Saturday 3/23/24
What follows are responses I found on the internet from people who read James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. They are useful and revealing in an of themselves, but they also speak to the bullshitting one so often encounters with book talk and literary reputations.
Response 1:
In What Is Art? Tolstoy unleashes criticism on all things artistic, sparing no one. His main argument is that art--whether literature, paintings, music, or drama--should be accessible to everyone. He says anything that the common man cannot understand or that does not represent the common man is actually a form of war on the common man. All art must teach; all art must be accessible; all art must tell the common man's story. Else, it is not art but an elitist manipulation--a dangerous one, at that. The main target of his anger is art that is enigmatic solely for the sake of being enigmatic. He even spends an entire chapter on Wagner to prove his point. While one could argue that this kind of critique is a signal of the Stalinist suppression of anything not "for the people," (the Bolsheviks actually praised Tolstoy and suppressed Dostoevsky) I do think that Tolstoy has a valid point--especially with regards to Joycean Modernism.
I'll be honest, Modernism does annoy me. I understand the idea behind using style to comment on, well, style, but I really can't stand this pompous approach to art. It's boring and kind of defeats the point of publishing for the masses. This obviously does not apply to all Modernists; Hemingway and Fitzgerald are both very accessible. But Joyce is definitely an author who delights in name dropping and pretentious ramblings. Not my cup of tea.
I had to read Finnegans Wake for a Modernist British literature class in undergrad and couldn't finish it. I suppose I'm a lesser English major for criticizing the inimitable James Joyce, but I found this novel pretentious and, frankly, stupid. As far as I can tell, there's no plot and really no characters. Every word in every sentence is a combination of three or more languages. This may sound interesting, but it's really painful to read and a ridiculous way to address linguistic issues. If you have something so profound to say, why the hell can't you make your writing accessible? Are you trying to keep it a secret? What is the point of combining 30+ languages to create linguistic garbage? I learned nothing from this novel other than language itself can be a kind of prison. I think D.H. Lawrence makes this argument much more powerfully in Lady Chatterly's Lover--anther Modernist novel, yes, but one whose acclaim does not exist just because the author was able to reference every piece of literature written before the Common Era.
I guess I do understand the acclaim this novel receives: it references everything and Joyce DID have to be rather brilliant to know all of these languages. You can also see the coming of Post-Modernism here with Joyce's total disregard for anything (and I mean ANYTHING) traditional. Perhaps that is why I hated it.
Moreover, going back to Tolstoy, I think there are political and biased reasons for this novel's godlike status. There are countless books that attempt to find Wake's meaning and many a floundering grad student struggling to grasp Joyce's points. The pretentiousness of this novel ensures there will never be a shortage of criticism about it, and, having the ability to make sense of nonsense allows one to appear cultured and genius-like. This does create a problem when you think about it. Only a few books out of the zillions that have been written are included in the canon, and mostly for their reinforcing our own racial, classist, gendered, and sexual prejudices. Finnegans Wake certainly fits this criteria by being accessible to only, say, 5 people on the planet. This isn't necessarily because of racism or sexism, but because of this idea that the best literature is NOT understood by the lowly masses. "They want John Grisham or Stephenie Meyer? Let them have Joyce!" is probably the best way to put it.
All in all, I can't stand this book. If you want a good post-modern novel, read Kundera or Vonnegut. Finnegans Wake is waste of time (and brain power).
Response 2:
Wow, what can you learn from this book? That Joyce is the self-indulgent, self-mythologizing king of all pretentious literary bullshitters? Yes, that's probably the most important thing. Other possible conclusions: (1) the canonical status of this book indicates the insanity of the canon and of current literary studies; (2) it's possible to publish a totally unreadable book that will become assigned reading for grad students if you spin your public image just right. Way to go, Mr Joyce.
Response 3:
What an epic waste of time. This "book" is written in a hugely experimental style. It makes Ulysses seem like a straight forward children's book by comparison. The only pleasure I got at all from reading this book was by getting drunk with my friends and taking turns reading it out loud. That fun Only lasted for about three quarters of a page. there were over 700 pages.
Response 4:
I actually read the whole thing, if you could call it reading. None of it made any sense at all, so it was really just reading random words for 700 pages. I even bought a companion book called "Joyce's Book of the Dark" to try to help me get through it. I finally just gave up on the companion book because it admitted that Wake made no sense and any analysis of it was pretty much just grasping at straws.
If I could say anything about this book it is that Joyce either fooled the critics with steam of consciousness nonsense or that his experiment was so involved and convoluted that only he gets what he was trying to do. Either way, it is my opinion that this book is truly unreadable and incomprehensible and that anyone that says they got any meaning out of this book other than mind numbing confusion is lying.
This book is the one that just by its inclusion into the Modern Library's list of the top 100 English novels of the 20th century shows that this list is indeed a fraud.
Response 5:
When I first embarked on reading the 100 Best 20th Century novels, the first one I read was Ulysses by James Joyce. It was a very difficult read and I felt pretty accomplished when I made it through. Now that I’ve gotten to Finnegan’s Wake, Ulysses is just a walk in the park.
This novel is not really a novel in any traditional sense of the word. Or any untraditional sense of the word. No characters, no plot, no narrative to speak of. It’s really more a collection of words than a novel. And a lot of those words are ones Joyce made up. Plus, even the words I as a reader was familiar with often didn’t relate in any way to the other words around them. Joyce did create some clever bits in the use of language, funny juxtapositions, and references, but I realized that any of those could have been used to far greater effect in a “real” story. It grew tiresome after the first 30 pages or so (and that was about 5% of the book’s length). I have no idea why this book is considered such a classic piece of literature, and I have nothing but sympathy for anyone else who has to or even attempts to “read” it.
Yes, I hated it. Probably the worst book I’ve ever slogged my way through.
Response 6:
Absolutely horrendous. Can't even get past the first page, I may as well be reading another language. It's the absolute height of arrogance to make up words and then use them as if you expect everybody to understand what the hell you're going on about. Give me a time machine and I'll go back and punch James Joyce in the face.

Comments