FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2025793674> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2025793674 endingPage "138" @default.
• W2025793674 startingPage "135" @default.
• W2025793674 abstract "Reviewed by: Lots of Fun at Finnegans Wake: Unravelling Universals Tim Conley (bio) Lots of Fun at Finnegans Wake: Unravelling Universals, by Finn Fordham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 288 pp. $85.00. Fun is a word seldom encountered in the titles of scholarly publishing. Is that because fun is thought not to be a selling point? Or is it because the subjects of monographs are decidedly in no way fun (yet how diverting it is to conjure up imaginary titles like Fun with the Marquis de Sade and The Soapy Fun of Elizabethan Sanitation)? Or perhaps because the style, manner, and aims of scholarship are themselves so often conceived to be the antithesis of fun? Yet the etymology cuts to the quick: the word suggests a trick, hoax, practical joke, probably from the Middle English verb fon, to make a fool of.1 Finnegans Wake is, in precisely these subversive and vexing terms, lots of fun, and Finn Fordham's book is a fine example of a reader enjoying it. The book is something of a re-introduction to the Wake (critical caution and the text's own twists and turns make us seem doomed to be always introduced to it) and to Wake studies, too. Fordham begins by outlining what he sees as the seven approaches to the text: structural, narrational, theoretical, inspirational, philological, genetic, and exegetical. And, like Snow White's seven diminutive chaperones, their nominal features are their fortunes. Whether these approaches are entirely distinguishable from one another in practice might be questionable, but Fordham's surveying of the field is both knowledgeable and a valuable way of explaining his own approach. Indeed, approach (or method) is really at the heart of this study. Fordham prefers and performs a blend of the last two approaches: not what, but how (6) is precisely his focus. Just as Hans Walter Gabler predicated his editing practice upon the recognition of a continuous copy-text,2 so Fordham's reading of Finnegans Wake is not of a single, published, self-contained text but of an evolutionary process marked by notebook entries, drafts, and typescripts. Lots of Fun examines how a few passages from different parts of the Wake (FW 185.27-186.10, 203.17-204.05, 351.36-355.09, 526.20-528.24) came to be as they are, a smart strategy that manages to give the study both breadth and depth, to impart or at least suggest the lay of the land, and to do some rigorous on-site digging. The book's attention to each stage of revision is unique, and the infectious pleasure it takes in Joyce's transaccidentated (FW 186.03-04) modus operandi can produce luminescent observations, such as this one on how the inexorable tumbles unto the inevitable: He had developed [End Page 135] a language that was now controlling itself, and was in the situation of the sorcerer's apprentice, the caretaker of automata that have developed lives of their own (91). And the sorcerer's apprentice is doing anything but paring his fingernails. Or this: the Wake is a 'dividual chaos' meaning a chaos that is separable or divisible, capable therefore of rearrangement, reordering into a new form (47, FW 186.04-05). The weaknesses of exegesis are almost painfully obvious to anyone with any experience with the Wake (the question might this be…? can always be met with it might), though it could be said that these are also delights, of a kind. Less familiar are the potential problems of genetic readings. Fordham refers to Jean-Michel Rabaté's caution against the genetic fallacy3 and adroitly explains that the notebooks cannot tell you much about the methods of applying the materials within them (28). Fordham emphasizes revisions and shows in his case studies (if they may so be called, for they are more substantial and more substantially treated than examples) how fluid intention and form are within such a protracted gestation period. To spin the metaphor another way, there is no single moment of conception for the Wake. Danis Rose's claims that Joyce neglected to integrate certain earlier writings (he no longer liked them or, perhaps, he..." @default.
• W2025793674 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2025793674 creator A5048720463 @default.
• W2025793674 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W2025793674 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2025793674 title "<i>Lots of Fun at Finnegans Wake: Unravelling Universals</i> (review)" @default.
• W2025793674 cites W1481193366 @default.
• W2025793674 cites W576423363 @default.
• W2025793674 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jjq.0.0112" @default.
• W2025793674 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2025793674 type Work @default.
• W2025793674 sameAs 2025793674 @default.
• W2025793674 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2025793674 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2025793674 hasAuthorship W2025793674A5048720463 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C13646594 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C16592111 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C193427332 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C2776445246 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C2776612492 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C2779901982 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C124952713 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C13646594 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C138885662 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C142362112 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C16592111 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C17744445 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C193427332 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C199539241 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C2776445246 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C2776612492 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C2778061430 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C2778311575 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C2779901982 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C41895202 @default.
• W2025793674 hasConceptScore W2025793674C95457728 @default.
• W2025793674 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2025793674 hasLocation W20257936741 @default.
• W2025793674 hasOpenAccess W2025793674 @default.
• W2025793674 hasPrimaryLocation W20257936741 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2025793674 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2078066702 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2257413106 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2352942320 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W2953659790 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W3200379383 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W4221099220 @default.
• W2025793674 hasRelatedWork W582158748 @default.
• W2025793674 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W2025793674 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2025793674 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2025793674 magId "2025793674" @default.
• W2025793674 workType "article" @default.