I was asked today about contemporary reaction to Finnegans Wake when it was published, and I had to say that I didn’t think that there was much of one. Borges dismissed it as incomprehensible while asking for a guidebook for it, much as Stuart Gilbert had published one for Ulysses. Others genuflected and tried to forget about it as soon as they could. In the absence of any sort of key with which to decode the novel, most understandably could not be bothered. Edmund Wilson supposedly put the most effort in, though I have not read his review. Anyone have a copy?
It’s a sign of Joyce’s naivete, I suppose, that he didn’t foresee this. He was disappointed by the reception, but I can’t imagine what else he could have expected upon publishing a book that would take decades of effort by hundreds of people to begin to decode. Some have speculated that Joyce intended to make much supporting explanatory material available, as he did with Ulysses when he passed out chapter schemae to Gilbert et al., but that Joyce died before he could do so, two years after publication. I wonder, especially since a lot of Joyce’s explanations tended to be after the fact, as though he were interpreting, non-definitively and not without humor, his own work.
The essays by many famous and less famous names included in Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress (Work in Progress being the then-title of the Wake) are more interesting as a sort of Rorschach test for the authors involved than for the light they shed on the book. With the possible exception of Beckett, who probably knew a lot more about the book than the others, the efforts by William Carlos Williams, Eugene Jolas, and others attempt to describe Finnegans Wake based on selected fragments, and it’s as though they were looking at a one-inch square of Guernica.
Joseph Campbell and Henry Morton Robinson were the first to have a real go at it in A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake, which features a great close reading of the opening sections, followed by a dubious but good-hearted attempt to extrapolate the rest of the book. I didn’t get much out of it, but Robinson and Campbell set the style for the two main types of criticism to follow, attempted summarization and word-by-word glossing. To quote David Pears: “Some fly, while others struggle to crawl.”
For a variety of reasons, I stayed within the Joycean tradition of criticism while reading the Wake, avoiding all theory-based and non-specialist approaches. Joyce scholars can be a somewhat hermetic and monomaniacal lot: many of the people below study Joyce exclusively and exhaustively. I can think of no better example than that of Adaline Glasheen, a New England teacher who put together The Census of Finnegans Wake, which attempts to list every personage named or alluded to in the Wake, alphabetically. She remarked:
I hold to my old opinion. Finnegans Wake is a model of a mysterious universe made mysterious by Joyce for the purpose of striking with polished irony at the hot vanity of divine and human wishes…Joyce himself told Arthur Power: what is clear and concise can’t deal with reality, for to be real is to be surrounded by mystery.
The unpretentious Glasheen liberally peppers the text with remarks such as, “I don’t know who this is.” From her husband’s biographical note:
Adaline was born in Evansville, Indiana, attended the public schools there. Adaline and her mother borrowed armloads of books weekly from the public library. They were both able to recall every detail of their reading. Good books, trash they read ’em all. This proved to be a great help in her Joyce work. After a year of two at the University of Indiana, she transferred to the University of Mississippi. Adaline was hired to coach football players in English lest they flunk out and thus do harm to the football team. She continued the reading habits of her childhood. Later she felt that Joyce, too, was a great reader of trash; hence her ability to spot references and allusions in Joyce. She received her B.A. at Ole Miss. She took her M.A. at George Washington University. While I was in the army she taught at Wheaton College in Massachusetts.
Upon the birth of our daughter in 1946, Adaline was eager for a task which she could do in the few minutes between the incessant trivia of rearing a child. The ‘Joyce game’ enabled her to survive.
The advantage of the approach of such people that they tend to be rather open to heterodoxy and iconoclasm; the disadvantage can be a certain literalism and lack of generalization. Here then are the books that I found and my reactions to them. The James Joyce Scholars’ Collection is a great resource, as it contains some of the key works of Wake criticism in this tradition.
The Books at the Wake, William Atherton. Ultimately, I think this may be the best place to start. The Wake is inarguably loaded with tons of references to certain writers in particular: not just Vico, but Swift, Lewis Carroll, Blake, etc. Atherton goes author by author, which conveniently gives an overview of the continuities of the book (one of the more difficult things to grasp on encountering it) while not being beholden to one particular interpretation of it.
The Sigla of Finnegans Wake, Roland McHugh. McHugh is one of the most intense Wake scholars, and in The Finnegans Wake Experience he describes moving to Ireland to better understand the book. This slim volume describes, with much reference to Joyce’s notebooks, how the many personages of the book combine into sigla, a dozen or so symbols around which Joyce constructed the book. (For example, HCE in all his various forms is a wicket-shaped “M”, and ALP in hers is a triangle.) Joyce’s sigla changed as he wrote the book, and there’s room for interpretation, but McHugh, like no other analyst, gives the impression of truly grasping the whole damn thing, even as it streams between his fingers. Only my inexpert opinion, but McHugh seemed to be most in tune with Finnegans Wake.
Annotations to Finnegans Wake, Roland McHugh. Absolutely indispensible for writing a paper, but insanely frustrating to a newcomer. For those who haven’t seen it, this is an extensive gloss that maps page-by-page on to the original text with concise, sometimes cryptic notes. (You really have to see it to get the effect.) On first glance the Annotations are just as obscure as the Wake itself, but once I started catching recurrences of certain allusions, it becomes how impressively they match up with particular subjects and characters in the Wake. (For example, apparent Jonathan Swift and Lewis Carroll references occur absurdly often in any section associated with the daughter Issy.)
Structure and Motif in Finnegans Wake, Clive Hart. As the title suggests, Hart’s book contrasts with McHugh’s in tracing linguistic, spatial, temporal, and referential structure through the book rather than focusing on character or narrative. As such, Hart attempts to describe the macro-structure of the Wake with a minimum of interpretation–which invariably turns out to be quite a lot. Hart is in a lot of contentious territory, but his knowledge is solid and his pace careful. I think of Hart’s book as consciously open-ended: even where I find his interpretations uncertain, they are always provocative and spur even more future questions.
5 June 2006 at 08:36
I had lunch with Glasheen in 1978, when I was doing my senior thesis on Fs W. She was a friend of one of my advisors, Mary Reynolds. She said she was going to put two of my identifications in the next edition of the census, but I don’t think a next edition ever came out.
I liked parenthesizing Hart as S & M in FW.
Two other books I found useful were A Gaelic Lexicon to FW (O’Hehir) and A Gazeteer for FW.
6 June 2006 at 21:13
According to the bio, she became infirm in 1985, so it’s entirely possibly the next edition was stillborn. I didn’t see much in the way of significant Wake books since Bishop’s odd one (I’ll get to it in the next entry), so I have to wonder if the glossing style is fading a bit.
What did you write your thesis on?
7 June 2006 at 16:02
“The She Of It: Anna Livia Plurabelle in Finnegans Wake”
We underlined back then.
7 June 2006 at 22:12
Good that you weren’t too ambitious about it, then.
Coincidentally, I wrote my paper on Issy: “Narcissistic Reproduction: Issyâ€™s Mirror and Her View of Sexuality in Finnegans Wake.” I’ll post it at some point, and answer the question, What do the Virgin Mary and the Basque language have in common?
19 August 2006 at 16:56
Que soy l’Immaculada Concepcion – but of course that’s Provencal, innit. St. Bernadette was a Basque peasant, wasn’t she?
That Wisconsin Uni digital collection is fabulous, especially the Gaelic glossary.
Now I feel silly about my comment in your later post – obviously history was indeed a nightmare from which Joyce was trying to awake.
1 May 2007 at 18:24
Que soy la Inmaculada Concepción is Spanish :-). It referes to the conception of the virgin Mary.
I guess, Bernadette Soubirons wasn’t basque, as long as as I knoz, Lourdes is not situated in the Basque country. The basque language and the virgin Mary could eventually have a connection, as long as basque mithology has a figure, “the lady of the house…or so”. Probably, when they adopted christianism, they asimilated their gods to it…
14 August 2007 at 02:12
Clive Hart’s book is great in following the various verbal motifs through the book, but his account of the structure is all fantasy. He no longer believes it himself. I went to a lecture he gave where he said ‘‘There is no deep structure in Finnegans Wake’‘!
15 August 2007 at 04:26
Arno Schmidt did really good stuff on Joyce, he also translated Stanislaus Joyce to the german. Schmidt wrote some sort of radioessays on Joyce, very comprehensible that cover both Finnegan’s Wake & Ulysses and also each their intricacies.
He is also probably the most original successor of Joyce with his “Zettels Traum”.
I have another book on the Wake called “The Mookse and the The Gripes” by Robert Weninger which as non english speaker I found very helpful and has some little chapters on Vico & Wyndham Lewis, but is mostly about dissecting the vocabulary, sort of a mixture between a dictionary and a commentary.
12 March 2008 at 11:36
who wrote this?