> I think Joyce is unreadable, verbose, incomprehensible, meandering, maudlin, overbearing, and oh did I mention unreadable.
That doesn't sound like an opinion, but an outright rejection or brushoff, a dismissal. For so-called wordsmiths or language lovers to offer such statements up as sweeping reviews of the preeminent English-language author of the 20th century doesn't seem stupid, so much as utterly incongruous.
Finnegans Wake, readable or not, breaks all novel (pun intended) records with regard to vocab, orthograhpy and so on; and the collective understanding of said work might benefit greatly if some of the scholarly minds here applied themselves to a discussion of his works. If not it might just be fun;-)
This clearly seems unlikely considering the slating of Joyce along the lines of it simply being too 'wacky' or 'nonsensical'. So be it. But IMO, it does seem to indicate a certain unwillingness to engage in the messiness and yes, nonsense ... or 'non-sense' that is celebrated in anything deserving of the title 'literature' and indeed is self-evident to many in everyday life. This in turn seems to indicate that the aversion to Joyce may be symtomatic of an still stronger and more general unwillingness to accept the idea that (without going into too much detail) we tend to couch our ourselves in linguistic clothing to make us feel better about our lives, loves, losses, etc., leading in turn to disunion, misunderstandings and bad things:-) Perhaps Joyce was looking to provide a way out, a 'wake' for language, or an 'awake' language. But such discussion is apparently undesirable here; one might argue that 'haters' aim to bob on the cushy surface of the linguistic ocean and avoid wetting feet - oh well.
That said, I doubt anyone here has read the 'classic' Principia Mathematica, so mebbe(sic) that above is hot air. I just hope that when people say of Joyce that it is not written to be 'understandable' they mean that in a jovial, throw-away-comment way and don't disregard study of the works outright - that would be a shame. W. Faulkner said of Joyce he "had more talent than he could control", and that he was "electrocuted by the divine fire." That is a minimum one might expect from a good artist. And clearly Joyce certainly has the power to polarise <g> and reveal it in the world ... Finn's Wake is either The Holy Grail or the longest, best written book of utter nonsense ever written. Clearly divinity and stupidity are closer together than some might admit - it's a little like those knobs on you're oven .. at one point turning a little further brings you from full power to off. Conversely Joyce mysteriously went from (cliche for today) 'zero to hero' overnight, apparently without anyone's consent. If his books truely are almost utterly incomprehensible, then I would suggest that this is a true case of a (dangerous term alert) miracle or, if you will, magic in book form. This should give anyone pause for thought who would earnestly claim to 'hate' this author on a word site - 'dislike' fine, choose to avoid, fine, but 'hate', really? I'm not looking to engage in the ongoing argument on behaviour, but it seems HL does have a valid point in this regard and fault lies with both parties. Proportions another matter.
The Hagakure suggests that if one is in tune with their own way, then learning of the many ways of others will only strengthen one's own commitment to one's own way and one will not view the ways of others as challenges but confirmations. Let that be so for all here. Good tidings AWADers!
