Cohn's understanding of Mallarmé's Un coup de dés suffers from the same weaknesses as his comprehension of Finnegans Wake. He claims that both works concern an archetypal familial and sexual conflict registered through particular and peculiar (and related) linguistic sensibilities: "dans Un coup de dés, chaque page contient en germe les suivantes, on y trouve un chevauchement et un épanouissement constants comme dans un bouton de fleur: le mouvement d'onde général de la vie et de la mort change de rythme pour donner celui de l'acte de l'amour et, par degrés, le petit frémissement de l'écriture, tandis que les images y correspondent. De même, dans Finnegans Wake la forme de la montaigne s'affine progressivement pour donner un série interminable de la manifestation mâles qui incluent la plume de l'écrivain (comme dans Un coup de dés); et les premières pages du livre contiennent en germe le 'récit' tout entier" (Cohn, 437; cf. 436-8). Because Cohn has identified analogous structures of tropes (of tropic allegories) in these two texts (that these works are structured as an allegory of a male/female conflict or contact), noting parallels becomes inevitable. Indeed, Cohn's rampant parallels to Finnegans Wake come off as nothing more than a nervous tic. Because he construes both works as allegories, he can enstate a mechanism of allegoresis between the two. Cohn has mistaken the impersonal for the archetypal. Although to be fair to Cohn, his understanding of Finnegans Wake was very typical of this period (influenced heavily by the muthic approach of Campbell and Robinson's Skeleton-Key); and he does have the common decency to detach the word "récit" by quotation marks--would that some contemporary "scholard[s]" (FW: 215.26) of Joyce evince such courtesy!