[ExI] Joyce

[ben]

  "John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net> complained:


 > > "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> Wrote:


 > > FINNEGANS WAKE does (no apostrophe, for dog's sake

 > But there should have been a apostrophe! How can you tell if Joyce is
 > artistically expressing his contempt for the oppressive rules of English
 > grammar, or if he just fucked up?  I seem to remember times when you
 > chastised me for my less than perfect spelling; how did you know my
 > alternative spelling was not deliberate and part of a brilliant artistic
 > edifice making a bold and heroic statement about the nature of man?



 > > How do you feel about Bach's Cantata 140, "Sleepers wake"?

 > > Or, to take a big-selling example of fiction (shudder), L. Ron
 > > Hubbard's "The Invaders Plan"? (In that case, granted, it's 
anyone's guess.)


What the hell???

Either i'm really missing something here, or somebody else is.

Bach's : Belonging to, or 'of' Bach.

Sleepers : more than one sleeper.

Invaders : Plural of invader.

Bachs : More than one Bach.

Invader's : Belonging to the, or 'of the' Invader.


Simple enough, surely?

Changing "Sleepers wake" into "Sleeper's wake" changes it completely 
(even ignoring that it should be "Sleepers wake!"), from "people who are 
asleep, wake up!" to "The funeral party of the sleeper".

"The Invaders Plan" is not ambiguous. It means that the Invaders plan. 
What they plan is not stated, just that they do. Presumably, the plan 
that they plan is the Invader's plan. That would make sense.

So i can only conclude that "Finnegans wake" must be about an attempt to 
rouse a number of people all called Finnegan from their slumber. And he 
missed the pling off.

(or, just maybe, it should have an apostrophe!)


So, am i wrong?

Is the classic illiterate greengrocer's sign "Plum's £1 a pound" really 
making a bold and heroic statement about the nature of man?


ben zed