Lars Iyers' 'Wittgenstein Jr' Is a Portrait of the Genius as a Tortured Thinker

Lars Iyer's latest novel explores sadness and genius while contemplating the end of philosophy.

Wittgenstein Jr

Publisher: Melville House
Length: 240 pages
Author: Lars Iyer
Price: $23.95
Format: Hardcover
Publication date: 2014-09

In 1966, John Lennon wrote "Tomorrow Never Knows", a song with little outward progression, played primarily in the key of C. Deceptive in its simplicity, and a testament to the genius of The Beatles, the song reveals its depths and slight-of-hand-style progression as you study and examine it.

The same might be said for Wittgenstein Jr., the new novel by Lars Iyer. As you read it, the book seems to follow the pattern of a song written in one key, a song without a bridge and little-to-no outward progression. But as you dig deeper, as you contemplate and explore the novel, you’ll unravel the texture and complexity of its seemingly simple structure.

On its surface a campus novel about a group of students at Cambridge who fall in with a professor of philosophy, Wittgenstein Jr. is more a portrait of a tortured genius than a bildungsroman, which, ostensibly, is the shape it assumes at first glance.

The professor is an eccentric genius to whom the students refer as Wittgenstein Jr, after Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Like the real Wittgenstein, Iyer’s professor is in search of an anti-philosophy, one that will end the need or necessity for philosophy. Also like the real Wittegenstein, the professor doesn’t teach a traditional course -- there’s no syllabus, no class schedule, there are no structured lectures or tests. Instead, each class consists of the genius riffing and thinking out loud while he tries to discover his much-sought-after anti-philosophy.

Told from the point of view of a student named Peters, the novel, in a sense, takes a lead from The Great Gatsby, in which the narrator is often a passive observer instead of an active player. This narrative choice works well for the first two-thirds of the book; however, Peters switches from passive to active in the final act, and the transition feels clunky.

Although perhaps the most important philosopher of the past century, Wittgenstein published only one book in his lifetime, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. His later work, Philosophical Investigations, was compiled from notes and partial manuscripts and published posthumously. Other manuscripts were found and subsequently published; so, too, were lecture notes taken by students and compiled thematically.

In his prose, which is minimalistic, Iyers often mirrors lecture notes, in a possible ode to some works published under Wittgenstein’s name.

Wittgenstein, on his chair at the front of the room. Who will come with him to wash off his brain? Outside. Wittgenstein, walking ahead of us. Students in surging groups. Students everywhere, a sea of them, moving in fast currents.

Vacillating between fragmented sentences and flowing prose, the narrative often feels intimate and immediate, a feat that F. Scott Fitzgerald couldn’t manage in his masterpiece. However, good prose should feel seamless, and great writers can present their style in a way that conceals it. This isn’t always the case with Wittgenstein Jr.

For example, Iyer is a fan of italics. One might even say that he’s obsessed, and this obsession often undermines the subtly and simplicity of the prose. A great writer can pen a novel without italicizing a single word. The force of strong writing renders italics superfluous, or irrelevant. Here, Iyer makes love to ctrl + i, and as a result the book is littered with italics. Flipping open the book, turning to a random page, will yield at least four or five italicized words. In fact, you might be hard pressed to find another work of fiction employing italics so liberally.

Iyer, a lecturer in philosophy, also employs philosophical concepts liberally. Unlike the italics, however, the philosophical ruminations work to great effect. If you’re wary of philosophy, if you took a philosophy class in college and hated it, if you’ve never felt or expressed interest in philosophy, don’t worry: this isn’t a didactic work. You will not find the history of philosophical concepts and arguments expressed here. You will not have to wade through sections that feel plucked from a textbook. The philosophical investigations are expressed solely through the context of this book, and many of them feel new and fresh. Many of them are expressions of Wittgenstein Jr’s torment.

Depression, sadness, gloom -- these three themes permeate the novel, and the subtle prose conveys them with deftness, immediacy, transmitting them to the reader, who slowly begins to understand Wittgenstein Jr’s obsession with bringing an end to philosophy.

Why is Wittgenstein Jr. so obsessed with conceiving an end to philosophy? What haunts him? What drives him? These questions are central to the novel, and they are, at their core, what drives and motivates the character and the narrative. They are the hinges on which the structure turns. And they are both an asset and a liability: structurally, the novel moves much like a song performed in one key, without a bridge or a chorus.

Wittgenstein Jr remains in a sort of structural stasis as Wittgenstein’s thoughts and life, as his motivations, unravel. Then the novel peaks near the end, where it tightens its focus but loses its passive narrator. This is both its strength and its weakness. When a character’s role in the narrative changes so dramatically, it feels as though the author has finally decided to wrap things up. As an ending, the device seems to violate the law of non-contradiction: it both works and it doesn’t work. Rather like philosophy itself, this novel’s success depends on what you, the reader, bring to it.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.