When one is faced with an unquestionably great work, one is rarely rendered literally speechless; on the contrary, the verbal levee bursts open and the word salad simply pours out of the oesophagus. But unlike in a learned debate, where facts have been carefully rehearsed and the logic of the game glitters in its crystalline transparency, the descriptions and impressions elicited by a work of art are frequently epiphanic approximations and half-phonetic encomia that express the rapture yet not the rationale. When such words are reviewed later on, the meaning can still be gathered if the feelings are shared, but a plethora of new meanings are additionally detected, ever-changing in accordance with the reader.
When it comes to one of the world's most enigmatic and ingenious writers, to inwit, James Joyce, it's no wonder that detorrents of aralysis from desert-try acandemonium to rhapsottic pithylambics have saturated the vast plantations of literary critique. Among them is one U. Eco, whose outpourings are both divinely inspured and devilishly fentangled.
Overall, I'd say that Eco's main argument about the prevalence of the Middle Ages in Joyce's whole oeuvre is something of a failure. While the influence of Aquinas, Dante (though not expounded herein) and the Book of Kells can hardly be called to question by even the most skeptical demographic, the bulk of this treatise is spent on either fanatically attempting to express the inexpressible greatness of Joyce's mastery or instancing his influences who were not of medieval origin. It seems that Eco finds the presence of Order in Joyce's works as a definitive sign of the latter's predilection for the Middle Ages, yet in all honesty this could've come from anywhere! Same goes for the need for references (or auctoritates in Eco's terminology) or the impersonality of art. Nor does it help that Eco pretty much abandons his line of inquiry for pages on end, only to hastily draw some inferences later by pinpointing random characteristics as irrefragably medieval. Indeed, the reader barely has an inkling on what Eco even thinks as characteristically medieval! Later on in the chapter about Finnegans Wake, he does propound some key characteristics, like the difficulty of interpretation, aesthetical pleasure from long contemplation and a liking towards obscure communication, yet they come in way too late to impart confidence in the main thesis.
But this is easily overlooked, since Eco's theories and apophthegms about Joyce's body of work are nothing short of awe-inspiring. Whether they are his own or whether he simply communicates loads of other people's ideas, they directly express what Joyce's genius is truly about: his ability to go beyond words by means of words; to incorporate everything in merely something. Eco shows how Joyce sought, for example, to contain the chaos of Ulysses in epiphanic structures divided into numerous sections (each dedicated to divers elements, such as body parts and arts), or to contain the chaosmos of Finnegans Wake in a universe consisting of words, each providing a potential point of departure/arrival, thus breaking the univocity of interpretation and causality. This short work is teeming with palpably inspiring descriptions and summations of some of my favourite books, and it's no wonder that I felt a multifarious thrill upon reading it: I was in the company of another Joyce-adoring acolyte, someone who could express himself more powerfully than I, someone who implicitly encouraged me to draw my own inferences more and not to take even the most obvious-seeming things for granted*... someone whom I could positively gush about Joyce with! I felt simpiously exstatick!
Eco's writing is very difficult and sometimes unfortunately obscure, but what makes it all so beautiful is his careful deliberative attitude towards his analysis. His ideas might be thin at times, but they're at least properly fleshed out, in a way which I could only dream of achieving myself! And I think here's an important point about literary critique: the analysts never presume to offer the objective truth about the work; they merely wish to show how deeply they've drunk from the fountain of inspiration, and to what extent they can develop their afflatus. We need people like Eco to show that artists have bled for their work, have deliberated countless of hours over them and have achieved something far, far more tremendous than can be realised by simply reading through a book in a handful of days. People like Eco are/were here to instill humility in us admirers of art. Call them pretentious all you will, but in doing so, you'll only embarrass yourself by denying the possibility of development and discovery.
I'll end the review with a beautiful quote on Finnegans Wake. Gasp and enjoy:
[One] of the most implicit and explicit axioms of the Wake is that of the infinity of worlds, unified by a metamorphic nature of each word, the willingness of each etymon to immediately become something else and explode in new semantic directions.
*This can be exemplified by Eco's description of Bloom sitting in the jakes, crapping away. He described how Bloom's thinking coincides with his bowel movements. Well, initially, when I was reading Ulysses, I simply thought that here we're insinuating the act of defecation by subtle verbal means... but it never occurred to me that it could be considered as a merger of the physical and psychical events, thus solidifying the character of the language in Ulysses. With this interpretation, the language acquires a much more striking role in the whole book, and I'm simply dying to re-read the book with a new, fresher and more daring forma mentis.