Talk:Finnegans Wake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comment

The recent revision, under the heading "keep it simple" is, it seems to me, exactly counter to the entire philosophy of Finnegans Wake. The idea, it seems to me, is to produce a page which in some sense accurately reflects the material of the book. Making it overly accessible destroys any relationship the article may have to the book itself. Is this wrong headed? Further, the Wakes references to Vico go far beyond what is stated in the New Science, and are much deeper than the simple notion of "rising out of barbarism." I think the point is one of deeper cycles in the mentality of aeons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.142.92 (talk) 021:48, 10 August 2004 (UTC)

• Well, I checked out the revisions to this article by User:Kerberos and they look like plain old wikification and copyediting to me. Is there anything in particular that you object to, or that you'd rather have changed? --Ardonik 22:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

• • I just reverted the old text back to what it was, as I think it is both more reflective of what the wake is really about, and more closely linked to the spirit of what Joyce was after. However, if the consensus is one that we should stick to simplicity for some reason, then I won't argue much. However, I think if this is the case, I would prefer to completely delete the section I initially added, as the "simplification" offered by Kerberos, is, from my point of view, neither accurate nor does it provide any real insight into the text itself.

• • • What I mean by "keeping it simple" is to avoid interpretation that is not helpful to a new reader and leads instead to just this sort of argument. My feeling is that it is "overly" simplistic to reduce the structure of Joyce's Wake to a likewise overly simplistic characterization of Vico (namely, the so-called 3 ages). Both Vico and Joyce are, as you say, much more complex than that, and it is unfair to to both them and the reader to pretend otherwise. Perhaps "clarity" is a better word. The purpose of an encyclopedia entry is to describe the topic in a neutral way, not to "reflect" it or assert a thesis. It is definitely worth bringing up Vico, but you should not insist on your own view of how Vico is used by Joyce -- let alone what Vico means -- just on the fact that Vico is used in the Wake. This is a collaborative effort. And it is just a short encyclopedia entry. --Kerberos

• • • The rest of the article is not coy about the depths of complexity and "shimmering" layers of meaning. In fact, that's exactly what it describes. And the changes to your addition simply integrated the new paragraph with the rest of the article, emphasizing the interaction of different themes. I'm restoring it.

== Why I changed "collected works" back to "New Science." Vico is known for only 2 works, the New Science and his Autobiography. The latter is also drawn on by Joyce (of course), but I think for the purpose of this section we are talking only about the New Science. --Kerberos

That is wrong. Please look deeper. You are making incorrect statements, and they are not improving the page.

• Please explain.

==Problematic paragraphs

These two paragraphs seem to contain some problematic (or dubious) statements about the nature of dreaming, the psychology of consciousness, and language. I don't even understand what the second (Yet this is...) is trying to suggest).

The language is like that of a dream, not quite conscious or formed, shimmering with layers of possible meaning. Yet this is a return to possibility, shaped by the experiences of the world we have fallen (into sleep) from.

In that sense, the book can be seen to have abandoned many of the conventions of the waking mind to embody the working of the sleeping mind. In dreaming, the images and plots that we perceive are not distinct or discreet – they shift and conglomerate and constantly reform. Joyce captures this protean quality of dreams through complex puns and layering of meaning (often contradictory). Though he writes "however basically English" (page 116, line 26), he universalizes the "dream" by incorporating dozens of other languages and argots.

68.118.61.219 03:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• These statements are consistent with how the book works. I think the return to possibility easily follows from the previous statement about "not quite formed possible meaning." They may be open to improvement, but they are essential to describing Finnegans Wake, so I restored them. Your switching the order of the two sections, by the way, was a great idea. Kerberos

Featured Article

This article will be a Featured Article. Lets get serious here. This is a modern masterpiece and we are working on an open-source encyclopedia. Lets get an image of the first edition text up, along with an image of Work in Progress. Maybe the shot of Joyce at his most miserable, wearing the eye-patch and the whole bit. I'll look forward to working with everyone here to bring this article up to the level that it deserves.--Gaff ^talk 06:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think it will be featured? --robotwisdom 11:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• It has potential. But lets not get into a debate on whether or not it will ever be Featured, but instead just focus on developing the article. --Gaff ^talk

Finnegans Wake is a widely accepted masterpiece of modern literature.

I think the 1st sentence should acknowledge that most literary people thinks it's insane.

James Joyce's final novel, it was finally published in 1939.

final/finally is awkward.

Seventeen years of labor and travail transpired prior to its publication.

Really awkward

Following the publication of Ulysses in 1922, installments of what was then known as Work in Progress gradually began to appear.

add here: Joyce privately told his patroness Harriet Weaver that it was to be "a history of the world."

The final title of the work remained a secret between the writer and his wife, Nora Barnacle.

Some admirers of Ulysses were disappointed that none of its characters reappeared in the new work, and that Joyce's linguistic experiments were making it increasingly difficult to pick out any continuous thread of a plot.

Under Joyce's direction a dozen supporters, including Samuel Beckett and William Carlos Williams, published a book of essays in 1929 defending and explaining the new work under the title Our Exagmination Round His Factification For Incamination Of Work In Progress.

Joyce died less than two years after it was published, leaving a work whose interpretation is still very much "in progress". --robotwisdom 17:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Responding to some of the above:

I think the 1st sentence should acknowledge that most literary people thinks it's insane.

• To quote Bill Lumbergh, "I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one."

final/finally is awkward.

• Good point. feel free to change that.

Really awkward

• How so?

• Happy editing.--Gaff ^talk 18:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wording the text of the article

The following discussion began on a usertalkpage, but I move it here for the benefit of all interested parties.--Gaff ^talk 23:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see your claims reagrding "hero worship" on this one. Widely held to be Joyce's masterpiece, this article sits in much need of improvement. I foresee featured article staus if its polished up to its desserts. Hope you are willing to collaborate on that endeavor rather than denigrate the work ongoing.--09:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Masterpiece" is a word insinuating that the book is any good, and therefore goes against NPOV. Too many people, including Joyce's own brother, believe that the work is the shoddy creation of an unstable mind for it to be called "masterpiece" here. Furthermore, removing hero worship is just as much "collaboration" as anything else, so don't accuse me of doing wrong to the article, when I am merely trying to temper the statements of people who have too much personal sentiment invested in the article.

Fair enough. I'll not cling to the issue of masterpiece status on this. Although there are likely reputable literary sources that would support such a claim. (As an aside, since when are works by unstable minds in arts&letters automatically denied masterpiece status. Did Van Gogh produce any masterpieces?) But really, not worth taking issue with. "Labor and travail" are not necessarily hero worship, as from my readings on Joyce's life, it seems like that is what it took to get this things published. By the way, I'll copy and move this discussion to the articles talk page rather than your usertalk page, so all parties interested in collaborating on this may participate in the discussion. Happy editing.--Gaff ^talk 23:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Also, I wrote that it was "a widely accepted masterpiece of modern literature." This is not against NPOV if it is reference to expert opinion. If I wrote that it was "the greatest book that I have ver written and I think that it is a masterpiece," that would be against NPOV. --Gaff ^talk 23:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe I will argue a little over the NPOV issue. Here is the text from another article (italics added for effect): Vincent Willem van Gogh (March 30, 1853 – July 29, 1890) was a Dutch painter, generally considered one of the greatest painters in European art history.--Gaff ^talk 00:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Reworking the article

After a short push in October discussion here seems to have dried up. My thoughts are that this article, despite the noble attempts by various obviously knowledgable editors, remains pretty mediocre. The task of writing a concise informational piece on the Wake is really not an easy one, but I think that we can work together to create something much better than what we have here.

• To begin, I think that the Controversy section should be reworked into an overview of the historical circumstances around the publication and interpretation of Finnegans Wake. Rather than focusing on what people believe about the book, we might focus on why someone might care at all about what people believe about it. Does that make sense?

• Second, I think we might do away with the attempt at a synopsis altogether and focus instead on a discussion of different schools of thought on how the language in the Wake works. Anyone feel strongly against this? I have come to feel this way because it seems that having a synopsis is really kind of misleading for anyone who doesn't have experience with the book. Perhaps a discussion of the 'narrativity rather than narrative' (to quote Derek Attridge) that the book is filled with might be more apt and interesting and truthful (though admittedly, not very straightforward.)

• Third, we really need to perhaps focus on citing sources more in this article and excluding original interpretations (as painful as that may be).

• And ultimately, perhaps the article need not be so concise. I could envision this article as beginning with three or four well-written shortish sections explaining the historical, social, and linguistic facts around the book and then going off into a few, perhaps longer, sections in which various interpretations of specific aspects of the book are presented (for example, a section on the use of Vico in the Wake, or the Egyptian BOD). These sections could be kept under control by focusing on citing sources and avoiding original research and interpretations (unless they've been published elsewhere).

I don't want to begin any large-scale restructuring of the page until people have a chance to voice other feelings on this. Any thoughts?

Gracehoper 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be in hurry to jettison great loads of potentially useful stuff. I'd rather someone improve the synopis section, with appropriate references or whatever, than lose it. Meanwhile, I've just gone over the whole thing and done some light cleaning up throughout. It needs more, but it should now be a bit more readable (e.g. I've broken up some of the huge dense paras) and easier for editors to work with. Metamagician3000 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Overall I thought that the article was fair. It balances those voices who say that it is a masterpiece with those think the reverse. It uses the word 'controversial' and gives a fair idea of the density and complexity of the work. FW is undoubtedly a very difficult read. Whether or not it's a masterpiece must be left up the individual reader.SmokeyTheCat 11:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend moving the "Characters" before the "Plot summary". I would also flesh out the characters, explaining, for example that "Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker (HCE) appears under many different names, usually with the initials HCE, and is said to represent ..." I also think the section should say that, when discussing the book, readers typically refer to Earwicker and Plurabelle simply as HCE and ALP. This is what is done throughout the plot summary, but it is never explained clearly to the reader of the article.

There are two articles about the schemata to Ulysses: Linati schema for Ulysses and Gilbert schema for Ulysses. I have a photocopy somewhere of a "family tree" of the Wake, showing the various names by which the characters are called. I'll see if I can incorporate part of it into the "Characters" section, with proper attribution. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Other references section

I removed this section of the article for two reasons: One, the whole thing seemed a bit trivial in that it was merely composed of listings of stories and books in which some aspect of the Wake was mentioned and a list of this kind could really go on forever without adding too much value to an article about Finnegans Wake. Two, I could see from the recent deletion of an editor's addition to the list that it was destined to spark arguments over what did and did not belong there. I did not see that the most recent addition was anymore "dubious" than any of the previous ones (unless it was deleted based on the fact that the book was written by someone with the pen-name Eminemsrevenge, but I don't think we want to begin judging literature based on what we think of people's chosen names). The only thing that seemed dubious to me was the list as a whole.

Perhaps this section can be rethought and brought back into the article. Thoughts?

-Gracehoper 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Gracehoper. Kerberos 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see something on its influence. I haven't checked what was there previously, but surely it's notable, for example, that Samuel R. Delany's Dhalgren imitates its circular structure, and much of its feel - though it is nowhere near as inaccessible. There must be other good, clear examples like this. Metamagician3000 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of good examples like that, I agree. One of the great things about Finnegans Wake is that it has inspired so many people in their own artistic endeavors. The list is impressive for a book widely considered "unread". I do think that a section on this sort of thing would add to the article's helpfulness, but the current form it had been taking did not seem like it was moving in the right direction which is why I suggested that it be rethought. What is needed is more than just a list of books that reference FW; the section would be better as a discussion of works that take substantial inspiration from the book. A lot of work in music, theatre, poetry, and film could be discussed along with the numerous sci-fi novelists who like mentioning the Wake. -Gracehoper 00:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't mean for that to sound dismissive of those "numerous sci-fi novelists" (I really like many of them.) Gracehoper

Magrath

Don't know much about this, but I did link Miler Magrath here, on the understanding that the character Magrath owes something to the reputation of this historical figure - anyone have further information? I have also been told that the Wake begins to make sense if read in a west Galway accent, like that of Joyce's wife - is that off the wall, or wha'?--Shtove 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Publication history

I removed some details about FW's publication history from the intro because I felt it was distracting in the first paragraph. However, I do think a Publication History section added to this article would be quite handy, and illuminating to those looking for more information about the book. If anyone has access to an accurate listing of the order and location of published sections of FW from 1924-38, I think they would make a great addition. It would be nice also to be able to include a section on the order in which different sections of the book were composed. I'm not the person for that job, but if someone was feeling ambitious that might be a nice addition as well. Any thoughts? Gracehoper 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis?

How come the plot synopsis consists of only A very brief overview of the first 4 chapters and then jumps nearly 500 pages to the final monologue - does the rest of the book not exist? Would anybody object to me writing short synopses for the rest of the chapters?

(On a short aside I think this sort of approach to FW - namely to ignore the vast majority of the book and focus only on the parts that are most easily rendered into narrative - is the reason that Wakean criticism is in such a dire state of affairs, with more experts than people who have actually read the book; but then again that's another topic for another day. Anyhow, off my soapbox for now)Warchef 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Warchef, it's all looking a lot better than I remember it. I just spent an hour and a half going through the plot synopsis making several dozen small edits for style and clarity, and then my browser hung - because I hadn't copied it all onto a text editor and done it there instead - and I lost the lot. Grr. I will now do it all over again from memory. Hopefully it will have been worthwhile. Lexo (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did it. The next thing that needs to be done is to go through the article putting refs at the ends of the sentences, in accordance with WP: References. Having footnotes in the middle of sentences interrupts the flow of the sentence and makes the article harder on the eye.Lexo (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gomma: ALGOL 68 programming language

• Page 373: The phrase "Note the notes of admiration! See the signs of suspicion!Count the hemisemidemicolons! Screamer caps and invented gommas, quoites puntlost, forced to farce!" a premonition of the ALGOL 68 programming language and the acrimonious post-election dialogue that ensued?

NevilleDNZ 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. ALGOL was developed in the late 1950s and Joyce died in 1941. ALGOL may well have been developed with reference to Joyce, but Joyce's book cannot have been a premonition of anything so specific. Lexo (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Romans 11:32

Joseph Campbell has said in Bill Moyers interview the Numbers 11 and 32 that he finds in every chapter FW refers to the theme and correspond to the Bible Books of Romans chapter 11:32. If this is so why should this not be included to FW in Wike? En La Paz 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions for improvement

Ok, I've added a very very brief, and extremely rough outline of the rest of the plot synopsis, which I will be expanding with quotes and references over the next week. Like I say, it's not extremely elegantly written as of now, but at least it now covers all of the books of the novel, and gives more scope for expansion and improvement - but references will be a must for it to be credible given the nature of the book.

I also moved the character analyses which were peppered throughout the plot synopsis down to the character section, these will also have to be tidied up and referenced.

I started a new section on allusions to other works in the wake, which is embarassingly bare bones at the moment, but again opens up the possibility for expansion. I particularly encourage a sub-section on Vico's "New Science" here, with also a bit more detail on the Shakespeare allusions, and those to songs, operas, poems etc in the Wake. This is a happy hunting ground for most critics and there is no shortage of secondary literature out there to help us flesh it out.

I also suggest a '"Finnegans Wake" as dream' section, with references to Joyce's quotes on the matter in Ellman, and John Bishop's excellent "Joyce's Book of the Dark".

Finnegans Wake is a book almost designed for group work and Wikipedia provides us with a great opportunity to all work together to give an interesting, informative encyclopedic insight into the book, and I look forward to seriously pepping up this article with you all! peace Warchef 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

one more point, there should also be a section documenting the serialisation of the book during its gestation, such as "Anna Livia Plurabelle", "Tales Told of Shem and Shaun", "Haveth Childers Evrywhere", "The Triangle", etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warchef (talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarity in article.

It is entirely redundant and unnecessary, in my opinion, to make an encyclopedia article less understandable based on its topic. The goal of an article is to clarify, summarize, and in essence, address the main points of the work in question; our goal is not to write in the JamesJoycean styly. It ads no thing to lucididy and cyarification to obfuscate meeneng.

Elsweyn (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean? What I have been trying to do the last few weeks is to add as many references as possible (the article contained - and continues to contain - astonishing amounts of OR) and secondary sources, so as to present a verifiable and truthful account not only of Joyce's book, but of how people have understood it. Of course that last point is important, as there is no such thing as an accepted summary of Finnegans Wake; no two people agree on what it means, who or what it's about, or why it even exists to begin with. So while i agree with you in theory about the goal of the article being to clarify, summarize and address the main points of the work in question - the other side of the coin is that if people such as Fritz Senn who have been studying the book for over 50 years cannot clraify or summarise the whole book, it would not be honest or encyclopedic here to present a summary on "Wikipedia" as fact. So what clarification and summary means to me is: a person comes to the article, learns about the book, why it is so famous (and infamous), about the style in which it is written, and an idea on some of the more common consensuses of what the book is about - but also gets the idea that such summaries are by no means agreed upon.

So as I think the article is more illuminating and informative than it was before, please bring up any concrete issues you have here on exactly where or how you think clarity is lacking, and we can all address them together. and if there are any sentences which you feel are unclear then either ask about them here, or be bold and go on ahead and improve them yourself - which is of course the idea of this whole thing here :) peace Warchef (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Your emandations have improved the article. I intended to direct my criticism toward the user who posted at the top of the page. It is entirely my accident.

216.115.125.169 20:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)