I wrote this before reading Finnegans Wake but it seems somewhat to “foresee” it. I was thinking of the “discrepancies” that Faulkner excuses himself for at the beginning of The Mansion and thinking how a new conception of the novel might embrace or allow for (or demand) mistakes of that sort —
That illogicality of plot is “a feature not a bug” . . . if a story is the patched- together parts of 20 conflicting stories but is stylistically and thematically consistent, if the story as a result states contradictory things as true –a la the discrepancies in the Snopes trilogy that Faulkner felt obligated to explain– this perhaps is to be preferred in the next evolution of the novel. Not so hard to envision the “next Shakespeare” as putting forward a sort of “mash up” of what would have otherwise appeared as his separate tragedies –because– the same person will seem Lear, Hamlet and Macbeth, to himself, herself, at once. Without the conceit of the stage, or of a drama, the author will see all those personalities and their dramas converging and mixed in himself.
If one could conceive of a mash-up of all Shakespeare’s plays into a single novel –one that was really effective– wouldn’t that somewhat resemble Finnegans Wake? If one could “unmash” FW what would one find?
Related question, have there been any rules established yet for the creation of mash-ups/ collage, like there were for perspective in painting way back when? Do we know anything about what goes together, to achieve what effects and why?
Related question, how would you make a mash up or collage of Shakespeare’s works? I think the obvious strategy would be to start with Hamlet as your foundation and then just start piling on and taking away. A weirder thought that occurred to me was to start with the idea of the jester-clown, which gives you a point of entry into both the comedies and tragedies.
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 