Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#31

Post by sanderjd »

grabcocque wrote: post #13

I like to think that Finnehans Wake was an elaborate practical joke aimed at the literary establishment. Can imagine Joyce chuckling to himself as he imagined generation of literary critics and bedevilled students trying to make sense from its fractured dreamscape. I love the book, though. It's words come closest to capturing in words what it is like to dream. Glimpsed fragments of meaning, locations and people and i…

I've been reading the Sandman comics by Neil Gaiman recently, and this is exactly how I feel about them (especially the one I'm currently on: volume 9 "The Kindly Ones").

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#32

Post by aerovistae »

f_allwein wrote: post #7

Came across this nice quote by Kafka recently, which seems relevant: "I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves i…

I really abhor remarks like this one, suggesting that there are things people "should" or "shouldn't" read. As another commenter remarked, it's pretentious.

What's more, it's deceptive, because it sounds sage and insightful and worth pondering, particularly because it's well-worded and comes from a famous author, but in point of fact it's just another guy saying "Read what I deem to be of quality, not what you enjoy reading." His own skill as an author does not change that.

There's something of value to be found in most written works, one way or another, and they all have different purposes.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#33

Post by sago »

user51442 wrote: post #27
sago wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

James Norton's audio book of Ulysses is superb, he really captures the beauty of the language. I'd recommend it more as an audiobook that written, at least at first, just as I'd recommend listening to Shakespeare rather than reading the text. genius.com has an annotated Ulysses, [0] and it might be even better to listen and read at the same time. [0]: http://genius.com/albums/James-joyce/Ulysses

I assume you mean Jim Norton (and Marcella Riordan): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-apGqB98RI

I did, yes, over-formality got the better of me.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#34

Post by f_allwein »

lintiness wrote: post #19
f_allwein wrote: post #7

Came across this nice quote by Kafka recently, which seems relevant: "I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves i…

i think everyone ought to read whatever books they fucking want. what's with pretentious assholes always telling everybody what they should and shouldn't do?

agree that he probably did not mean it as a universal law, but rather meant that he prefers reading books that confuse and bewilder him. As an example, here's a really short story of his, "A Little Fable":

" "Alas", said the mouse, "the whole world is growing smaller every day. At the beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad when I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner stands the trap that I am running into."

"You only need to change your direction," said the cat, and ate it up. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Little_Fable

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#35

Post by leephillips »

guybrushT wrote: post #30

"Dubliners there was the unlovable A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, which starts well, charting bold, clear routes, like “Araby,” through the trackless waters of childhood, then fouls its rotors in a dense kelpy snarl of cathected horniness, late-Victorian aesthetics, and the Jesuitical cleverness that, even in Ulysses, wearies the most true-hearted lover of Joyce." Do others also find this article very hard…

I found the writing beautiful. I enjoyed the essay very much, including the sentence you quote.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#36

Post by csanch4 »

"bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk" Oh the sweet sound of lightning that only Joyce could've understood. Finnegans Wake's concept is great in terms of challenging language and structure, but the unfinished result is a disaster. If anyone dedicates time to analyze FW, then they misspent years trying to understand gibberish.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#37

Post by sanoli »

Scarblac wrote: post #25
lintiness wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think everyone ought to read whatever books they fucking want. what's with pretentious assholes always telling everybody what they should and shouldn't do?

He isn't telling you what to do. He is struggling with the question of what the best way to live is, he assumes you are doing the same, and he's offering his opinion on one aspect of it. "Everyone ought to read whatever books they fucking want" isn't that useful as an intellectual opinion. Yes, fine, but what kind of books should we want to read if we want to lead our lives the best way possible? Why read at all?

Well, if he said "If we want to lead our lives the best way possible, then you ought to read this and this, not that" it would still be pretentious. Is it really clear cut that one set from all of literature is the best for everybody? Of course "read whatever you like is a bit on the opposite side, too easy, too shallow. One could then decide "fine, I'll just read kid's comics all my life." Read varied literature, from different cultures, try different genres, and try to read some classics, as they're classics for a reason, would probably be better advice.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#38

Post by mikestew »

aerovistae wrote: post #32
f_allwein wrote: post #7

Came across this nice quote by Kafka recently, which seems relevant: "I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves i…

I really abhor remarks like this one, suggesting that there are things people "should" or "shouldn't" read. As another commenter remarked, it's pretentious. What's more, it's deceptive, because it sounds sage and insightful and worth pondering, particularly because it's well-worded and comes from a famous author, but in point of fact it's just another guy saying "Read what I deem to be of quality, not what you enjoy…

As another commenter remarked, it's pretentious.

What's pretentious is taking such strong issue with a statement that starts with "I think we ought...". I think you ought to get over yourself, as Kafka was expressing an opinion, one with which you're free to disagree. Argue your dissent, even if it's just "Kafka? Yeah, fuck that guy.", but stamping your foot because you perceived it as some dead guy telling you what to do is just silly, IMO.

As to the topic at hand, I like me some entertainment fiction on occasion, but I'll never make the claim that Stephen King's latest changed my life.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#39

Post by mindcrime »

lintiness wrote: post #19
f_allwein wrote: post #7

Came across this nice quote by Kafka recently, which seems relevant: "I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves i…

i think everyone ought to read whatever books they fucking want. what's with pretentious assholes always telling everybody what they should and shouldn't do?

My take has always been that what you take out of a given book, whether it's Vince Flynn or James Joyce, has more to do with you as a reader, than the book you're reading.

That is, if you're the kind of person who thinks deeply about things, looks for insights and connections, questions how things work, etc., you're going to draw some insight from a James Patterson book, or Stephen King or whatever.

OTOH, if you're not that kind of person, you can force yourself to grind through mechanically reading the words of Infinite Jest or Gravity's Rainbow, or Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake or whatever, and wind up no better off at the end than if you'd read from a random word generator for the same period of time.

Re: What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (2012)

#40

Post by mikestew »

sanderjd wrote: post #29
Scarblac wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He isn't telling you what to do. He is struggling with the question of what the best way to live is, he assumes you are doing the same, and he's offering his opinion on one aspect of it. "Everyone ought to read whatever books they fucking want" isn't that useful as an intellectual opinion. Yes, fine, but what kind of books should we want to read if we want to lead our lives the best way possible? Why read at all?

Honest question: what is the philosophical basis for the trend I seem to often see (expressed here as "Why read at all?") that pure entertainment is not a valid part of "the best way to live"?

Just off the top of my head, some schools of Buddhism come to mind. Then after a few more seconds it occurs to me that most major religions have some form of ascetic system that frowns upon indulgences such as pure entertainment. In other words, you can have your choice of philosophical bases.

That addresses the "where does it come from?" but not the "why", which I would generalize as entertainment distracts from the pursuit of a better way of living.

Post reply on HN