putting this much effort into arguing with these nincompoops...

[Anonymous No.14936278]

>>14936204
It was my fault; it took me a while to see he was just trying to derail discussion from the novel.

[Anonymous No.14936534]

>>14936278
I loved fingean wake