Greetings! We valiantly worked our way through more than five pages of the Wake this week. Although much of it (and especially 24 and 25) remained opaque, as usual the insights of the group were intensely valuable to trying to grasp (at least parts of) the whole. So, a few thoughts:
24 to 26: seem to incorporate four separate cosmologies/belief systems; the Buddhist, Islamic, Egyptian and Irish. Thus the onomatopoeiac 'clankatachankata' (024.23) combines, according to McHugh, the names of Buddha and Mohammed's horses. 025.05-9 incorporates the milk and honey of the Islamic heaven, whilst 'Totumcalmum' (026.18) is invoked amongst references to the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Perhaps most interesting, however, is the possibility of 'the Liffey that's in Heaven!' (026.08). This facilitates Joyce's allusion to Finnegan and the creation of Dublin, but also strikes me as congruent with the sometimes buried admiration for Dublin that I believe Joyce shows (I'm just about to finish reading Dubliners so perhaps I have the city on my mind.)
026.11-14: A series of allusions here to a mythical being, presumably Finnegan, of enormous stature, whose head is in the heavens, and whose feet are in Dublin. 'Copricapron' (026.12-13) not only incorporates a further astrological reference for the giant being's feet, but is very close to the Greek for 'pig shit'; so perhaps my assumption of Joyce's love for Dublin might not be as justified as I believe!
This section is also notable for the series of references to Twain's Huck Finn.
029.02 'buaboabaybohm' repeats the '4' motif that began to emerge earlier. This time we felt as if the cry was akin to the 'fee, fi, fo, fum' of the archetypal giant. We struggled, however, to incorporate the number of scales that seem to co-exist in this section.
For, less than a page earlier, we have the image of a female character, perhaps ALP, perhaps not, 'sewing a dream together' (028. 07). This appears, at the least, to allude to a growing awareness on ALPs part of the transgression of her husband. This transgression is laid out most clearly for us at the conclusion of Chapter 1, with 'Humme the Cheapner, Esc' (029.18-19) 'ensectuous from his nature' (029.30-31) and 'ultimendly respunchable for the hubbub caused in Edenborough.' (029.35-36).
HCEs trangression is 'cursed and recursed' and he was 'everseen'. (029.09). This suggest both Vico's cyclical view of the world, but the inevitable recourse of this novel, both in its overarching structure (viz. the first sentence continuing the last) but also the continued repetition that we have encountered (and, presumably, will continue to).
I'd be delighted in anybody would like to add some thoughts to my feeble readings. Please comment below.
Our next meeting will be on the 2nd of November, reading from 030.01 to 033.13. See you there! JG
Thursday, 20 October 2011
Thursday, 6 October 2011
021.05 to 024.15
After the relative simplicity of last week we indulged (I would say) in a little bit of wallowing this week. Not to say that our meeting was without benefit, for it was completely the opposite.
We were examining the episode of Jarl van Hoother and the Prankquean, occurring immediately after the coming together of HCE and ALP for the first time in the text. It's still unclear to me if we are given a specific viewpoint over the course of this brief episode—the complexities had us chasing our tales/tails!
Thus, simply a few short observations:
21.18-9: 'Mark the Wans, why do I am alook alike a poss of posterpease?' is the first of a number of iterations of this phrase that introduce the drinkers (four?) knocking on the door of HCEs pub after closing time, asking for more drink. Over the next two pages this phrase is repeated two more times, incorporating a number of additions that make the phrase both static but simultaneously altered each time it is read. This repetition affirms the cyclical nature of the van Hoother/Prankquean section which, from 21 to 23 is reiterated three (or four?) times.
23.5-7 'Perkodhuskurunbarggruauyagokgorlayogromgremmitghundhurthrumathunaradidillifaititillibumullunukkunun' is the second 'thunder word' we encounter in FW. There are 11 throughout the text, the first 10 of 100 letters, the 11th with 101. {Check me out and see if I transcribed it correctly!} I was really excited to see in McHugh's Annotations that this thunder word is essentially the combination of a whole number of (generally) northern European words of thunder. Pretty simple really!
23.10 'flamend floody flatuous world'. I really like this phrase. I was initially most taken by the combination of flame and flood in the first two words of the phrase. I assume it indicated a kind of alchemical (Lou's word) explanation for the existence of Ireland, the combination of fire and water also being important in the van Hoother/Prankquean section. Interestingly enough, the four words produce not just two of the four elements, but all four (fire, water, air, earth). That is, if you're happy to accept that flatulence constitutes air.
23.23-4 'With lipth she lithpeth to him all to time of thuch on thuch and thow on thow.' Following on from Chris Eagle's very interesting seminar on speech pathology in FW, this sentence is important to us. It is the first summary of ALPs speech impediment which occurs throughout the novel. I'm pretty sure a recording of Chris' paper will be made available: definitely worth a listen. If I hear any more I'll post a link here.
24.7 'Unfru-Chikda-Uru-Wukru' appeared completely mystifying to me. McHugh glosses this phrase as Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker, our venerable pseudo-protagonist. As Chris demonstrated, it definitely sounds more like HCEs name when your first is in your mouth!
As always, please comment! Whether it be to tell me I've got it wrong or that I've missed something. There's very little chance I've got anything right!
Next meeting will be 19 October, reading 24.16 to 29.36. (and then onwards to Book I, Chapter 2!) JG
We were examining the episode of Jarl van Hoother and the Prankquean, occurring immediately after the coming together of HCE and ALP for the first time in the text. It's still unclear to me if we are given a specific viewpoint over the course of this brief episode—the complexities had us chasing our tales/tails!
Thus, simply a few short observations:
21.18-9: 'Mark the Wans, why do I am alook alike a poss of posterpease?' is the first of a number of iterations of this phrase that introduce the drinkers (four?) knocking on the door of HCEs pub after closing time, asking for more drink. Over the next two pages this phrase is repeated two more times, incorporating a number of additions that make the phrase both static but simultaneously altered each time it is read. This repetition affirms the cyclical nature of the van Hoother/Prankquean section which, from 21 to 23 is reiterated three (or four?) times.
23.5-7 'Perkodhuskurunbarggruauyagokgorlayogromgremmitghundhurthrumathunaradidillifaititillibumullunukkunun' is the second 'thunder word' we encounter in FW. There are 11 throughout the text, the first 10 of 100 letters, the 11th with 101. {Check me out and see if I transcribed it correctly!} I was really excited to see in McHugh's Annotations that this thunder word is essentially the combination of a whole number of (generally) northern European words of thunder. Pretty simple really!
23.10 'flamend floody flatuous world'. I really like this phrase. I was initially most taken by the combination of flame and flood in the first two words of the phrase. I assume it indicated a kind of alchemical (Lou's word) explanation for the existence of Ireland, the combination of fire and water also being important in the van Hoother/Prankquean section. Interestingly enough, the four words produce not just two of the four elements, but all four (fire, water, air, earth). That is, if you're happy to accept that flatulence constitutes air.
23.23-4 'With lipth she lithpeth to him all to time of thuch on thuch and thow on thow.' Following on from Chris Eagle's very interesting seminar on speech pathology in FW, this sentence is important to us. It is the first summary of ALPs speech impediment which occurs throughout the novel. I'm pretty sure a recording of Chris' paper will be made available: definitely worth a listen. If I hear any more I'll post a link here.
24.7 'Unfru-Chikda-Uru-Wukru' appeared completely mystifying to me. McHugh glosses this phrase as Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker, our venerable pseudo-protagonist. As Chris demonstrated, it definitely sounds more like HCEs name when your first is in your mouth!
As always, please comment! Whether it be to tell me I've got it wrong or that I've missed something. There's very little chance I've got anything right!
Next meeting will be 19 October, reading 24.16 to 29.36. (and then onwards to Book I, Chapter 2!) JG
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Chris Eagle on the Wake
Chris Eagle, a member of our reading group, will be presenting a paper, '"Creative Stuttering": On Speech Pathology in Deleuze and Joyce', on Wednesday 5 October from 11 to 12:30. This fits in perfectly with our next meeting, which begins at 1pm.
Abstract and details are below.
In his essay “He Stuttered,” Gilles Deleuze lays out three different possibilities for the incorporation of stuttering effects into literary works. The first is to transcribe stuttered speech directly into the text. The second is to describe the stutter without actually transcribing it. With the third possibility, what Deleuze calls “creative stuttering,” the writer need not portray a stuttering character at all since “it is no longer the character who stutters in speech; it is the writer who becomes a stutterer in language.” As examples of this final and more radical possibility, Deleuze cites the styles of writers like Kafka, Beckett, Artaud, and Melville, among others. It is safe to say that James Joyce's name is conspicuous in its absence from Deleuze's list of creative stutterers, and in this talk, I will address the extent to which Deleuze's three categories apply to Finnegans Wake. My discussion of Finnegans Wake will focus primarily on those two scenes in which stuttering is foregrounded, the well-known Cad scene from Book I (pp. 35-36) and the Inquest scene from Book III (pp. 532-534).
Abstract and details are below.
The Writing and Society Research Group
at the University of Western Sydney
is pleased to present
Chris Eagle
on “Creative Stuttering” : On Speech Pathology in Deleuze and Joyce’
Wednesday 5 October
11.00am-12.30pm
Building 1.1.119, Bankstown campus, Bullecourt Ave, Milperra
via the Henry Lawson Drive exit of the M5
In his essay “He Stuttered,” Gilles Deleuze lays out three different possibilities for the incorporation of stuttering effects into literary works. The first is to transcribe stuttered speech directly into the text. The second is to describe the stutter without actually transcribing it. With the third possibility, what Deleuze calls “creative stuttering,” the writer need not portray a stuttering character at all since “it is no longer the character who stutters in speech; it is the writer who becomes a stutterer in language.” As examples of this final and more radical possibility, Deleuze cites the styles of writers like Kafka, Beckett, Artaud, and Melville, among others. It is safe to say that James Joyce's name is conspicuous in its absence from Deleuze's list of creative stutterers, and in this talk, I will address the extent to which Deleuze's three categories apply to Finnegans Wake. My discussion of Finnegans Wake will focus primarily on those two scenes in which stuttering is foregrounded, the well-known Cad scene from Book I (pp. 35-36) and the Inquest scene from Book III (pp. 532-534).
Thursday, 22 September 2011
018.17 to 021.04
I'd have to say that yesterday's meeting was the most productive we've had so far—as you can tell by the fact that we basically worked our way through just the two and a half pages!
We emerge, perhaps still coming out of the 'museyroom', into a world that is suffering under god's punishment after he destroyed the tower of babel, calling forth different languages into the world. Hence we are asked if we are 'abcedminded' (018.17). We are introduced to the 'meandertale' (018.22) which appears to be the eternally present crime of HCE.
Pages 18 and 19 reinforce the sensation of the importance of language, especially noticeable in Joyce's extensive use of alliteration and assonance. In 018.24-29 the repetition of sounds emphasises (according to McHugh) the "Buddhistic 12-fold chain of dependent origination", which, funnily enough, begins and ends with 'ignorance' and implies a cyclical view of human society just like Vico's New Science.
The pre-history of Ireland continues on 19, with HCEs crime made parallel with the invasion of Ireland by the Vikings. We're also given a series of references to St Patrick, who drove the snakes (presumably both metaphorical and literal) out of Ireland. Of course, Joyce's mention of snakes is fitting, considering the ambiguities of HCEs indiscretion, considering what HCE might 'have in [his] handself'. (020.21). The snake, whilst alluding to the serpent of christian theology, may also refer to HCEs characterisation of ALP who is referred to as a 'snaky woman' a page or so later. (020.33)
019.20-30 contains, aside from HCEs crime, a series of numerical references which are still partially unclear to me. Most interesting is 019.20, which we didn't look at in the meeting: 'Axe on thwanks on thracks, anxenwise.' McHugh suggests there is a mathematical clue hidden here with the first three 'ex' sounds producing (x+x+x) and 'axenwise' equalling (x+y). Then, according to McHugh, (and I don't know where he gets the values from), if x=1 and y=36, then (x+x+x)(multipled by)(x+y)(=)111. Then the next sentence 'One by one place one by three dittoh and one before' (019.20-21) seems to produce the 3 and 2 that were crucial to us last time (viz. 013.33 and 014.11). These numbers also replicate the scene in Phoenix Park, which is the site of HCEs indiscretion.
This similarity then reinforces the importance of the parabolic image I was talking about in my last post, which is replicated in the mirror image sentences of 018.33 and 34: 'Here say figurines billycoose arming and mounting. Mounting and arming bellicose figurines see here.'
20 and 21 continue on with the focus on the alphabet, with a dual range of references to Islamic theology and the German language. Joyce manages to slip in 'no more virtue in the alocohoran' (020.9-10), whilst considering Guthenberg's invention (cf. 'Gutenmorg' 020.07).
Finally, as HCEs crime emerges into the world, it appears as if the first iteration of its telling occurs as well. After all: 'eerie whig's a bit of a torytale to tell.' (020.23) {Everyone one's got a bit of a story to tell.} The allusions to whigs and tory's refer, I believe, to Gulliver's main satiric focus in his Travels, although I wonder if there is an application to Irish politics as well. We end with ALP (perhaps having pecked her way to finding a letter) meeting up with HCE on 021.03-04.
Next week we'll read the tale of Jarl van Hoother and the Prankquean, from 021.05 to 024.14. Next meeting 5 October, same time and place, and hopefuly co-inciding with Chris Eagle's paper on the Wake from 11. Check the Writing and Society page, for more details (although this still indicates Chris' paper will be next week).
I'd love to hear your comments, and to use this forum to expand our reading even further. It'd be great if you could 'follow' this blog as well (I believe there's a button for it somewhere!) JG
We emerge, perhaps still coming out of the 'museyroom', into a world that is suffering under god's punishment after he destroyed the tower of babel, calling forth different languages into the world. Hence we are asked if we are 'abcedminded' (018.17). We are introduced to the 'meandertale' (018.22) which appears to be the eternally present crime of HCE.
Pages 18 and 19 reinforce the sensation of the importance of language, especially noticeable in Joyce's extensive use of alliteration and assonance. In 018.24-29 the repetition of sounds emphasises (according to McHugh) the "Buddhistic 12-fold chain of dependent origination", which, funnily enough, begins and ends with 'ignorance' and implies a cyclical view of human society just like Vico's New Science.
The pre-history of Ireland continues on 19, with HCEs crime made parallel with the invasion of Ireland by the Vikings. We're also given a series of references to St Patrick, who drove the snakes (presumably both metaphorical and literal) out of Ireland. Of course, Joyce's mention of snakes is fitting, considering the ambiguities of HCEs indiscretion, considering what HCE might 'have in [his] handself'. (020.21). The snake, whilst alluding to the serpent of christian theology, may also refer to HCEs characterisation of ALP who is referred to as a 'snaky woman' a page or so later. (020.33)
019.20-30 contains, aside from HCEs crime, a series of numerical references which are still partially unclear to me. Most interesting is 019.20, which we didn't look at in the meeting: 'Axe on thwanks on thracks, anxenwise.' McHugh suggests there is a mathematical clue hidden here with the first three 'ex' sounds producing (x+x+x) and 'axenwise' equalling (x+y). Then, according to McHugh, (and I don't know where he gets the values from), if x=1 and y=36, then (x+x+x)(multipled by)(x+y)(=)111. Then the next sentence 'One by one place one by three dittoh and one before' (019.20-21) seems to produce the 3 and 2 that were crucial to us last time (viz. 013.33 and 014.11). These numbers also replicate the scene in Phoenix Park, which is the site of HCEs indiscretion.
This similarity then reinforces the importance of the parabolic image I was talking about in my last post, which is replicated in the mirror image sentences of 018.33 and 34: 'Here say figurines billycoose arming and mounting. Mounting and arming bellicose figurines see here.'
20 and 21 continue on with the focus on the alphabet, with a dual range of references to Islamic theology and the German language. Joyce manages to slip in 'no more virtue in the alocohoran' (020.9-10), whilst considering Guthenberg's invention (cf. 'Gutenmorg' 020.07).
Finally, as HCEs crime emerges into the world, it appears as if the first iteration of its telling occurs as well. After all: 'eerie whig's a bit of a torytale to tell.' (020.23) {Everyone one's got a bit of a story to tell.} The allusions to whigs and tory's refer, I believe, to Gulliver's main satiric focus in his Travels, although I wonder if there is an application to Irish politics as well. We end with ALP (perhaps having pecked her way to finding a letter) meeting up with HCE on 021.03-04.
Next week we'll read the tale of Jarl van Hoother and the Prankquean, from 021.05 to 024.14. Next meeting 5 October, same time and place, and hopefuly co-inciding with Chris Eagle's paper on the Wake from 11. Check the Writing and Society page, for more details (although this still indicates Chris' paper will be next week).
I'd love to hear your comments, and to use this forum to expand our reading even further. It'd be great if you could 'follow' this blog as well (I believe there's a button for it somewhere!) JG
Thursday, 8 September 2011
013.05 to 018.16
We're making some progress! Despite being over-ambitious in trying to read nine pages for this meeting, we did an admirable job to work through almost six.
The pages we looked at encompass what Joyce calls "the pre-history of Ireland" and the meeting of Mutt and Jute, respectively the Irish everyman and the Nordic invader.
13-14 seems to include a significant number of mathematical games, which are not immediately clear. So 013.14 "Dbln. W. K. O. O." hides a pseudo-mathematical pattern. As McHugh points out, if A=1, B=2, C=3 and so on, then DBLN (4+2+12+14) = 32. This then explains the following 'W. K. O. O.' because (23+11+15+15) = 64. So you double 'Dbln' to produce double the value of Dublin. Or something.
This produces further insight if we consider the dates that Joyce uses on 13-14: 1132 AD, 566 AD, a silent point, and the returning, up what I envisage as a parabolic figure, encased in the text. 1132 is double 566, but also includes other items of significance. According to Chris, 3 men and 2 women is the beginning of a society (hence relevant to the pre-history of Ireland) whilst the 11 signifies the beginning of a new society (as Lachlan pointed out, once you count to ten on your fingers you have to begin again). 1132 is also 4 times (x) 283 AD, the year that Finn MacCool died. fweet.org has a lot more to say on the motif of 1132.
I also really enjoyed the allusions to the Tower of Babel. 015.12-27 includes a series of references to the Babylonians, who were so proud of themselves that they sought to build a tower to the heavens. Of course, god didn't like this, and his punishment, aside from destroying the tower, was to scatter the tribes across the earth, and to give each tribe a different language, so that the world would be a confused place (still is...). This sensation is then partially repeated in the following paragraph (and across the dialogue between Mutt and Jute) as languages begin to clash; first with the shift from romantic language portmanteau's to linguistic references from the Low Countries. Just like Mutt and Jute struggle to find a common ground to understand each other.
We concluded with Lou and Miri reading the conversation between Mutt and Jute, which was hilarious.
For full and fair disclosure the Herald re-printed the Guardian's review of the Bowker biography of Joyce. Despite the unhappy headline, it is a more positive review. Find it HERE.
As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts, please comment below.
Next meeting will be 21 September, same time and place. We'll read from 018.17 to 023.16.
See you there! JG
The pages we looked at encompass what Joyce calls "the pre-history of Ireland" and the meeting of Mutt and Jute, respectively the Irish everyman and the Nordic invader.
13-14 seems to include a significant number of mathematical games, which are not immediately clear. So 013.14 "Dbln. W. K. O. O." hides a pseudo-mathematical pattern. As McHugh points out, if A=1, B=2, C=3 and so on, then DBLN (4+2+12+14) = 32. This then explains the following 'W. K. O. O.' because (23+11+15+15) = 64. So you double 'Dbln' to produce double the value of Dublin. Or something.
This produces further insight if we consider the dates that Joyce uses on 13-14: 1132 AD, 566 AD, a silent point, and the returning, up what I envisage as a parabolic figure, encased in the text. 1132 is double 566, but also includes other items of significance. According to Chris, 3 men and 2 women is the beginning of a society (hence relevant to the pre-history of Ireland) whilst the 11 signifies the beginning of a new society (as Lachlan pointed out, once you count to ten on your fingers you have to begin again). 1132 is also 4 times (x) 283 AD, the year that Finn MacCool died. fweet.org has a lot more to say on the motif of 1132.
I also really enjoyed the allusions to the Tower of Babel. 015.12-27 includes a series of references to the Babylonians, who were so proud of themselves that they sought to build a tower to the heavens. Of course, god didn't like this, and his punishment, aside from destroying the tower, was to scatter the tribes across the earth, and to give each tribe a different language, so that the world would be a confused place (still is...). This sensation is then partially repeated in the following paragraph (and across the dialogue between Mutt and Jute) as languages begin to clash; first with the shift from romantic language portmanteau's to linguistic references from the Low Countries. Just like Mutt and Jute struggle to find a common ground to understand each other.
We concluded with Lou and Miri reading the conversation between Mutt and Jute, which was hilarious.
For full and fair disclosure the Herald re-printed the Guardian's review of the Bowker biography of Joyce. Despite the unhappy headline, it is a more positive review. Find it HERE.
As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts, please comment below.
Next meeting will be 21 September, same time and place. We'll read from 018.17 to 023.16.
See you there! JG
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
007.20 to 013.04
Hi all, and apologies for the delay in posting again.
We met last Wednesday to read from 007.20 to 013.04, delving primarily into the history of the United Kingdom (and of Ireland) in the Wellingdone "museyroom". ("Mind your hats goan in!")
Aside from Wellington's "big white harse", a little bit the body, and a little bit his horse Copenhagen (thanks Jamie for this titbit), there remains, I believe, a bit of a conflict in this section. The conflict is in the multitude of settings that the reader is supposed to anticipate here: So, aside from the museum itself, the text also inhabits the dream of HCE, hence the "tip"ing at the window, the tapping of a tree branch against a window.
The martial allusions that Joyce pursues are more clear: from World War One references to the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. The breadth of Joyce's allusions calls to mind another question for me though: if Joyce is not merely examining British (and Irish) martial history, then the museum is a much more extended space than we may have anticipated.
Aside from these questions, we liked the rhythm that Joyce produces on p. 8, both from ll. 11-14, in which he begins from a simple(ish) statement, then growing more complicated, before returning to some simplicity at the end, perhaps at odds to the counting of 010.32-34.
ALP's appearance (dreamed or otherwise) was our final focus of the reading. Lachlan explained the image of ALP as hen, pecking away at the scrap heap, in hindsight approximating the "tip" that Joyce repeats throughout the museum section. The lightning and thunder of p. 11 suggest a precursor to the fall of HCE that we're all anticipating; a fall that may perhaps be repeated eternally if a phrase such as "to steal out historic presents from the past postpropheticals" (011.30-31) is as significant as it appears.
Of course, there's not only cyclical views of history on show, but biblical allusions as well, as Noah's flood is made reference to shortly after. And finally we're left with the (despairing) exclamation "So This Is Dyoublong?", not just encapsulating some disappointment at the provincial nature of Dublin, but also asking do we belong?
As always comments are most welcome! I'd love some additions to my free association rambling!
A number of other notices:
Miri is doing a short performance as part of the UNSW postgrad symposium—a piece on Anna Livia, including excerpts from the Wake. On at the Dance Studio, Webster Building, 6:45, Friday 9 September.
A colleague, and potential reading group member, Chris Eagle, will be presenting a paper on the Wake to the Writing and Society Research Group on Wednesday the 28th of September from 11 to 12:30 in room 1.1.119, just down the corridor from where we meet.
Also, you may have seen a review of a new Joyce biography by Gordon Bowker, in Review. Not very positive—I'll stick with Ellmann for the time being! Review HERE.
We're reading from 013.05 to 021.04, meeting Wednesday 7 September at 1. Hope to see you there!
We met last Wednesday to read from 007.20 to 013.04, delving primarily into the history of the United Kingdom (and of Ireland) in the Wellingdone "museyroom". ("Mind your hats goan in!")
Aside from Wellington's "big white harse", a little bit the body, and a little bit his horse Copenhagen (thanks Jamie for this titbit), there remains, I believe, a bit of a conflict in this section. The conflict is in the multitude of settings that the reader is supposed to anticipate here: So, aside from the museum itself, the text also inhabits the dream of HCE, hence the "tip"ing at the window, the tapping of a tree branch against a window.
The martial allusions that Joyce pursues are more clear: from World War One references to the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. The breadth of Joyce's allusions calls to mind another question for me though: if Joyce is not merely examining British (and Irish) martial history, then the museum is a much more extended space than we may have anticipated.
Aside from these questions, we liked the rhythm that Joyce produces on p. 8, both from ll. 11-14, in which he begins from a simple(ish) statement, then growing more complicated, before returning to some simplicity at the end, perhaps at odds to the counting of 010.32-34.
ALP's appearance (dreamed or otherwise) was our final focus of the reading. Lachlan explained the image of ALP as hen, pecking away at the scrap heap, in hindsight approximating the "tip" that Joyce repeats throughout the museum section. The lightning and thunder of p. 11 suggest a precursor to the fall of HCE that we're all anticipating; a fall that may perhaps be repeated eternally if a phrase such as "to steal out historic presents from the past postpropheticals" (011.30-31) is as significant as it appears.
Of course, there's not only cyclical views of history on show, but biblical allusions as well, as Noah's flood is made reference to shortly after. And finally we're left with the (despairing) exclamation "So This Is Dyoublong?", not just encapsulating some disappointment at the provincial nature of Dublin, but also asking do we belong?
As always comments are most welcome! I'd love some additions to my free association rambling!
A number of other notices:
Miri is doing a short performance as part of the UNSW postgrad symposium—a piece on Anna Livia, including excerpts from the Wake. On at the Dance Studio, Webster Building, 6:45, Friday 9 September.
A colleague, and potential reading group member, Chris Eagle, will be presenting a paper on the Wake to the Writing and Society Research Group on Wednesday the 28th of September from 11 to 12:30 in room 1.1.119, just down the corridor from where we meet.
Also, you may have seen a review of a new Joyce biography by Gordon Bowker, in Review. Not very positive—I'll stick with Ellmann for the time being! Review HERE.
We're reading from 013.05 to 021.04, meeting Wednesday 7 September at 1. Hope to see you there!
Friday, 12 August 2011
003.01 to 007.19 (!?!)
Greetings! I'm here to report on the first meeting of our Finnegans Wake reading group.
I must admit I found the whole process rather confronting. In my reading of the Wake in preparation I'd been keeping some pretty extensive notes, and was convinced that I'd built a pretty compelling take on the novel that put Nietzsche's concept of eternal return front and centre, albeit a reading that was based on a couple of introductory essays, and 16 pages of the actual text itself!
But...that's not really how it goes. The group reading allows (and promotes) a much more multifocal reading of the text. So, so much for my absolute interpretation.
I think I (we) learnt two things today. The first was that the Wake sounds great when you read it aloud. Even better than when you're reading it in your head. Lou was adamant before the meeting that reading it aloud pushes you into an Irish brogue, and Miri showed us that very effectively in what was definitely the highlight of the readings we heard. I also have a feeling, although I'll need to give this some more thought that the portmanteau words operate differently when they're spoken as opposed to when they're read. There's something in there about the operation of metaphor, and perhaps even the metaphoric nature of language, but I'll leave that for another time.
The other thing that was quickly obvious is that a knowledge of the narrative of the Wake may be quite important for reading the text. I was maintaining a (probably) naive view that I would hold out, and glean the narrative from the text. Our two most experienced campaigners were adamant, however, that recourse to the narrative is crucial in understanding the text. For a text that has simultaneously so many, and so few handholds, I daresay they're right.
Anyway, much more to learn, that's for sure. Next time (1 pm Wednesday 24 August) we'll reading from 007.20 to 013.04 (or thereabouts). Let me know your thoughts by signing up and commenting.
Hope to see you all next time! JG
Oh and have a listen to this. Dropkick Murphy's are always relevant!
I must admit I found the whole process rather confronting. In my reading of the Wake in preparation I'd been keeping some pretty extensive notes, and was convinced that I'd built a pretty compelling take on the novel that put Nietzsche's concept of eternal return front and centre, albeit a reading that was based on a couple of introductory essays, and 16 pages of the actual text itself!
But...that's not really how it goes. The group reading allows (and promotes) a much more multifocal reading of the text. So, so much for my absolute interpretation.
I think I (we) learnt two things today. The first was that the Wake sounds great when you read it aloud. Even better than when you're reading it in your head. Lou was adamant before the meeting that reading it aloud pushes you into an Irish brogue, and Miri showed us that very effectively in what was definitely the highlight of the readings we heard. I also have a feeling, although I'll need to give this some more thought that the portmanteau words operate differently when they're spoken as opposed to when they're read. There's something in there about the operation of metaphor, and perhaps even the metaphoric nature of language, but I'll leave that for another time.
The other thing that was quickly obvious is that a knowledge of the narrative of the Wake may be quite important for reading the text. I was maintaining a (probably) naive view that I would hold out, and glean the narrative from the text. Our two most experienced campaigners were adamant, however, that recourse to the narrative is crucial in understanding the text. For a text that has simultaneously so many, and so few handholds, I daresay they're right.
Anyway, much more to learn, that's for sure. Next time (1 pm Wednesday 24 August) we'll reading from 007.20 to 013.04 (or thereabouts). Let me know your thoughts by signing up and commenting.
Hope to see you all next time! JG
Oh and have a listen to this. Dropkick Murphy's are always relevant!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)