Which one's better?

Which one's better?

Other urls found in this thread:

finwake.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

This one, brainlet

bump because I need answers

Definitely Tindall

and why's that my dear friend

Because he wasn't a big enough faggot to refer to his guidebook as a skeleton key

Skeleton Key is one of the few books I've bought an actual physical copy of. I hate having to deal with physical books instead of just being able to read PDFs at my leisure while I'm on my laptop, but for whatever reason I couldn't find a soft copy of that one anywhere, and I liked both Joseph Campbell and Finnegans Wake enough to feel like I really had to go for it.
Anyway, it won't disappoint. Joseph Campbell is both entertaining and a genius and you get to see him put those talents to use on a topic that's already really interesting independent of any one writer's contributions to dissecting it.

I see. Any serious replies?

Thanks ma dude. Have you read Tindall's, so that we may compare them?

I haven't. This thread inspired me to start downloading it a second ago though, so I'll give you feedback if after I finish reading it this or a similar thread asking about it is still up.

you think you can read it in a day?

Skeleton Key is good but it's also one of the earliest works about FW and surely FW scholarship has moved a bit since 1944

I suppose, but that's no guarantee that Tindall's offering is better

report back plz

Using that logic there should be better books than Finnegans Wake because it was published in 1939 and surely writers have moved a bit since 1939.

no

This and fweet.org

This is painfully dumb user. Please.

>fweet.org
Oh no. That site is hell itself.

Anyone ever gave this a try?

just like the Wake

>Using that logic
>proceeds not to use that logic, or any other for that matter, and throws up a ridiculous false dichotomy
Good job!

Nah, it's hell because it's like a TVTropes except you are absolutely lost all the time and when it comes down to it reading the actual book is less of a confusing hassle.

Great non-arguments.
Just because time passes doesn't mean you should expect better versions. Sometimes people do a good job early on and nobody else matches them afterwards.

thats literally what the other guy fucking said
shut the fuck up you pseudoint

>Great non-arguments.
Better than retarded banter like
>Just because time passes doesn't mean you should expect better versions
>literally

How is that wrong? Do you not believe anyone in the past has ever made something that hasn't been topped by someone who came later? I don't understand this way of thinking.

The point is that as time has gone by, more effort, thought and resources have gone into analysing the book. Trying to compare that simple fact to the idea that there should be better books than the FW (an idea that makes no sense in itself simply because better and worse will inevitably depend on your personal taste) just because writes have moved on to other forms of literature is backwards and makes no sense at best, and at worst makes you look like a petulant cunt.

It's a terrible analogy, a false dichotomy and shows poor understanding of how we gain deeper understanding on any topic at all.

>The point is that as time has gone by, more effort, thought and resources have gone into analysing the book.
>The point is that as time has gone by, more effort, thought and resources have gone into writing books.
Still not seeing how that logic works. If you believe books about books must get better over time, why wouldn't you also believe books not about books wouldn't also get better over time? What about a book being about another book makes it a special case here?

>i don't understand how time can enable progress

No, I don't understand how this thinking could be applied to books about books but not applied to books in general.
Nobody agrees with this logic when applied to the latter, so why should it apply to the former?

>If you believe books about books must get better over time
I said they can, not that they must.
>why wouldn't you also believe books not about books wouldn't also get better over time?
That's a non sequitur.
>What about a book being about another book makes it a special case here?
See my previous post

>I don't understand how wine can get better with time but not milk; I mean surely they're the same thing?

>See my previous post
I see in your previous post that you haven't made any sense. You just sort of declare that these are two separate cases without any actual argument for that being true.
e.g. you claim we can't say whether books in general get better or worse because it's "personal taste." But you give no reason for why thinking books about books are better or worse magically isn't about "personal taste."

>What about a book being about another book makes it a special case here?
Am I having a stroke?

Because "books about books" aren't about being enjoyable-- they're not written with the intent of making a literary work of art; they're the result of study, and study (and understanding) can very much be improved with time. Why do you need this explained to you? Have you not learned anything since you left highschool? Have you gained nothing from second or third readings? Are you unable to learn or to understand anything any more deeply than when you first came into contact with the information?

Wine and milk have a reason for behaving differently over time. Which is what you're missing for the books in general vs. books about books distinction: a reason why they should behave differently over time. The milk / wine example doesn't establish anything because there are plenty of other examples of two things belonging to the same class that do behave the same way.

creative writing vs analysis u dipshit

>a reason why they should behave differently over time
Same reason we can enjoy the 1001 nights today but we can't rely on alchemy or presocratic views of the physical world today. You fucking retard.

>"books about books" aren't about being enjoyable
Except they are. Just because your topic isn't fictional doesn't mean you're no longer trying to write something people will enjoy reading.
>they're not written with the intent of making a literary work of art; they're the result of study
Are you seriously arguing Finnegans Wake wasn't written with the result of study just because it's not about another book? It's not like Joyce whipped it up overnight without any research.

I DON'T WHY ARE ARE STORIES NOT SAME AS MATH!?

Books about other books aren't formal scientific papers. There's no objectively right answer to an analysis of a book.

>Except they are.
The can be, but that's not their reason to be.>Are you seriously arguing Finnegans Wake wasn't written with the result of study
No one ever hinted at that. Why are you so adamant to blur the line between a mainly and explicitly work of analytical nature and one of mainly and explicitly fictional nature? What's your beef here?

Robert Anton Wilson's essay on both is better than both, you can find it in Coincidance: A Head Test.

Books about books aren't mathematics. Just because you have an opinion about a book doesn't mean you're now a scientist.

You'll never understand anything, no matter how much it is explained to you. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to. Enjoy your nebulous truisms and leave the thread for people interested in learning.

There's nothing to understand because you're making an arbitrary distinction where books about books get better with time and books that aren't about books don't.
I agree technology and understanding about the physical world gets better with time, but that's a completely different thing from being a writer whose topic happens to be another writer's book. The latter makes way more sense grouped in as a subjective task like writing a book in general than it does grouped in as an objective task like figuring out how to build a working steam engine.

It's not an arbitrary distinction, which is what you refuse to see because otherwise you will have "lost" this "competition".

As I said, if you're so against the idea of arguing which analytical book is better than another, leave the thread. Go make your own about how a work of fiction is exactly the same and should be judged by the same metric as a book analysing a work of fiction. I promise I'll post in it at least once, so that you might get at least one serious reply.

>wwwaaaaahh waaaaahhh
>let's just do this exact same argument somewhere else but start again please
There is literally no reason to do this except for you to backtrack. Just ask the other user in THIS thread, "can you please lay out your opinion a bit more, because I don't really know how to respond to it." or just DON'T respind to it, but you're acting like he's on the back foot when really you have nothing to offer here.

>There is literally no reason to do this except for you to backtrack.
Well my argument is a few posts back so I guess, yeah
>you have nothing to offer here.
Not to you, I'm afraid. You've already made up your mind to throw any argument put to you to the ground, pretend it's not even there and then complain that it's everyone else doing that instead of you.

That was my first post in this thread, you're both knuckleheads. I just didnt like the suggestion to start a whole new thread for your autistic bitch fighting.

>That was my first post in this thread
ya ok mine 2

>I didn't like the idea of people shitposting so I decided to shitpost

dude mine too!

Go smell your own farts, fairy cunts.

Go eat worms, knucklehead

Nobody likes me, everybody hates me.

finwake.com/