[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/lit/ - Literature



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Joyce_wake.jpg (38 KB, 429x696)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
Joyce predicted memes and forged the earliest complete codex of memes one hundred years ago.

Anyone who disagrees is a buffoon and should be shot on sight.
>>
>riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

What does this mean?
>>
>>9268610

The second sentence is even more difficult to parse:

>Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe.

It's hard for me to get into a book if I can't even get past a sentence.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgCjtd2iPU

Pure literary pleasure
>>
>>9268610
>>9268627
I am not well-read at all but FinWake is my favorite book and really not that hard to understand, even if you only know English like me.

>riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs
Think of this as a camera movement of sorts—we are following a river along its bends until we once again reach "Howth Castle and environs" which means Dublin ("once again" because the book is cyclical. "Vicus" also references Vico, adding to the theme of cyclicity)

>Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war
A character, Sir Tristram, a ("violer d'amores" is a portmanteau simultaneously referencing rape, love, and a stringed instrument) has returned to Europe Minor (Ireland and the current day UK) from North America as a passenger on the sea to fight in a war related to the peninsula

You just have to change the way you think about language. Everything you are reading is one wordplay after another, so if you have a mind for such things it's a fascinating and fun, although slow, read
>>
>>9268689
What's the joy in deciphering a novel? If the author has something meaningful to tell, he can and should write it in an understandable manner. There is absolutely no value in needlessly confusing prose - all it does is hide a lack of true substance behind layers of worthless obscurity.

Do you deem yourself special for wasting endless hours just trying to understand what Joyce wanted to say? Please share the deep insights of Finnegan's Wake that couldn't be expressed in a understandable way. Let me guess - there's no such thing, and the novel is an obscure piece of shit whose sole purpose is to inflate the ego of pretentious pseuds.
>>
>>9268628
Couldn't make it past 'past'. I unwittingly heard 'and' due to lethargy.
>>
>>9269232
>waaaaaaaaaah i didnt get it so its bad
>every book should be a victorian realist novel so my dumb brain can understand

Density doesn't equate to pretension, moron but you won't know that because you're such a butthurt insecure babby that you think anyone who likes something you don't is just pretending to.

Sad!
>>
>>9269232
>Please share the deep insights of Finnegan's Wake that couldn't be expressed in a understandable way.

the beauty. you know?
>>
>>9269232
What's the joy in solving a puzzle? If the creator has an object to show, he can and should sell it without any need to "solve." There is absolutely no value in needlessly creating work - all it does is hide a lack of true substance behind layers of worthless obscurity.

Do you deem yourself special for wasting endless hours just trying to figure out a complex logic problem? Please share the deep insights of the Blue Eyes riddle that couldn't be expressed in a single sentence. Let me guess - there's no such thing, and the puzzle is an obscure piece of shit whose sole purpose is to inflate the ego of pretentious pseuds.
>>
>>9269232
>this severe myopia
luv it
>>
>>9268628
makes no sense without the irish accent, what a fucking retard
>>
>>9269245
>anyone who likes something you don't is just pretending to
I don't give a flying fuck about what someone else likes or doesn't like, subjective preferences have nothing to do with my simple point: obscurity is aesthetically irrelevant. The author either has something of substance to say or he doesn't - there is absolutely no need to write in a manner that cannot be understood.

Speaking of substance, you haven't answered the question from my previous post: What are the deep insights of Finnegan's Wake that couldn't be expressed in an understandable way?

I'm sincerely hoping for a non-trivial answer.
>>
>>9268628
>bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

Is this some kind of joke?
>>
>>9269300
You are completely ignoring the fact that HOW you communicate substance can be just as if not more important than the substance itself. Finnegans Wake (there is no apostrophe, dummy) is a testament to language itself.

>Speaking of substance, you haven't answered the question from my previous post: What are the deep insights of Finnegan's Wake that couldn't be expressed in an understandable way?

The book tackles the process of thought in a different way than even stream of consciousness did. It is a representation of what it is like to dream, and what it is like to think without forcing the thoughts into wholly coherent sentences and statements. It's about the loose associations and mental tangents and subconscious hopes and dreams and fears that both fill and hold our thoughts.

And it's also just a fucking fun read
>>
>>9269300
>obscurity is aesthetically irrelevant
>What are the deep insights of Finnegan's Wake that couldn't be expressed in an understandable way?

New ways of thinking require active participation to understand it. No different to 4chan, you see?

You think someone from the outside world who never uses the internet could understand the BRAAAAP meme? No. They must be meshed into it...moulded by it! That is why Finnegans Wake is pure genius...it provides entirely new ways of using and thinking about language.
>>
>>9269329
>entirely new ways of using and thinking about language.
But it doesn't. If you can't say it clearly, you have nothing to say at all.
>>
>>9269350
>If you can't say it clearly, you have nothing to say at all.
Do you have a single fact to back that ass up

Also reply to me, pussy>>9269327
>>
>>9269350
>If you can't say it clearly, you have nothing to say at all.

LMAO

THIS KEK THINKS WORDS HAVE EXACT DEFINITIONS AHAHAHAHAH
>>
>>9268610
The last sentence is the beginning of that sentence
>>
>>9269376
It still stands on its own though
>>
>>9269327
>>9269329
Is this bullshit the best you can do /lit/? Unironically trying to argue that form can be more relevant than actual meaning? You people cannot even name a single (deep ) insight that you have acquired from reading this obscure piece of garbage.
>>
>>9269369
Words do not need meaning to be both terse and poignant in your presentation.
>>
>>9269232
Joyce was critical of instructive art and preferred esthetic
>>
>>9269382
I genuinely think you suffer from a supreme case of myopia. You are very difficult to talk to, as you make me feel quite ill.
>>
>>9269382
1. YOU DISMISSING ARGUMENTS NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR SUBSTANCE BUT BECAUSE YOU AREN'T HAPPY WITH THEM
2. WITH NO BASIS, YOU ARE WORKING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF ART IS TO GAIN INSIGHT
>>
>>9269307
definitely not like he took it incredibly seriously as some sort of mystical proclomation, but it has meaning and is pretty rad if you ask me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV3vT5nW_I4
>>
File: image.jpg (582 KB, 1920x1080)
582 KB
582 KB JPG
>>9269232
>why didn't Michelangelo just tell us what he thought about religion
>>
>>9269464
But that's art, where FW is not.
>>
>>9269403
>1.
I'm dismissing your arguments because they are non-arguments, aka bullshit.
>2.
I'm working under the assumption that art can be evaluated objectively; a centuries long tradition of writing has been demolished by modernism for the sake of what? Losing all aesthetic criteria? I have hundreds of years of tradition on my side, and you have absolutely nothing apart from your moronic personal belief that "new ways of using a language" can surpass the value of actual substance written in a manner that has been practiced and perfected ever since the very first work of literature until your modernist cancer. You are the kind of human garbage that is responsible for the terrible decline (actually, death) of art.
>>
>>9269382
>being this hooked up on the nonsense term that is "meaning"

wew
>>
>>9269490
Thanks for confirming my point, faggot.
>>
>>9269430
Interesting, but is there even a point in reading it without any companion? Its confusing as all shit.I dislike having to stop every few sentences to look something up.
>>
>>9269494
You're spooked by language, buddy.

Define 'meaning'
>>
>>9269476
Wew
Fucking
Nelly

Your kind whines so endlessly about the degenerate horror that is modern art without actually investigating it and understanding what happened and what is happening.

I'd like to point out that if you're going to continue to judge art objectively in the same way the pre-moderns did, you will need to accept the fact that art killed itself without the help of modernism. See, the key to the survival and continuation of art is innovation. Stagnation is the enemy and consumes motivation. Take painting for example. Through old world painting standards, the "goal" was to become more and more realistic. Unfortunately, that isn't a realistically perpetual goal. We successfully reached photorealism in painting. Photography was developed and destroyed illustration's place as the sole communication of the visual.

So where did we go from there? If we had stuck to the notions of photorealism, painting would have become an art of the past. Subject may change, but style remains the same. So, the impressionists emerged. Art began focusing on feeling and aesthetic variety. There was a massive outrage towards the impressionists because of this schism. And like the art before it, impressionism was eventually concluded in terms of innovation. There, modernism is born. A new angle to art that was necessary to keep it alive
>>
>>9269382
Considering Finnegans Wake came out at the height of literary formalism I don't think it's a misstep to look at it in this way.
>>
>>9269245
Every finnegans wake thread there's one person who responds to every criticism by sarcastically saying "waaaaaah I don't understand it" and behaving in the exact pretentious manner that everyone expects from people who wasted their time on this book and pretend that they understood it
>>
>>9269639
It's not about understanding, brainlet.
>>
>>9269589
Just imagine conducting an ad hoc research by asking the most famous, most celebrated contemporary artists (Duchamp, Warhol, Manzoni, Abramovic...) the following question: Do you consider that you are on the on the crest of the same wave as Bach, Mozart or Wagner, the same wave on which are Van Eyck, Velasquez, Rembrandt, or Picasso, on which are Brunelleschi, Michelangelo or Frank Lloyd Wright, on which are Shakespeare, Rimbaud, Kafka or Rilke? For how many of your peers an affirmative answer wouldn't deem you ridiculous?

C. Castoriadis, Transformation sociale et creation culturelle

I arrest my case
>>
>>9269639
>pretend that they understood it
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Stop with this fucking meme. If you quit acting like FW is assaulting your intelligence with every word, read just the smallest bit of poetry, consider that maybe there is aspect in the world, you could have fun with it.
I'm not sure how people have such trouble with this concept. FW is written with such exuberance it jumps off the page. Read a textbook or something.
>>
>>9269639
>that everyone expects from people who wasted their time on this book and pretend that they understood it
Even moreso than multilingualism, you need a brain built for wordplay to get any substance or fun out of the book. It requires a specific kind of humor in you to decipher the nearly solid wall of puns, portmanteaus, spoonerisms, palindromes, etc.

I am not at all saying that not having that kind of mind means you're dumb or lesser, not vice versa. It's just a reality that different minds work in different ways, and due to the extremely unique nature of FinWake, literature and grammatical studies just don't prepare you for it in the slightest. If this kind of book was a more widely read and written type, far more people would understand it. It isn't however, so only those with an inherent knack for it have a chance at understanding it on their first go
>>
>>9269684
*nor vice versa
>>
>>9269232
This can't not be bait
>>
>>9269684
>inb4 HAHA YOU JUST DONT GET IT DUDE
>>
>>9269669
What? That completely boils down to the self-image of individual artists and the what wave the artist desires and/or fancies themselves to be a part of
I don't really understand how it applies

Look, I will completely admit that most modern art is hot garbage, but it is not modernism's fault. I can explain more if you want to hear it
>>
>>9269709
Something being a dumb meme that is used too often doesn't mean it is always the wrong argument to use
>>
>>9269715
>it's not modernism's fault
Modernism destroyed the traditional approach to art. It is the direct predecessor of the cancer we're living in.
>>
>>9269717
In this case, it would be very wrong to use.
>>
>>9269722
I'm talking about the explanation to why so much modern art is pretentious, not modernism itself

I've done a lot of thinking on this and if you have the time for it I'd like to hear what you think

Also, did you not read this entire post? >>9269589
Please refute what I said about the evanescence of the traditional artistic process before you continue to use that point
>>
>>9269722
Capitalism destroyed the traditional approach to art and modernism resulted
>>
>>9269382
name a single (deep ) insight

any
>>
>>9269778
this is legitimately as bare as the question gets. There's never any real response to it. This shit is mostly dependent on presentation.
>>
>>9269350
>If you can't say it clearly, you have nothing to say at all.

you don't think wittgenstein would object to unclear terms like "aesthetically irrelevant"? define aesthetic quality.

also, i really think your objections to FW are based on not having looked too deeply into it. it's actually really interesting by what i imagine to be the standards of a lot of people who reject what they see as modernism. if you're willing to put some time into examining it and allow yourself to go outside of conventions, you might find something you like.
>>
>>9269778
Ironically a modern painting that is just a white canvas with "THE TRUE TEST OF CHARACTER IS KINDNESS TO OTHERS" or some shit written on it should hypothetically satisfy those of his persuasion
>>
>>9269778
You're no different to the pretentious people you're complaining about by thinking aesthetics is all about MUH DEEP INSIGHT AND MEANING

Pretentious pseud!
>>
>>9269793
>you don't think wittgenstein
I wasn't invoking Wittgenstein, or else I would have done it verbatim, and certainly not in English. Are "people" who appreciate FW as dumb as you?
>>
>>9269778
mate, why are you so fixated on the idea of a "moral"? can't you conceive of any piece of art having value in any way outside of providing a lesson? do you reject music that doesn't have lyrics as well?

here are a few things that i personally enjoy about FW, after the small amount i've read and attempted to parse of it. the wordplay and humor is really fun and silly and insane at times and is clearly the result of a broad spectrum of thought (the title itself is argued to be a triple entedre), there is actually a plot to it, and the more you read of it and get to understand the way joyce ws thinking as he was writing it, the easier it gets to understand. also, this guide that i have "the skeleton key to finnegans wake" makes a pretty compelling argument that there is much much deeper to go with it, and i'm excited to learn more about it.

art is a lot more rewarding and fun when, instead of getting angry and deciding that everyone who claims to enjoy a dense piece of work is pretending, you pick it up and decide for yourself.
>>
>>9269809
yeesh
>>
>>9269736
No offense, but the points you make in regarding the purpose of paintings >>9269589 are naive. The notion that the purpose of paintings is to make as-accurate-as-possible copies of the real word belongs to the classical paradigm of aesthetics (Plato's conception of art as mimetic), a ridiculously shallow theory that has been refuted by Kant - his idea that the artist competes with nature, and not only that, but is also able to overcome her. This is also extremely important for Hegel's aesthetics, but that's another story.

Now that I've mentioned Hegel I might as well give my own understanding of the genesis of modern art. I agree with Hegel that, broadly speaking, works of art represent the spirit (not necessarily in a metaphysical sense, you could just insert "culture" instead). The traditional art has started crumbling together with European culture; its cause? - a metaphysical exhaustion of the soil of the West. Whereas this phenomenon was, in my opinion, caused by the rampant technological advance and the consequent "mediocritization" - the focus has shifted to the well-being of the ordinary plebeian living in a bureaucratic monstrosity called "the state". I agree with Hegel that art can exclusively appear in what he calls "the age of heroes" - a worldview, a cultural atmosphere, a way of life best represented by the ancient Greeks. Summa summarum, modernism is a natural consequence of the imminent decay of a culture, of our culture (Spengler).
>>
>>9269856
>this theory is so shallow it only took fucking Kant to refute
>>
>>9269845
Just ask yourself the following question and be honest: Would you read FW if you didn't know who the author was? We both know the answer desu
>>
>>9269870
That says a lot more about you than it does about me.
My answer is yes. I've been looking for heights as high as FW ever since.
>>
>>9269870
>people are more likely to read things based on popularity and the author's previous works

Wow, colour me surprised!
>>
>>9269870
really being honest, i'm not as well-read as most of you guys on here. i got interested in reading around two years ago and i mostly just pick authors that seem interesting and try to get something interesting out of them. there wasn't much internalized hype around joyce for me at that time. i just picked it up cause i like words and puzzles and i figured since joyce is very well-respected and i heard it took him 17 years to finish, it gave me a reason to believe there might be something i could get out reading it.

what interests me might not be what conforms to your "aesthetic criteria", but i don't think that it needs to because my relationship with art is personal and isn't about flexing my discursive biceps by name-dropping joyce.
>>
>>9269870
What a retarded and insecure question lmao, I read FW because I read Ulysses and I read Ulysses because I read APOTAAYM and I read that because I read Dubliners and I read dubliners because someone recommended it to me

Why are you so insecure?
>>
>>9269856
Firstly, right after I clicked "post" I knew that summing up the goal of all pre-modern art as realism was foolish, so I completely agree there. My apologies

I also completely agree, as I said, that technology played a major part in the shift to modernism, particularly the invention of photography and its offspring.

However, even if we for the moment agree that art is a product of the artist's will to overcome nature, that doesn't nullify the main body of my argument.

To overcome nature is still a goal. A goal with an end. It is very easy to make the argument that we have overcome nature in many ways, and I think you'd agree given that you placed the blame partially on technology.

So there you have the resolution of the driving goal throughout the history of art, as you claim. THAT is the death of art as we knew it. Romanticism was the swansong of that era, and after that art took a new direction. Art became a game of innovation in the field of aesthetics. I think that is a far more plausible cause for the shift.

The real question then, is what will become of modernist art. The real, most significant shift that throbs at the heart of modernism, is the sacrifice of a singular goal. Innovation has always been the key to art, but now innovation IS art. And art exists FOR innovation, not merely because of it. So what possible end is there? How does a movement with no visible conclusion die?
>>
>>9269937
>wasting endless hours on /lit/ memes

>>9269915
The fuck does that have to do with my post?

>>9269886
>i've been looking for heights as high as FW ever since
So basically your most significant criterion for evaluating literature are wordplays, humor and similar trivial bullshit? You might want to give that a second thought anon
>>
>>9269959
You're not fun anymore anon.
>>
>>9269959
>The fuck does that have to do with my post?
Oh come the fuck on man
>>
>>9269232
>I want to be spoonfed

Literally you think of literature as a baby thinks of everything

Fuck off
>>
>>9269941
Not the guy you're talking to but I'll bring up a couple of things in response to your points:

Photography may have been the beginning of modern art (I'm not entirely convinced honestly) but it definitely brought about the end of painting -- more specifically, the end of modernism. Modernist painting (Greenberg formalism, e.g. Abstract Expressionism) is a continuation from Romanticism. Romanticism was the beginning of the new era rather than the end of the old one:

"Romanticism was the last great tendency following directly from bourgeois society that was able to
inspire and stimulate the profoundly responsible artist - the artist conscious of certain in-flexible
obligations to the standards of his craft. By 1848 Romanticism had exhausted itself. After that the
impulse, al- though indeed it had to originate in bourgeois society, could only come in the guise of a
denial of that society, as a turning away from it. It was not to be an about—face towards a new society,
but an emigration to a Bohemia which was to be art`s sanctuary from capitalism"

He's describing the avant-garde. Yes, this has led to innovation, but the claim was that Greenbergian formalism was the height of all painting; an art form completely concerned only with itself/its own material reality.

The New York School, to which AbEx and Greenbergian formalism belong, placed New York as the center of art, to continue the avant-garde in America since expats from Europe had moved there because of the war. Europe was the old style and American objectivity (i.e. formalism) was the new, but continuing a general 'project' of art described by Greenberg.

In New York, modern criticism became label-writing, and tying new artists to old styles through their innovation. Starting probably in the 40s but really becoming prominent in the 60s was postmodernism, a kind of 'final innovation' in that it didn't necessarily introduce newness in art for the sake of newness. It was a rejection of this label-writing criticism. It is the legacy of postmodernism that informs contemporary art rather than Greenberg's modernism.

A key aspect to this, ironically, was photography. Modernism was primarily found in painting, but the detached ethnographic recording of everyday life of consumer society found in photography informed the postmodern position I think more than anything.
>>
File: 1461612432601.png (91 KB, 720x748)
91 KB
91 KB PNG
>>9268628
>Kékkek Kékkek!
everytime
>mfw a important writer predicted a meme
>>
>>9270020
On second reading that quote is more in line with your idea >>9269941
>>
Joyce was not a very good writer and FW is his worst work.
>>
>>9270034
Hahaha, I was going to point that out, I thought I was completely misinterpreting that quote

I think throughout this conversation, we've been using "modern art" to erroneously describe postmodern art as well, if not mainly. The attempted abolition of standards and definitions and critique and categorization, etc. Postmodernism still contains a majority of the philosophy of modernism (although they may not realize it) primarily innovation for the sake of innovation, it's merely also self-referential and ironic and gratuitously subversive, etc.
>>
>>9270056
ya :)
>>
>>9268610
I like it when he calls the river a commode.
>>
>>9268587
>2017 - 1939 = 100

>tfw I helped captcha recognize street signs where I live
>>
>>9269232
>Finnegan's Wake

You have hal.....s real bad, chum
>>
>>9269805
>>9269845

nah i was asking that guy to pronounce any kind of deep insight at all, since he was so interested in insights

anyway, wake > blue book of eccels?
>>
File: tfw too intelligent.png (24 KB, 250x226)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>>9269232
>>9269300
>>9269350
>>9269382
>>9269474
>>9269476
>>9269494
>>9269639
>>9269870
>>9269959
>tfw to intelligent too like finnegan's wake
>>
>>9268628
1:47 PRAISE HIM
>>
>>9269245
Don't pretend that you understood Finnegans Wake. You looked up the words and puns on finwake.com like everyone else
>>
>>9270179
hallucinations?
>>
>>9269232
There are certain qaulities that cannot be aptly expressed in a concise format. Mostly, they're jokes, but occassionally they'll be very meaningful depth that could not be expressed equally another way. Its art, the point is not to ask how it is, but what you think about it.
>>
I'm surprised there aren't more people that think this book is wanky. I agree that it's a valuable and interesting exploration in literature but the fact that you need to spend more time reading outside of the actual text just to decipher it makes it seem pretty pretentious. Genius, but pretentious.
>>
File: 1429904200644.png (299 KB, 673x669)
299 KB
299 KB PNG
>>9268610

riverrun, past Pepe and Wojak's, from swerve of poopoo to bend of peepee,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to 4am board
and Environs.
Sir tipsfedora, FUCKING NORMALFAGS, fr'over the short sea, had passencore
rearrived from North Amerifat on this side the scraggy isthmus of
Eurocuck to wielderfight his penis war: nor had topsawyer's
rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Ops County's
gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice
from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet,
though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not
yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone
nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by
arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the
aquaface.
>>
Any particularly brilliant passages from this that would convince someone to read it? I feel like a lot of it isn't adequately explained by finwake. Liked some of the obvious bits, like the Freud Jung pun, the Jonathan Swift pun, Ostrogoths and Visigoths, "watsch the future of his fates", etc but the rest didn't do much for me at all.
>>
>>9271971
finwake.com is only good for recognizing references to fables and other languages, and that isn't the most substantial part of the book, contrary to what many who haven't read it believe
>>
>>9272288
A while ago I dissected a few passages I really like to show another anon what I thought would be a valuable way to think of the book, do you want me to repost that?
>>
>>9272687
Sure anon, I'd like that
>>
File: moby-dick.jpg (1.55 MB, 1594x2506)
1.55 MB
1.55 MB JPG
>>9268587
Kek
>>
>>9272838
"Shize? I should shee! Macool, Macool, orra whyi deed ye diie?
of a trying thirstay mournin? Sobs they sighdid at Fillagain's
chrissormiss wake, all the hoolivans of the nation, prostrated in
their consternation and their duodisimally profusive plethora of
ululation. There was plumbs and grumes and cheriffs and citherers
and raiders and cinemen too."

If you can follow the plot, up to this point the book has described the area around Howth Castle and Dublin, and told the tale of a drunkard named Finnegan who drunkenly fell off a ladder to his death while constructing a brick wall.

>Macool, Macool, orra whyi deed ye diie? of a trying thirstay mournin?

Phonetically written like a sobbing drunk Irishman, someone mourns him at his wake. "Oh why did you die?"
"Of a trying thirstay mournin?" has multiple double-meanings, with "thirstay" being both "thirsty" and "Thursday," and "mournin" being both "mourning" and "morning."

>Sobs they sighdid at Fillagain's chrissormiss wake,

"Sighdid" is sighted/sigh/did, meaning they were sobbing and sighing as well as seeing others around them sob.

>There was plumbs and grumes and cheriffs and citherers and raiders and cinemen too.

One of my favorite sentences in the book. It has a triple meaning, it a) describes the different sorts of people attending, b) describes all the food at the wake, and c) is all a reference to a line from the Irish carol "Miss Fogarty's Christmas Cake"
plumbs = plumbers/plums, grumes = grooms/prunes, cheriffs = sheriffs/cherrie, citherers = citrons/zitherers, raiders = raiders/raisins, cinemen = cinnamon/men
>>
>>9272838
>He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur.

One of my favorite sentences in the whole book. "He had a little wifey and he hugged the little creature." "Annie" is both his wife's name and phonetically acts as "and he" to continue the sentence. I also know "craythur" is an Irish term for whiskey (used in the ballad, Finnegan's Wake) which addresses Finnegan's alcoholism with an image of him holding a bottle

>Wither hayre in honds tuck up your part inher.

"With her hair in hands, tuck up your part in her." Switching to second-person, implying a connection between the reader and Finnegan, it describes him roughly making love to his wife, also making use of the word "wither" to imply something dying or failing. "inher" could be a pun on "inherent."

> Oftwhile balbulous, mithre ahead, with goodly trowel in grasp and ivoroiled overalls which he habitacularly fondseed,

I believe this is simultaneously talking about her clothing and her breasts or ass under them, and how he "habitucularly" (habitually + particularly) "fondseed" (fancied + fond + seed (semen)) them.

>like Haroun Childeric Eggeberth he would caligulate by multiplicab-les the alltitude and malltitude until he seesaw by neatlight of the liquor wheretwin 'twas born,

This is more cryptic but after another HCE reference, I believe it's referencing his lewd thoughts about his wife's body which were multiplied by his drinking of liquor.
>>
>>9272912
>>9272916
These are fantastic, thanks! I've started reading on finnegansweb.com, that seems to be more detailed than finwake.
>>
>>9272971
Thank you! I haven't even heard of finnegansweb, I should check that out
>>
File: download (3).jpg (6 KB, 275x183)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>9269476
>I have hundreds of years of tradition on my side
Imaginging you as pic related.
Aren't you proving our point though? What use is the hundreds of years of tradition if it's all the same? Why can't we challenge it?
>>
I really like this passage:
>Tell me, tell me, tell me, elm! Night night! Telmetale of stem or stone. Beside the rivering waters of, hitherandthithering waters of. Night!
>>
>>9272068
now this is some patrician memeing
there's no where left to go anymore
>>
>>9269307

yes
>>
>>9272916

>alltitude and malltitude

Your posts have made Joyce's portmanteaus suddenly clear. Malltitude: mal-attitude, bad attitude, attitude increased by malt liqour, liqour atitude. Altitude, all, attitude, high-attitude, intoxicated mood. Allusion to Caligula in caligulate which could also imply 'calculate'.

I have never been so interested in this work as I am now. Thanks for the explanations!
>>
>>9273894
No problem!! I'm really glad I could help someone start thinking that way about the book

The loveliness of the book is that for once, it not only encourages, but is BUILT by loose associations and interpretations. It's just fucking fun.

Be prepared to spend up to thirty minutes on some single paragraphs but love it all the same




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.