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

41–50 of 59 posts

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

#41

Post by Gargoyle »

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…

"His own skill as an author does not change that."

Would you say the same thing about an excellent coder recommending elegant code they didn't write?

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

#42

Post by ojbyrne »

csanch4 wrote: post #36

"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.

I would characterize it as "an Ulysses too far." Ulysses was great, Finnegan's Wake incomprehensible.

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

#43

Post by maldusiecle »

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…

Kafka trained as a lawyer, he didn't literally believe that no one should read any book that doesn't create an intense emotional impact. He was a fiction-writer, and he was arguing for a particular model of what fiction can do, which his works certainly embody.

Those who interpret words in such a narrow and literalistic way, though, would probably be best off skipping his works.

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

#44

Post by davidw »

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…

If you pick up a newspaper each morning, you get a "blow to the head" if you think about what that news means to people and their families.

I read for entertainment or to learn new things about stuff that interests me.

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

#46

Post by kens »

After an earlier HN discussion extolling Finnegans Wake, I read the book (and read several guide books, and listened to it on several versions of audio), and I have to say that for me it was an epic waste of time. I hate to brand myself a philistine, but want to provide a counterpoint to people who say the book is so funny and a grand experience.

I recommend reading a couple pages [1] to get a feeling for Finnegans Wake - it's amazing the density of concepts Joyce crams into words, with multiple meanings in almost every word. I kept thinking the book would make more sense if I kept reading, but no, it's like this the whole way through. A few things get better, for instance, the initials HCE constantly appear, so in the first sentence you should get an aha feeling from "Howth Castle and Environs". But that's a pretty small payoff.

If you enjoyed the book and found it hilarious, more power to you. But as someone who likes challenging books and put a lot of time into Finnegans Wake, the book didn't do it for me.

[1] Finnegans Wake is online at http://finwake.com/1024chapter1/1024finn1.htm along with detailed notes, but unlike Shakespeare, looking up mystery words doesn't make things any clearer.

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

#47

Post by [deleted] »

mindcrime wrote: post #39
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?

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 n…

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by aerovistae »

maldusiecle wrote: post #43
aerovistae wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Kafka trained as a lawyer, he didn't literally believe that no one should read any book that doesn't create an intense emotional impact. He was a fiction-writer, and he was arguing for a particular model of what fiction can do, which his works certainly embody. Those who interpret words in such a narrow and literalistic way, though, would probably be best off skipping his works.

Thanks for the advice! I'll make sure to skip having already read and enjoyed three of his books.

Notice I didn't pronounce a judgement on Kafka: I pronounced a judgement on the quote's implied meaning when presented in isolation as it was.

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

#49

Post by [deleted] »

fhood wrote: post #21

"At times the book would wash up on the beach of my life and I would hear the bottled voice of its djinn, promising everlasting bliss to puzzle hermits, inexhaustible cred to know-it-alls. I always forebore." I may be in the minority, but when I read someone's thoughts on Joyce I don't particularly want to decipher a new metaphor or two per sentence. If that was my intention I would just pick up the original.

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by aerovistae »

Gargoyle wrote: post #41
aerovistae wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"His own skill as an author does not change that." Would you say the same thing about an excellent coder recommending elegant code they didn't write?

There is a difference between a coder recommending certain code they find elegant, and a coder saying "you should not read code that is not written with this design pattern, as it is a waste of yours or anybody's time, because it is not how I write code."
Post reply on HN