Budgen died in 1971. He certainly wasn't some kind of sole recipient of the one true secret about either book. JJ did feed information to various people, but I don't think it's true to say that there's a fact that he kept from us that, if we had it, would clarify everything. We ('we'?) already know a great deal about both books, though FW does remain darker than U.
Josh: I think your question could also be approached in terms of 'style'. Ulysses is obviously not a one-trick pony - partly because it's such a many-styled book, and different things are at stake and different pleasures available in each case. FW, on the other hand, can look from a distance rather uniform in style. If it felt less uniform I'd like it more warmly than I do. But those Wakeans who love it so much would probably maintain that its style was far from uniform -- which suggests to me that this is indeed a key aspect of the question you're trying to raise.
Possibly the most clear-yet-rigorous accounts of 'what the gimmick is [gimmicks are]' are those offered by Derek Attridge, eg. in Peculiar Language (1988) and Joyce Effects (2000).
― the pinefox, Thursday, 7 November 2002 16:48 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Josh (Josh), Thursday, 7 November 2002 21:26 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 10 February 2004 14:18 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 10 February 2004 14:21 (9 years ago) Permalink
Never read much on the Wake, so this is a start:
The LRB should give this guy some space, from here:
"Finnegans Wake is based on the structure of the zodiac, the zodiac signs being derived from the nature of numbers and a corresponding geometric sequence."
― xyzzzz__, Friday, 10 December 2010 18:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
why on earth do i need to shell out $410 for a hardcover copy of this
― talk talk talk (diamonddave85), Monday, 31 January 2011 18:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
you don't.
― jed_, Monday, 31 January 2011 18:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
If you find $410 burning a hole in your pocket, there may be worse things to fling it away upon. Otherwise, what jed said.
― Aimless, Monday, 31 January 2011 18:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
because art is dead
― ^probably more bullshit self-aggrandizement and non-essential info^ (Edward III), Monday, 31 January 2011 18:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
RIP
― Never Make Your Moog Too Soon (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 31 January 2011 19:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
what a fantastic piece of work this is.
― red is hungry green is jawless (Noodle Vague), Friday, 23 March 2012 10:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
i was thinking of reading this over spring break
― thomp, Friday, 23 March 2012 13:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
also the cantos
― thomp, Friday, 23 March 2012 13:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
nv, thanks for ruining any kind of productivity i had planned for this afternoon! looks great, thx
― thomasintrouble, Friday, 23 March 2012 13:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
nice. making me want to finish the fcker.
― woof, Friday, 23 March 2012 14:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
i want a counterpart to those two to read, ideally something like 'pilgrimage' w/o my actually having to read 'pilgrimage'
― thomp, Friday, 23 March 2012 14:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
the site looks good but a lot of its 'glosses' appear to be straight definitions of well-known words that were already appearing in FW in unaltered, Standard English form.
― the pinefox, Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes some of the glosses feel unnecessary, am not sure whether the annotator feels those words are archaic or peculiar to British usage
― red is hungry green is jawless (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Haha, the pinefox otm
― Radio Boradman (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 24 March 2012 16:46 (1 year ago) Permalink