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

51–59 of 59 posts

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

#51

Post by zzalpha »

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…

So you'd subscribe to (g) in his list of possible interpretations:

(g) The reliable readiness of critics, doctoral candidates, and know-it-alls to enshrine difficulty for its own sake, to rise to the bait of erudite obscurity that Joyce laid for us in this, the greatest literary prank ever played (outside of revealed religion).

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

#52

Post by maldusiecle »

aerovistae wrote: post #48
maldusiecle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, my mistake. I haven't read Kafka's letters, so I'm not sure what context they offer that changes the meaning of this quote. What am I missing?

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

#53

Post by spacecop »

kens wrote: post #46

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…

There's always something on Earth to remind me that I'm an idiot. The first page of this is a disaster.

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

#54

Post by aerovistae »

maldusiecle wrote: post #52
aerovistae wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, my mistake. I haven't read Kafka's letters, so I'm not sure what context they offer that changes the meaning of this quote. What am I missing?

Well that's just it, me either! Nor could I expeditiously find a copy of the letter in question. So I wouldn't presume to know his full meaning. But when you see the quote alone like this, the takeaway is straightforward enough, regardless of the author's original intent, and it's the appropriated implication which I do not agree with.

But frankly I would not be surprised if he did mean it literally and exactly. After all, it does seem to be in line with Kafka's work, doesn't it? Avoid happiness, court misery and grief? That could be a tagline to a Kafka biopic.

But it's just his opinion. Some people like happy endings. And to imply that a feel-good story isn't worth reading is the true narrow opinion. As though Pixar's films were not sufficiently profound for lack of tragedy. Good god, imagine if Kafka was the creative director at Pixar! "Finding Nemo" would be an endless and fruitless search probably resulting in the father descending to madness and wondering if he ever had a son at all.

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

#55

Post by sanderjd »

mikestew wrote: post #40
sanderjd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the answer! I was hoping for more specifics than "some schools of Buddhism" and "ascetic systems from most major religions", but on hindsight I see that asking people to do that level of research for me on a forum like this is too big an ask.

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

#56

Post by mikestew »

sanderjd wrote: post #55
mikestew wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the answer! I was hoping for more specifics than "some schools of Buddhism" and "ascetic systems from most major religions", but on hindsight I see that asking people to do that level of research for me on a forum like this is too big an ask.

There aren't any specifics, because asceticism is everywhere. From the Zen Buddhist writings of Dogen in the 1200s to modern U. S. Christian Baptists, there's going to be someone standing nearby telling you music and dancing are not good things (one example common to both Dogen and some Baptists).

So where did it originally come from? Who did it or said it first? I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care. So, yeah, you're on your own. :-)

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

#57

Post by mcguire »

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"?

"Although all pleasures are good and all pains evil, Epicurus says that not all pleasures are choiceworthy or all pains to be avoided. Instead, one should calculate what is in one's long-term self-interest, and forgo what will bring pleasure in the short-term if doing so will ultimately lead to greater pleasure in the long-term....

"An example of a natural but non-necessary desire is the desire for luxury food. Although food is needed for survival, one does not need a particular type of food to survive. Thus, despite his hedonism, Epicurus advocates a surprisingly ascetic way of life. Although one shouldn't spurn extravagant foods if they happen to be available, becoming dependent on such goods ultimately leads to unhappiness."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

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

#58

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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 like to think that Finnehans Wake was an elaborate practical joke aimed at the literary establishment.

This is how I feel about the two books by J.M. Coetzee[1] I've read, Disgrace and The Childhood of Jesus, minus the 'elaborate' part, they're simply practical jokes, and wholly unremarkable. A bit like Jean Micheal Basquiat's art. That's not art, it's a fucking joke. Coetzee must be having a good chuckle when he sees the critics write "a masterpiece" and "richly enigmatic".

That's just my opinion, of course.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Coetzee

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

#59

Post by fhood »

ojbyrne wrote: post #42
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.

you mean a Ulysses. Hard vowel and all that.
Post reply on HN