Was it mental illness?

Lucia Joyce ilness

>>8473455
no

>>8473440
no

File: GenericWhiteWojak.png (126KB, 619x757px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 619x757px

>>8473470

>no

>Art thou gainous sense uncompetite! Limited. Anna Lynchya Pourable! One and eleven. United We Stand, even many offered. Don't forget. I wish auspicable thievesdayte for the stork dyrby. It will be a thousand's a won paddies. And soon to bet.

Be serious.

Yes, he inhaled one fart too many

He was no crazier by then than he had been when he wrote Dubliners.

>>8473510
I kek'd heartily

>>8473507
depends
there is the interpretation of jung and lacan that he was somehow almost schizophrenic, that he would have been insane if he hadn't been a writer. I don't quite understand this one and I can't find anything on it that's very direct, goes beyond them saying he's schizophrenic.
Then there's the neurosyphilis one, both don't seem very convincing

>>8473455
oh my fucking god

forever stay this much fucking bluepilled and normie
never change

believe me

>>8473440
It wasn't mental illness, it's obviously masterful work which somehow makes words and sentences rom literal gibberish. I fucking hate it, because it's ridiculously taxing, but it is most positively an amazing work.

>>8473680

Why couldn't he use actual words instead?

>>8473715
For about three reasons
1. He already did, multiple times
2. In not using real words, he expressed a greater view of a characters dialect and how they sound, superior to any other that's been done before. In terms of it feeling like it came from the mouth of someone, that book does it best.
3. It literally pushed the boundaries. Something that hadn't been done before. Imagine if you told scientists to only try and learn what we already know.

>>8473735

>It literally pushed the boundaries. Something that hadn't been done before. Imagine if you told scientists to only try and learn what we already know.

Wouldn't that be like telling a scientist they have to use actual mathematics to support their claims? In which case, that's already what they're told to do? Also did we honestly reach the limits of what the actual English language can express prior to that book's creation? I don't think we did.

it's literally a trip

>>8474041

Terence McKenna pls stay.

>>8473440
It actually makes sense and is objectively his best work, if not the best work of the 20th century.

>>8474091

>It actually makes sense

Please explain.

>>8474094
Not that Anon but, Most of the words and names he uses in it are actually just a renaming of things that already exist in our world and a lot of his names are just mocking people who were relevant in the period he was alive. Once you have that in mind and you can decode the words he uses it all actually makes sense but it seems like jibberish without the knowledge of the words.

File: 75cd3cf81266df6d950d9036473e26fd_900x696x1.jpg (441KB, 900x696px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 900x696px

>>8474094
There are plenty of consistent analysis out there.

>>8473440

yes

>>8474094
Ignore this retard >>8474110

He's using multiple languages, historical allusions, literary allusions, and (yes) popular allusions to his own culture and the news of his day, along with wordplay, the meshing of words and taking apart of words and anagrams (occasionally) and puns.

This is because it's supposed to be so universal and full of multiple meanings that it actually uses as many languages as possible, thereby being the ultimate representation of human experience. Also, it supposedly is supposed to represent the language of dreams (the book is said by critics to be the dreams of one man during the night), where different concepts and words are meshed together based on some tenuous thread that connects them.

If you read any criticism on FW, you can see that it very clearly has not just some but a lot of meaning, order, and structure to it.

>>8473996
Pushing the boundaries doesn't always mean that people were waiting at the end of line hoping someone would show us the way, it means someone went beyond what was expect and in the lines of what literature was.

You analogy is incorrect.

Finnegan's Wake still makes sense. If it were incoherent, that would be the equivalent of using (fake) math. What I intended with my analogy was an expression that people shouldnt only think in the confines of the art. If you have a bizarre scheme, go for it, as long as it makes sense.

>>8474312
Seems like you're just reproducing what someone said about a book you didn't read. You can't even write the title.

>>8474091
>>8474091
>It actually makes sense
t. Nabokov

>>8473715
He did it to emulate dreams