So after about 5 months, I have finally finished reading Finnegans Wake. Now—the question that I’m sure is on everyone’s mind—did I understand it whatsoever? And the answer is: kind of. One of the things that frustrates me the most in regard to the perception of this book is how many people seem to believe it’s some sort of elaborate literary hoax that’s completely inscrutable by design. No, there’s certainly a semblance of a plot here most people who closely read it could agree on.
I think what Joyce wanted to do with this book was effectively write a story of everything. The “characters” can more be understood as universal archetypes that reoccur in every phase of history. In Joyce’s conception, there’s a sort of creator, or “all father,” along with an “all mother” who gives birth to the fundamental opposing forces of the universe (kind of the yin and the yang). These opposites conflict, combine, and result in a sort of Hegelian synthesis that is reality. This stage of history is still at a high level of abstraction; the same forces can be seen in human history. The invader archetype establishes society, this invader becomes corrupted and falls, a new power arises and falls, and after each fall, the people gather the scattered pieces, combine them, and create something that is new and old all at once. While reading this book, I frequently referred to Joseph Campbell’s Skeleton Key as a guide and think you can really appreciate how much Joyce’s view of history as cyclical with a series of reoccurring archetypes influenced Hero with a Thousand Faces.
Obviously the most distinctive thing about Finnegans wake is the insanely complex style, but I think that style can really be seen as reflecting the book’s view of identity. Just as societies and individuals are the amalgamation of all that has come before, and, in a sense, are heirs to civilizations they may not even know existed, the style is built on the amalgamation of disparate elements, the structure of the book paralleling the cyclical, chaotic, yet abstractly predictable world it depicts. If I had to succinctly describe it, I’d say it’s an attempt at constructing a sort of universal subconscious in which all time and space are collapsed and the micro and macrocosms are presented as equally important and reflective of one another.
To me, having finished this book was an incredible experience, and I feel the worldview presented has influenced my own views and seriously made me think harder than anything else I’ve read in a long time. I understand that Finnegans wake is absolutely not for everybody; I had read Portrait of the Artist once and Ulysses a couple times before attempting it. In short, I loved James Joyce, believed in his project, and was willing to invest 5 months to kind of approach understanding it. For someone who’s off-put by Joyce, obviously you wouldn’t enjoy this book.
But a common criticism I see of Finnegans Wake that I have to push back on is this idea that since it isn’t generally accessible, it’s somehow worthless. The fact is, great art can be generally accessible or specialized. To use an imperfect analogy, Kendrick Lamar makes 3 minute bangers for the club and 12 minute story telling songs for the diehards, both of which are great pieces of art. It makes no sense to say the 12 minute song is better simply because it’s more complicated, just as it makes no sense to say the 3 minute song is better simply because it reaches more people.
Ultimately, you have to judge a work on its own merits. With Finnegans Wake, the goal was to create something for the James Joyce diehards who’d spend months and years trying to digest it. Now, is it arrogant to create a work so difficult that you are expecting your readers to devote that much time to understanding it? Absolutely, but I think if anyone deserves to have that level of arrogance, it’s the man who’d just written Ulysses. It’s not like this is a case of someone with nothing to say trying to blind you with sheer complexity; once you begin to decipher it, there’s a lot there, even if you don’t get everything.
I know people will disagree with me, but after finishing it, I think reading this book was more than worthwhile and it is rightly regarded as a classic of 20th century literature. I still prefer Ulysses, as I believe it has a more human, relatable element to it, but ultimately, the experience of reading Finnegans Wake is like no other and it has opened me up to ideas and perspectives I’d never considered. I will definitely think about parts of it for years to come, and you can’t ask much more of a book than that.
by bigben1234567890