OT: Anyone ever read Finnegans Wake? Is it as difficult to read like every says?
- Thread starter Purple-Ed
- Start date
See below:
Written over a period of seventeen years and published in 1939, the novel was Joyce's final work. It is written in a largely idiosyncratic language that blends standard English with neologisms, portmanteau words, Irish mannerisms, and puns in multiple languages.
Written over a period of seventeen years and published in 1939, the novel was Joyce's final work. It is written in a largely idiosyncratic language that blends standard English with neologisms, portmanteau words, Irish mannerisms, and puns in multiple languages.
Super difficult to read, but it has a kind of bizarre charm to it. Try getting into an Irish mindset, read it with your best Irish accent, and don't worry about the fact that half the words aren't words, and you'll be fine. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is much easier, and will give you a feel for Joyce. Strange dude.
As long as it's not the Sound and the Fury by Faulkner, I'd give it a shot. I couldn't keep track of a damn thing in the first section of that book.
This is why most editions include an introduction later written by Faulkner that summarizes each character in a way that lets the reader know what the hell is going on. Keep in mind that the narrator of the first section is what we would now call "developmentally disabled" and cannot tell the past from the present.
I knew about the developmentally disabled character but the time shifting drove me crazy. I was a RU English major and I think I had to read that book at least 4 times across multiple classes and I broke out into a cold sweat each time I saw it listed. I'll have to go back and try again now that I'm older and have slightly more of a clue.
Four times -- no wonder! I cannot penetrate the first section. But did you notice that the character is able to read the label on what I think is a package of condoms? The rest is OK -- but it's still good to have the introduction to know what exactly the characters are doing. For me, the only clear sections are Quentin's and the final one in the black church.
Jung said Joyce wrote like a schizophrenic (and his wife was one) and for me his writings are word salads.
He is also a lot like Picasso - who broke-up natural forms into fragmented abstractions. Likewise Joyce also cuts and dishevels "traditional perceptual conceptions" while working to "recreate the experience of dreams and hypnagogia." Joyce also used some of Freud's concepts ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/25476681 )
Yeah so this is the kind of stuff I avoid like an infection. I don't like most fiction because its like having someone else's dream but Joyce is like having someone else's psychosis (which artists are more prone to - especially lady writers and poets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Plath_effect ).
People who use imagination in an overly immersive way can really fall down rabbit holes. People often say artists suffer because they are geniuses but many are actually just lost between the ears.
Now Victor Hugo I consider brilliant. With a few clear sentences he creates sparkling insights that are healthy. Picasso can be cool decoratively but the theories and iconography are kind of flat imo. Van Gogh was great at seeing things crazy but he was tight artistically. If Joyce was more crazed he might have been better. He's kind of in limbo and I don't want to be there with him. Do some random pages of Les Misérables and sparks just come when you dont expect them
He is also a lot like Picasso - who broke-up natural forms into fragmented abstractions. Likewise Joyce also cuts and dishevels "traditional perceptual conceptions" while working to "recreate the experience of dreams and hypnagogia." Joyce also used some of Freud's concepts ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/25476681 )
Yeah so this is the kind of stuff I avoid like an infection. I don't like most fiction because its like having someone else's dream but Joyce is like having someone else's psychosis (which artists are more prone to - especially lady writers and poets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Plath_effect ).
People who use imagination in an overly immersive way can really fall down rabbit holes. People often say artists suffer because they are geniuses but many are actually just lost between the ears.
Now Victor Hugo I consider brilliant. With a few clear sentences he creates sparkling insights that are healthy. Picasso can be cool decoratively but the theories and iconography are kind of flat imo. Van Gogh was great at seeing things crazy but he was tight artistically. If Joyce was more crazed he might have been better. He's kind of in limbo and I don't want to be there with him. Do some random pages of Les Misérables and sparks just come when you dont expect them
Visionary and Stylistic Similarities in the Works of James Joyce and Pablo Picasso
http://www.ijsac.net/node/526
Last edited:
BTW, did you notice that Jason says he can't stand to look at Babe Ruth's baseball card? There was long a rumor, based on Ruth's facial features, that he was part-black -- in Robert Creamer's biography, he says Ruth walked over to the Giants dugout before a game in the 1922 World Series and said (cleaned-up), "You can call me anything you want but not an [N-word]."
I struggled reading this description, so I'll pass.
BTW, I think Joyce's most enjoyable work is Dubliners, his collection of short stories.
Tried Ulysses a couple of times but never got thru it - had it assigned for a class when I was a senior but then Kent State happened and they cancelled the remainder of the semester so never got into it then
There are guidebooks to help you through. I think the book is in large part a joke -- Joyce's attempt (quite successful!) to show he could write in every possible style (e.g. gushy girl, medieval chronicler). So if you do read it, smile rather than frown at the obscurities.
I am enjoying this thread immensely. Count me as another befuddled seeker that made a few spectacularly unsuccessful attempts at digging into Ulysses 
A few years back I actually ordered a couple of the guidebooks retired711 referenced above. I'm now inspired to dust them off and give it another shot!
A few years back I actually ordered a couple of the guidebooks retired711 referenced above. I'm now inspired to dust them off and give it another shot!I have Gifford's Ulysses Annotated. It's OK; the compiler doesn't understand the Jewish references, but maybe that's to be expected. I also have the Bloomsday Book; it is easier but not as detailed. For an early overall explanation of the structure, see Stuart Gilbert's James Joyce's Ulysses.I am enjoying this thread immensely. Count me as another befuddled seeker that made a few spectacularly unsuccessful attempts at digging into Ulysses
I read Finnegans Wake and Ulysses in separate classes at RU. Honestly, they were two of the most challenging works that I was ever assigned. The quirky structure, most particularly the frequent absence of punctuation, requires you to envision what is being suggested beyond the actual words. It definitely helped to have accomplished professors who proactively offered overviews of what to expect and constructive commentary on the content upon review! That said, Joyce is far more manageable than many suggest. Finnegans Wake is sublimely brilliant. If you took the time to consider giving it a read, you'll be more than comfortable absorbing the words. Take the time to digest and enjoy!
You are the first person ever to say anything that might prompt me to read Finnegans Wake!
After I graduated from RU and prior to settling down to family life, I read a lot during my train commutes. A lot of non fiction but also some of the better fiction writers, all of Fitzgerald, Hemingway and others. Two writers that I tried and couldn’t handle were Joyce and Faulkner. I’m retired now and I’m reading a lot more and have more patience. I’ll probably get into Dostoevsky next and then maybe I will give Joyce another try.
Dostoevsky is worth reading -- both Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karazamov. Both have been translated by Pevear & Volokhonsky, whose translations have been widely praised. If you're going to try Faulkner again, I suggest Absalom, Absalom!, which has a good story and which doesn't contain the obscurities of books like The Sound and the Fury. For Joyce, I think his collection of short stories, The Dubliners, is best as well as Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
Last edited:
Thanks, it’s funny that you mention “Absalom.Absalom! I tried reading that twice when I was in my 20’s. I would get maybe 50 or 60 pgs in and then put it down. I still have the book and will try it again in the future.
Perhaps the story just doesn't interest you -- and of course that's fine. One thing to know is that each narrator understands the story better than the ones before. So what Miss Rosa says is later supplemented by others who understand more than she does. And the best understanding comes from a total outsider. We learn more and more about why Sutpen objected to Henry's proposed groom for Judith. One other thing to realize about the story is that (and this won't surprise you) it rests on racial attitudes that would not be considered "correct" today.
Last edited:
Train commutes were great for reading. Did both War and Peace and Les Miserables plus lots of detective novels during 8 years of commuting
Just finished page one of Finnegans Wake.
I need to lie down and take a nap.
I need to lie down and take a nap.
I feel the same way about Heart of Darkness (Joseph Conrad). Have attempted it several times.
I find almost all of Conrad difficult. (Keep in mind that English was not his native language.) I found Lord Jim even harder, but you may not. My favorite is The Secret Agent, followed by The Secret Sharer. I read the [N-word] of the Narcissis; it is good, but it requires *much* more knowledge of sailing than I have or that I think even weekend sailors have. BTW, that title was originally not accepted in America, where it was published as Children of the Sea, but Conrad's title prevailed.
You seem to be one of the more literary people that post on these boards. I want to pass an idea onto you. . In the future, how about trying to set up a type of “Rutgers Football Message Board Book Club”? The idea would be that those of us with some extra time on our hands, would read the same book at the same time and pass our comments on it as we read the book? We are all pretty isolated these days and it is just a thought. Im currently reading a book on World War I, so I’m thinking in the future. . Let me know what you think. Thanks.
I was a law professor. Because you were an English major, you undoubtedly have a better education in literature than I do, and I'm not trying to be unduly modest.
I usually feel it challenging to slog thru a book that is difficult. Currently plodding thru 800+ page book The Thirty Tears War by Peter Wilson. So many minor nobles and political duchies to keep track of!
Only gave up on three books that I can remember, Ulysses being. The other two not because of difficulTy but because the story didn’t interest me were Portnoys Complaint and Fear of Flying. Did make it past a chapter or two of either.
Only gave up on three books that I can remember, Ulysses being. The other two not because of difficulTy but because the story didn’t interest me were Portnoys Complaint and Fear of Flying. Did make it past a chapter or two of either.
I'm gonna suggest that, if you truly feel that way, you may be doing it wrong.
The wonderful thing about reading good fiction is that the book merely presents a framework for a dream; the reader must fill in the blanks, consciously or subconsciously. So it's not so much having someone else's dream as allowing someone else guide to you in your own dreams. And switching books, authors, or genres makes for endlessly changing guidance requiring varying degrees of imagination by the reader.
Whereas visual entertainment mostly lacks this quality. Watching TV is much closer to having someone else's dream than reading fiction books or stories (or poems).
Not that anybody should or shouldn't like any form of art. There are no rules, despite what we're taught. We should all like whatever we like and to hell with what anybody else says.
I was an English major solely because I needed an undergrad degree to get into the 5 year Masters program for teaching. I did have to read a ton of books, mostly classics. However, there were some great classes books I got to read in classes on science fiction, Black studies and Shakespeare. I think I was up to reading 25 books a semester from Sophomore to Junior year. Then I used all that to become....a first grade teacher!
Hey . . . first grade teachers are important! You know the saying "as the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined."
My mother, born in the age of radio, always said that she preferred radio programs over TV because radio required more use of one's imagination. BTW, this is a great post.
I’m part of a Classics book club that started up mid part of last year. Austen, Dickens, etc. Last two books were Madame Bovary (Flaubert) and Lolita (Nabokov). Next books is Middlemarch (Eliot). Really have to carve out some quiet time to get through some of these. Lolita in particular was a “heavy” read given it’s only 300-ish pages.