Tuesday, April 29, 2025

The key to Finnegans Wake - there is a limit to all things so this will never do

Over the last month I read Finnegans Wake (1939).  I first read some bits of it in college, in a Norton Anthology of British Literature, and other, although mostly the same, bits occasionally, mostly to remind myself what they looked like.  Anyone interested in literature should sometime read a few pages just to see what it looks like.  Last year I became curious about how readers saw Joyce’s text while it was appearing in various magazines as Work in Progress.  Did I miss the book that collects and discusses these first pieces?  Enough are in the public domain now to make an interesting book.  Admittedly at some point the map becomes the territory, and printing all of Work in Progress is just publishing Finnegans Wake in a screwy order.

Speaking of which, this is going to be a true ramble.  I read without a key or a guide, although I certainly looked up plenty of things.  Finnegans Wake is a book for people who like to look things up.  But I mostly just read it, or at least looked at it.  I looked at every word, mostly in order.

Now, kapnimancy and infusionism may both fit as tight as two trivets but while we in our wee free state, holding to that prestatute in our charter, may have our irremovable doubts as to the whole sense of the lot, the interpretation of any phrase in the whole, the meaning of every word of a phrase so far deciphered out of it, however unfettered our Irish daily independence, we must vaunt no idle dubiosity as to its genuine authorship and holusbolus authoritativeness. (117-8)

The bold is mine, a desperate attempt to extract meaning from mishmash but the words are Joyce’s.  He knows how this looks.  And this is, as Finnegans Wake goes, almost a plain old sentence.  I was always amused when a plain old sentence appeared, like:

But the strangest thing happened.  (470)

Or:

All the world loves a big gleaming jelly.  (274)

Or:

That is more than I can fix, for the teom bihan, anyway.  So let I and you now kindly drop that, angryman!  That’s not French pastry.  You can take it from me.  (412)

A genuine key to Finnegans Wake is that much of the text is on one level speech, so hearing it in the voice of your favorite ranting Irishman solves a number of problems; “teom bihan” becomes easy enough.  I used the voice of the great Jinx Lennon (explore widely, but be warned that Jinx is noisy).  It helped to make him drunker and more into wordplay.  Puns, the puns, the endless puns.

Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you’re going to be Mister Finnagain!  Comeday morm and, O you’re vine!  Sendday’s eve and, ah, you’re vinegar!  Hahahaha, Mister Funn, you’re going to be fined again!

And this with poor Finnegan stretched out dead right in front of this joker.  Although he does get better.  This passage is a just example of Joyce’s bad habit of working through every combination, which I may complain about more later, but my question here is: Should, and I mean this as an ethical question, should the pun be the fundamental principle of prose writing?

(technologically, let me say, the appetizing entry of this subject on a fool chest of vialds is plumply pudding the carp before doevre hors) (164)

I mean, that is what I call a groaner.  This is the section where Brutus and Cassius assassinate Caesar but have been turned into Butter and Cheese, so there are food puns everywhere.  Multilingual food puns.  Omnilingual everything puns.

Somewhere I remember Anthony Burgess writing that he found a good laugh on every page of Finnegans Wake.  My rate was not so high.  I got a good laugh here:

… and by all means, after a good ground kiss to Terracussa and for wars luck our lefftoff's flung over our home homoplate, cling to it as with drowning hands, hoping against hope all the while that, by the light of philophosy, (and may she never folsage us!) things will begin to clear up a bit one way or another within the next quarrel of an hour and be hanged to them as ten to one they will too, please the pigs, as they ought to categorically, as, stricly between ourselves, there is a limit to all things so this will never do.  (119)

I sound like I am complaining.  Yes and no.  Let’s ramble for another couple of days.  I may eventually draw near a point.

5 comments:

  1. I love FW and I really enjoyed your review. Please write more! Lisa Hill, anzlitlovers.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, thanks! Encouragement is always appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I enjoyed the excerpts you quote here enough to dip into Finnegan again!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I too have dipped into FW over the years, starting in college and continuing erratically (enjoying the erotics of errata ad libitum) over the years; I have in fact two copies, one densely annotated and the other not. I have accepted that I will almost certainly never actually read the damn thing, and I tip all my hats to you for doing so (in a mere month no less): respect! But:

    should the pun be the fundamental principle of prose writing?

    No it should not. It is a delicious spice in moderation, but used to excess it clogs the senses and clouds the mind. To me, Joyce is one of those authors who go off the deep end as their careers progress, like Bely and Pound (as opposed to those who simply deteriorate, like Turgenev and Hemingway). The pun is fun but has no protein.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is a very dippable book. I have a vague sense that readers used to poetry and nonsense are more likely to want to dip into such a thing. We are used to reading things like it.

    But as much as I love "The Hunting of the Snark" would I be happier if it were 600 pages long? No! No! Section by section, not just overall, Joyce goes too far. For my tastes. Apparently for the diehard Wake decoders there is no such thing as too far.

    ReplyDelete