joyce, genius or not

[jikan myshkin]

i was speaking with a gentleman on the trian who was reading ulysses and said he was strugling, was near the end but hadn't a clue what was going on. i tried to read it a couple of years ago but felt like it wasn't going anywhere and decided i had better books to read. he said he was just going to finish it for bragging rights, haha. anyone actualy read it?

[Virgil]

Yes I do think Joyce is a genius. Do I think Ulysses is the greatest novel ever? No. I can't stand when some people make that claim. But it is damn good.

[jgweed]

It may not be the greatest novel ever, but it is unique and pioneeringly important on so many levels that it well-deserves the title.

The gentleman on the train might have a better understanding if he were to consult one of the many expositions of Ulysses. I found Stuart Gilbert of great help:

Gilbert, Stuart. James Joyce's Ulysses. New York: Vintage Books, 1955.

[PeterL]

I have enjoyed some of Joyce's writing, but I don't think that he was especially great. What made him different and worth paying attentionto was the way that he related things in both Ulysses and Finnegans Wake.

[mortalterror]

The supplementals don't help. I give this book a shot every couple of years, bending over backwards in some sort of masochistic effort to be fair and open minded. Every time I read an essay on Ulysses or the Cliff Notes, or a book of criticism to try and get a better handle on it, I think I understand what should be going on, but then I go back to the book and it's complete gibberish. The book everyone's describing sure sounds nice, but it's not the one I've been reading.

I can see why somebody would like a James Patterson novel or a harlequin romance. That's just bad taste. But it's comprehensible and human. You can see where they fall short and with a few changes bad literature can become good literature. As for Ulysses, I don't think that's even English. I don't think people are really even capable of enjoying that book no matter what they do. Homo sapiens just aren't hardwired for that kind of garbage.

If somebody tells me they liked it, I have to assume a)they're lying. Either they are pretentious navel gazers who want to sound intelligent, or they are so bitter after reading this book that they want others to share their pain in a sort of vindictive conspiracy. Or maybe b)they're all brainwashed, like in one of those sick Charley Manson style cults. They aren't right in the head. They enjoy pain. And possibly c)they haven't really read the book. They're just saying what they've heard other people say about it.

Everyone who claims to like this book say that they like it for its originality. Yes, that is fair. That is an excellent assessment. Other books which came before it were good, and this is completely different from all of those. No author who's ever written a worthwhile book has written anything even remotely like it.

I cannot express in English how much I dislike this book. Perhaps, if I were writing in whatever nonsense language Joyce wrote his novels in they'd have a word for it. In conclusion, I think this book was sent by the devil himself to destroy mankind. It's a black hole from which light and joy cannot escape, a blight on the land, a splinter in your mind, a place where dreams turn to ash and sorrow loses all meaning. It's a golem. It's a frankenstein. It's the boogieman. It'll come in the night, rip your children from their beds, and eat them! Lord have mercy. Protect us from this unholy thing.

[Ami616]

Yes that was a damn good book. not alot of people could get into the concept of what was going on, but if you take the time to slow down and actually read it the book is very very simple.

[Charles Darnay]

I struggled but I loved almost every part of it. Best book ever? I don't any book deserves the title but Ulysses is as worthy as any other.

[kat.]

hi everybody...
I am actually reading right now " A portrait of the artist as a young man" and I think , although it's really damn innovative....it's too philosophical for my taste.....Maybe I am just too narrow minded to grasp the novel's full significance....but I am at the end and already pretty annoyed by Stephen Dedalus...the protagonist of the story...
Has anybody just read that book? and could possibly give me some tips? :)
bye :)


It may not be the greatest novel ever, but it is unique and pioneeringly important on so many levels that it well-deserves the title.

The gentleman on the train might have a better understanding if he were to consult one of the many expositions of Ulysses. I found Stuart Gilbert of great help:

Gilbert, Stuart. James Joyce's Ulysses. New York: Vintage Books, 1955.


I am just as the gentlemen on the train hahahhaha :p no ... hopefully not....but I need some further reading as well to understand fully ( if that's possible) Joyce's thoughts....:sick: :D :) :p

[a lost weekend]

I have enjoyed some of Joyce's writing, but I don't think that he was especially great. What made him different and worth paying attentionto was the way that he related things in both Ulysses and Finnegans Wake.

do you have any more expert opinions? perhaps (maybe?) you could, er, elaborate on why joyce isn't "especially great" and how he "related things" (what does that mean?!) in ulysses and fw?

What JJ did & what his literary deeds changed easily (EASILY!) surpasses the achievements of most 20th century writers -- both ulysses & finnegans wake, like 'em or not, are p'haps the most influential novels written in the century (perhaps, even, since cervantes or shak-es-peare).

no writer, living or dead, has given as much insight into the mind or man's consciousness as jj did in ulysses (again, like it or not).

[kat.]

I think the first time he used the stream of consciousness was in the novel I am struggling with......and yes....you gain an access to the person's innermost feelings and consciousness in a way no other narrator would have managed to provide us....

[PeterL]

do you have any more expert opinions? perhaps (maybe?) you could, er, elaborate on why joyce isn't "especially great" and how he "related things" (what does that mean?!) in ulysses and fw?

What JJ did & what his literary deeds changed easily (EASILY!) surpasses the achievements of most 20th century writers -- both ulysses & finnegans wake, like 'em or not, are p'haps the most influential novels written in the century (perhaps, even, since cervantes or shak-es-peare).

I suppose that I could find expert opinions on either side of the question, but is that's what you want, then why don't you look for them.



no writer, living or dead, has given as much insight into the mind or man's consciousness as jj did in ulysses (again, like it or not).

That's a rather extreme opinion. I don't agree with you, but I wonder why you might think that. He may have shown off his sort of consciousness, but I don't think that it is as universal as you make Ulysses out to be. For fiction that is more universal about human thinkng, then I think that Umberto Eco's novels [Foucault's Pendulum[/i] and The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana would better fit the bill.

[Virgil]

no writer, living or dead, has given as much insight into the mind or man's consciousness as jj did in ulysses (again, like it or not).

What does that have to do with literature? He's a writer not a psychologist. It's these irrational statements about Joyce that make me puke. He was definitely innovative but frankly to me his works are so analytical they many times lack the flesh and blood of humanity. And one cannot say that about Cervantes or Shakespeare.

[stlukesguild]

What does that have to do with literature? He's a writer not a psychologist. It's these irrational statements about Joyce that make me puke. He was definitely innovative but frankly to me his works are so analytical they many times lack the flesh and blood of humanity. And one cannot say that about Cervantes or Shakespeare.

I must agree with Virgil. I do think that Joyce was probably a great writer. His works are surely among the most influential of the 20th century... and yes I did like Ulysses... it wasn't my favorite... but I did very much like it... and actually loved certain sections. But again I agree with Virgil... I have the feeling that Joyce suffered from a great deal of the same failings that a good portion of high modernist art in general suffered from: so much effort put in toward innovation... intellectual mind games... that it does lack something of the flesh and blood of humanity. I sense this often in Pound... but not in Yeats. I get it in Schoenberg and even a good deal of Stravinsky... and certainly in Malevich or Mondrian. Personally... I far prefer Proust to Joyce... and if I want the sort of literature that challenges the very nature of what literature is... I''' more likely look to Borges or Lawrence Sterne.

[JBI]

He was a genius in terms of form. His style in Ulysses and Finnegans Wake is brilliant. I can't say it is reading for everyone, but it is simply fun just to read Finnegans Wake out loud to oneself and feast on the language (the words actually form accents of different nationalities while still being pseudo-English).

Of course, he is not easy, and not very accessible, but even if you only read portions of Ulysses, or his earlier works, you can feel the enormous scope of his style. Even if you only read Penelope from Ulysses, you can still feel an overwhelming sense of depth, style, and brilliance.

[aeroport]

i was speaking with a gentleman on the trian who was reading ulysses and said he was strugling, was near the end but hadn't a clue what was going on. i tried to read it a couple of years ago but felt like it wasn't going anywhere and decided i had better books to read. he said he was just going to finish it for bragging rights, haha. anyone actualy read it?

Without being able intelligently to talk about the book, what's to brag about?
For one reason or another, when I encounter the word 'genius,' the image that comes to mind is that of an individual. So, on the basis of Finnegans Wake - a book the production of which I'm given to believe involved a great deal of hired help - I wouldn't call him that. However, based on what I've read of Ulysses (roughly half, all told), perhaps...


but it is simply fun just to read Finnegans Wake out loud to oneself and feast on the language

Very true.

[jikan myshkin]

no writer, living or dead, has given as much insight into the mind or man's consciousness as jj did in ulysses (again, like it or not).

um, poe? from what i read of joyce it shows how 'clever' someones thoughts are. with poe it tears away all of the preconceptions, ego and what not and what is left is the bare bones of humanity- not always pleasent but brutaly honest and often heart wrenchingly beautiful. the loine from poe which i think sums this up best can be found in the raven

"But the raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -
Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'"

in this poem poe explores the depths of mankind, how one longs for solitude, understanding etc yet becomes accustomed to his tormentor and even refers to the other as a 'friend'. maybe an early case of stokholm syndrome? but i'd say poe understood more than any psychologist and unlike other 'great' pschyoanalytical writers could express it in simple language, that everyone can relate to.

[a lost weekend]

um, poe? from what i read of joyce it shows how 'clever' someones thoughts are. with poe it tears away all of the preconceptions, ego and what not and what is left is the bare bones of humanity- not always pleasent but brutaly honest and often heart wrenchingly beautiful. the loine from poe which i think sums this up best can be found in the raven

"But the raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -
Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'"

in this poem poe explores the depths of mankind, how one longs for solitude, understanding etc yet becomes accustomed to his tormentor and even refers to the other as a 'friend'. maybe an early case of stokholm syndrome? but i'd say poe understood more than any psychologist and unlike other 'great' pschyoanalytical writers could express it in simple language, that everyone can relate to.

(chokes laughter), um, well, marvellous poet that he is, me thinks not that dear ol' poe devoted 800 pages to try and fi'gre out how the heck the mind works, i.e. in terms o' thought patterns, associations w/ words and objects, stream o' consciousness...

hardly much of a comparison, I'm afraid.

[a lost weekend]

What does that have to do with literature? He's a writer not a psychologist. It's these irrational statements about Joyce that make me puke. He was definitely innovative but frankly to me his works are so analytical they many times lack the flesh and blood of humanity. And one cannot say that about Cervantes or Shakespeare.

Analytical? Hell, give me an example of the analytical-ness of ol'd brazen head & I'll try not to make you puke.

There seems to be a -- severe -- misunderstanding in your reading (or, rather, non-reading) of joyce. Analytical is hardly a word one can apply to him. Lyrical, however...

p.s. you shun the analytical aspect. But -- in that literature depicts man as he is... is it therefore not relevant to take into account how the mind really works? sure, go back to cervantes and shakespeare -- they didn't know it yet. But to disavow the scope of joyce's achievements based on what you, sir, call analytical-ness, is a grave, grave mistake. Joyce didnt write from a textbook on the mind. He had little knowledge of neurology or any such thing. He wrote from literary perspective, in an attempt to map out the mind in an (ironically) un-analytical approach, un-scientific. He explored the apparent (superficial) disorder of subconscious memories, tied together by verbal analogies and assonance, etc.

[Virgil]

Analytical? Hell, give me an example of the analytical-ness of ol'd brazen head & I'll try not to make you puke.

I'm not going to bother. Let people read and judge for themselves. I think there have been people on this thread who agree with me.


There seems to be a -- severe -- misunderstanding in your reading (or, rather, non-reading) of joyce. Analytical is hardly a word one can apply to him. Lyrical, however...
I've read Ulysses twice and Portrait of the Artist three times. I've read plenty of critical studies. It's my opinion. You don't buy into it, fine. I said he was a genius, but i do not find him either the equivilant of Cervantes or Shakespeare, not do I find him the greatest writer of the 20th century. Obviously you do. Good for you. Enjoy.

[a lost weekend]

I'm not going to bother. Let people read and judge for themselves. I think there have been people on this thread who agree with me.
;) I fig'red you wouldn't.



I've read Ulysses twice and Portrait of the Artist three times. I've read plenty of critical studies. It's my opinion. You don't buy into it, fine. I said he was a genius, but i do not find him either the equivilant of Cervantes or Shakespeare, not do I find him the greatest writer of the 20th century. Obviously you do. Good for you. Enjoy.
& here I thought the point of this thread was to do some discussing -- silly me. Don't tell me you've been offended in any way?

[jikan myshkin]

i've never read a critical text about any book, lie, i was forced to read them about shakspeare. 's said this and he meant this...' sorry how do you know? he told you? ah my apologises kinds sir.

i've never seen the point of reading a book where you need a key to understand the book. that just seems far too pretenious 'oh it's a famous book but i can;t understand it so i'll read how to read it'. hint- western lit left to right front to back. jap right to left- back to front.

seriously. if your enjoyment comes only from a feeling of superiority of being able to understand dull texts with or without reading aids, (and i'm not refering to glasses), then well (chokes laughter)...

[kat.]

What's wrong with doing some further reading to understand a work better? To gather some information maybe about the historical circumstances, or about autobiographical hints etc etc, things you would have never known by pure lecture of the primary work....

[a lost weekend]

i've never read a critical text about any book, lie, i was forced to read them about shakspeare. 's said this and he meant this...' sorry how do you know? he told you? ah my apologises kinds sir.

i've never seen the point of reading a book where you need a key to understand the book. that just seems far too pretenious 'oh it's a famous book but i can;t understand it so i'll read how to read it'. hint- western lit left to right front to back. jap right to left- back to front.

seriously. if your enjoyment comes only from a feeling of superiority of being able to understand dull texts with or without reading aids, (and i'm not refering to glasses), then well (chokes laughter)...

You don't need a "key" to enjoy Ulysses; it's perceived "difficulty" is vastly (um, greatly) overrated--I know many people who aren't particularly interested in literature & who - certainly - have no expertise in the area, but are still amazed by Ulysses. The "superiority" thing is for lil' kids who read for the sake of making themselves feel smarter. Ulysses is, 1st and foremost, a very great novel. Different; yes. Experimental; yes. But difficult? Nay...

That said--people who aren't willing to submit themselves to the, er, 'challenge' of reading a novel that will (permantently, perhaps?) alter their view of the form should stick to reading stuff that requires less concentration & attention &, well, thought.

To all future readers of Ulysses: shed your prejudice, whether it's of the "I read Ulysses because I'll seem smarter" or the "Wah, wah, it requires a key it's an arrogant, complicated book" kind. Simply shed your illusions & hopes & expectations &--plan & simple--enjoy it. Language like none other.

[kat.]

I don't agree....I am interested in literature and actually read Ulysses....and in my opinion,if you don't know at least a tiny bit about stream of consciousness, epiphany....in short: about the modernism and its narrational techniques in general....i think you won't be able to decode the novel....I just had some difficulties although having read some secondary literature on joyce...and it's not that kind of easy to "just enjoy"....
at least for me it wasn't....

[Charles Darnay]

I don't agree....I am interested in literature and actually read Ulysses....and in my opinion,if you don't know at least a tiny bit about stream of consciousness, epiphany....in short: about the modernism and its narrational techniques in general....i think you won't be able to decode the novel....I just had some difficulties although having read some secondary literature on joyce...and it's not that kind of easy to "just enjoy"....
at least for me it wasn't....

I agree with you on that....there is nothing wrong with reading up on context or critic's interpretations (as long as you understand that they are INTERPRETATIONS and read them with a critical mind). Sometimes - Ulysses included - it is necessary to read up on context or about some of the allusions. How much of the book is lost to you if you are unfamiliar with the structure of the Odyssey?

I do not think that everyone who uses "aids" is simply trying to read Ulysses to brag about being able to read it (though I will consent that these people do exist - but are a small minority).

[Virgil]

;) I fig'red you wouldn't.


& here I thought the point of this thread was to do some discussing -- silly me. Don't tell me you've been offended in any way?

:lol: No I'm not offended. Sorry I just don't have the time (I'm at work) to get examples of what I consider analytical. And it's not completely anayltical. There is quite a bit of flesh and blood in Ulysses (unlike Portrait). But it's so hard to get to, and one asks, is it really worth it? It is to a lit major, but the average guy looking for a good read wouldn't care. Even writers don't seem to care. (I know of almost no major writer post Joyce that uses his style.) It's mostly college professors (and I got a master's degree in english lit) who rave about him. ;)

[NickAdams]

i've never read a critical text about any book, lie, i was forced to read them about shakspeare. 's said this and he meant this...' sorry how do you know? he told you? ah my apologises kinds sir.

i've never seen the point of reading a book where you need a key to understand the book. that just seems far too pretenious 'oh it's a famous book but i can;t understand it so i'll read how to read it'. hint- western lit left to right front to back. jap right to left- back to front.

seriously. if your enjoyment comes only from a feeling of superiority of being able to understand dull texts with or without reading aids, (and i'm not refering to glasses), then well (chokes laughter)...

I'm glad jazz musicians didn't think this way. That is a very limiting view. I think Joyce might view that as a crippling stasis. It's the layers that make you return to a text. I enjoy writers like Joyce, because a book like his on my shelf is not just matter in space. I own it, because I will return to it. What a waste it would be of a couch you use once and nver throw away.

[a lost weekend]

:lol: No I'm not offended. Sorry I just don't have the time (I'm at work) to get examples of what I consider analytical. And it's not completely anayltical. There is quite a bit of flesh and blood in Ulysses (unlike Portrait). But it's so hard to get to, and one asks, is it really worth it? It is to a lit major, but the average guy looking for a good read wouldn't care. Even writers don't seem to care. (I know of almost no major writer post Joyce that uses his style.) It's mostly college professors (and I got a master's degree in english lit) who rave about him. ;)

Well, me thinks perhaps you should take another look at yer degree.

No post-Joycean writer that cares about his style (Shock!)

Er, in your definition in order to care about Joyce's style one would have to mimmick it? In that case, no one cares about Shakespeare, Kafka, Beckett either.

Saul Bellow (Moses Herzog in Herzog is a name from Ulysses), Ian McEwan (Saturday), Martin Amis (reviews, his prose), Beckett (was very Joycean in his early years), Nabokov, Banville, need I go on?

Your (hilariously) myopic statement w/ regards to no-one caring is, well, hilariously myopic. I know many. Many non-lit majors.

[NickAdams]

You can laugh at a joke but so many times, so lets appreciate those who bring new enjoyment. Knock-knock jokes are the dull text.


Well, me thinks perhaps you should take another look at yer degree.

No post-Joycean writer that cares about his style (Shock!)

Er, in your definition in order to care about Joyce's style one would have to mimmick it? In that case, no one cares about Shakespeare, Kafka, Beckett either.

Saul Bellow (Moses Herzog in Herzog is a name from Ulysses), Ian McEwan (Saturday), Martin Amis (reviews, his prose), Beckett (was very Joycean in his early years), Nabokov, Banville, need I go on?

Your (hilariously) myopic statement w/ regards to no-one caring is, well, hilariously myopic. I know many. Many non-lit majors.

If I don't appreciate Joyce's work myself, I'm glad that it gave birth to Beckett. Let's not forget that there is a little Beckett in Joyce's FW.

[a lost weekend]

You can laugh at a joke but so many times, so lets appreciate those who bring new enjoyment. Knock-knock jokes are the dull text.



If I don't appreciate Joyce's work myself, I'm glad that it gave birth to Beckett. Let's not forget that there is a little Beckett in Joyce's FW.

Oh certainly. Beckett helped Joyce write when the latter's eyes gave a fuss. & who (who! i ask, who!) could forget/ignore Beckett's powerful defense of Finnegan's Wake Dante...Bruno. Vico..Joyce from Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress.

For that matter, what is it with these god-damn Irishmen?--Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, Shaw, O'Casey, Banville... solid gold, solid gold.

[NickAdams]

Oh certainly. Beckett helped Joyce write when the latter's eyes gave a fuss. & who (who! i ask, who!) could forget/ignore Beckett's powerful defense of Finnegan's Wake Dante...Bruno. Vico..Joyce from Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress.

For that matter, what is it with these god-damn Irishmen?--Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, Shaw, O'Casey, Banville... solid gold, solid gold.

Don't forget Brian O'Nolan a.k.a. Flann O'Brien. I hope my Grandmother passed those writing genes on to me.

[JBI]

You shouldn't have to read criticism to better understand? Are you kidding, criticism creates the meaning. Reading is essentially criticizing, some people are better at it, and see more. To say that critical work is useless and the work should stand on its own is foolish, especially since you are not living in 1922 Ireland, and therefore won't be able to pick up on things someone who knows, or lived through, that period can. All works need at least some contexting, and that of course comes from criticism.

jikan myshkin, have you read anything by Joyce? You mentioned on other threads that you have attended university, but I somehow find it difficult to believe, and if you have, difficult to believe you studied English at a high level. The fact remains that Poe compared to Joyce is a little squeamish slug. Poe is not well known for psychological intensity, as people like Conrad, James, Woolf, Joyce, Beckett, Checkhov, Ibsen and Dostoevsky were, but is known for his metric style, and his hysteria, which to this day is disputed as being artistic. Many academics consider Poe to be overrated - I tend to agree, and stick him in with Dumas. The point though is, is that Joyce's significance shook English, and even Western letters thoroughly, to the point that nothing since looks the same. Poe had no such affect.

Poe's raven is hardly a good example of psychological depth (I recommend googling the term). It is more of an emotional/sensual poem than a psychological one, and even then a rather mediocre one at that. In terms of style it is quite Byronic, and in terms of content it is very Shellain, except that its lines are too predictable. If you were to try and grab a better piece, that poem hardly does him any justice, especially considering how you used it (I am curious to know if you actually have read the collected works of Poe, or rather just a few poems).

As to not reading critical texts, well then, all I can say is that you either have not really studied literature, or not very in depth. Almost all scholarly editions of books have critical introductions in the front, and pretexts dedicated to that sort of thing, and I am sure if you have attended university, you will be familiar with criticism, especially if you have written about literature, which most courses force one to do.

To build off of what you said, if your enjoyment comes from reading a work that doesn't challenge you, and therefore makes you feel good about yourself for not being challenged, or not having to work, than all I can say is... (chokes with laughter)

Let's be honest, reading only for the sake of "enjoying" is like mowing the grass without cutting anything. Your skin reflects the time spent, but your lawn still looks disheveled, and you have essentially wasted time. If however, the work helps to bring some sort of expansion/perception that you never had before, well then, I guess it is worth reading.

[NickAdams]

You shouldn't have to read criticism to better understand? Are you kidding, criticism creates the meaning. Reading is essentially criticizing, some people are better at it, and see more. To say that critical work is useless and the work should stand on its own is foolish, especially since you are not living in 1922 Ireland, and therefore won't be able to pick up on things someone who knows, or lived through, that period can. All works need at least some contexting, and that of course comes from criticism.

To read without criticism you would have to read what Joyce has read and read of Joyce. At the least, criticism points you to text that are referenced. A book of this sort points you to more books. Any real book lover would be happy to add more books to their reading list. So you read the Odyssey and Hamlet. You refer to them and whatever else you do with a text once read. You then pick up Ulysses and not only can enjoy the new text, but you are reintroduced to works that you have enjoyed in the past. The impact of the Odyssey and Hamlet are combined and reawakened. The blow is doubled if not tripled. I hail the difficult book.

[mortalterror]

The fact remains that Poe and Dumas have a popular mass audience centuries after their deaths, something Joyce wasn't capable of even while he lived.

Like you JBI, I enjoy a challenge, but I do not agree that the challenge is the final goal of reading any book. Reading criticism is an important part of advanced critical thinking, but let's be honest, Ulysses is a book for people who read criticism. It does not even try to entertain a person with only average reading skills. It is more interested in parodies of archaic writing styles, theories of the intelligentsia and their implications for a text, than it is in telling a story. But don't just take my word for it, take Edmund Wilson's author of Axel's Castle:

"If we pay attention to the parodies, we miss the story; and if we try to follow the story, we are unable to appreciate the parodies. The parodies have spoiled the story; and the necessity of telling the story through them has taken most of the life out of the parodies(p.171-2)."

or

"It has always been characteristic of Joyce to neglect action, narrative, drama, of the usual kind, even the direct impact on one another of the characters as we get it in the ordinary novel, for a sort of psychological portraiture (p.166)."

I don't think that a work of literature can be called a classic unless it has the support of the masses and the elite combined. Right now, the masses have their Stephen Kings, and their James Pattersons, and the elites will have none of them. But the elites cling to their Joyces, their false idols, and the mass turns an indifferent eye. Why shouldn't they? There's nothing for them there. It's all garnish and no meat. Yet, the elite insist on making a game preserve out of academia, to preserve natures rejects who couldn't make it on their own in the wild. If professors stopped teaching Ulysses in classrooms, it would drop off the face of the earth in a matter of decades.

[Virgil]

Reading criticism is way over rated. If the work doesn't stand as a work of art on its own, then forget it. I'm not saying that applies to Joyce, but on ciritcism itself. Criticism gives college professors a job which allows them to think they are as important as the author. ;)

[NickAdams]

The fact remains that Poe and Dumas have a popular mass audience centuries after their deaths, something Joyce wasn't capable of even while he lived.

The films seem more popular than the works of Dumas that they are based on.

Poe is popular for a handful of stories and the Raven.

Joyce's popularity comes from his entire canon.



Like you JBI, I enjoy a challenge, but I do not agree that the challenge is the final goal of reading any book. Reading criticism is an important part of advanced critical thinking, but let's be honest, Ulysses is a book for people who read criticism. It does not even try to entertain a person with only average reading skills. It is more interested in parodies of archaic writing styles, theories of the intelligentsia and their implications for a text, than it is in telling a story. But don't just take my word for it, take Edmund Wilson's author of Axel's Castle:

"If we pay attention to the parodies, we miss the story; and if we try to follow the story, we are unable to appreciate the parodies. The parodies have spoiled the story; and the necessity of telling the story through them has taken most of the life out of the parodies(p.171-2)."

or

"It has always been characteristic of Joyce to neglect action, narrative, drama, of the usual kind, even the direct impact on one another of the characters as we get it in the ordinary novel, for a sort of psychological portraiture (p.166)."

He neglects them, but I was getting tired of those ragged things anyway.
I agree with you though: it's like an allegory; An allegory should work on two levels, which is the manifest content and the latent content; however, I refuse to believe that a good novel requires all of the components of the ordinary novel.



I don't think that a work of literature can be called a classic unless it has the support of the masses and the elite combined. Right now, the masses have their Stephen Kings, and their James Pattersons, and the elites will have none of them. But the elites cling to their Joyces, their false idols, and the mass turns an indifferent eye. Why shouldn't they? There's nothing for them there. It's all garnish and no meat. Yet, the elite insist on making a game preserve out of academia, to preserve natures rejects who couldn't make it on their own in the wild. If professors stopped teaching Ulysses in classrooms, it would drop off the face of the earth in a matter of decades.

The mass shouldn't be forced to read "dull" text, but should the "elite" be forced to read what they consider "dull" text.

Joyce will be around as long as there are authors.


Reading criticism is way over rated. If the work doesn't stand as a work of art on its own, then forget it. I'm not saying that applies to Joyce, but on ciritcism itself. Criticism gives college professors a job which allows them to think they are as important as the author. ;)

I don't know: when I'm not reading fiction, I like to read about fiction. Their still not as important as the author.;)

[mortalterror]

The mass shouldn't be forced to read "dull" text, but should the "elite" be forced to read what they consider "dull" text.

There is a happy marriage between the two. I see no conflict between the separate parties. Our dissimilarities are an artificial illusion. A classic novel is not different from a popular novel. It's the same novel written better. The elite reader is not different from the average reader. He is more experienced, better educated, and draws upon a longer history of critical information when arriving at his judgments. Remember, at one time, the elite reader was the average reader. It was only through study and application that he rose.

Often, the educated reader is taught not to appreciate all books more, but to despise what before he had cherished. This is an error. One does not need to hate in order to love better. There should be a shift in emphasis, a refinement of taste, but to define oneself in opposition to another leads to all sorts of fallacies. The proper aim of academics, writers, and other elites should be to seek out the best of the popular books, and to educate others as to why they are so popular and successful, why they work so well, what is enduring about them. Dickens, Shakespeare, and Homer are all good examples of this type of writing.

I think that the reason Ulysses has such a good reputation in certain circles is because you already have to be a member of his target audience to know anything about him. People don't stumble across his book on a library shelf. Friends don't pass his book around amongst each other. Ulysses has to either be taught or sought out, and by the time one or the other has happened you can tell a certain number of things about the person reading the book: their motives, tastes, education, and expectations. I'm not going to say that it's a homogeneous group, of one mind and one opinion, but I will say that it lacks some of the variety you can find in the readers of Shakespeare.

[kat.]

I agree with you on that....there is nothing wrong with reading up on context or critic's interpretations (as long as you understand that they are INTERPRETATIONS and read them with a critical mind). Sometimes - Ulysses included - it is necessary to read up on context or about some of the allusions. How much of the book is lost to you if you are unfamiliar with the structure of the Odyssey?

I do not think that everyone who uses "aids" is simply trying to read Ulysses to brag about being able to read it (though I will consent that these people do exist - but are a small minority).

yes...sometimes it just helps your understanding of a work....and focuses your sight on things, you maybe would have never realized without that knowledge....
That's why I completely hate the new formalists approach to literature......
ok....
soooo....have a nice day...night? ( what time is it actually there?) however...a nice time :) :banana:

[Virgil]

I don't know: when I'm not reading fiction, I like to read about fiction. Their still not as important as the author.;)

Yes if the critic helps one understand the work. Most of the time today critics are on this deconstruction or feminist or Marxist or new historicist or sociological criticism where the critic reads into the work. That's a bunch of garbage. :sick:

[mortalterror]

I see a need for criticism, but it fills more of a supplementary role. It enhances what is already there in a text. I think people should read a book, and if it invites a second reading, then the criticism will help a student of the work plumb the depths of what he has already gleaned. People shouldn't need additional books to enjoy something for a first time experience. What blows my mind is non-critical books about books. Artifice stacked upon artifice is just a sideshow of a sideshow, like drift racing, and can only amuse a very select audience who are more interested in the tricks, quirks, and minutia of a medium than they are in the general object.

[NickAdams]

There is a happy marriage between the two. I see no conflict between the separate parties. Our dissimilarities are an artificial illusion. A classic novel is not different from a popular novel. It's the same novel written better. The elite reader is not different from the average reader. He is more experienced, better educated, and draws upon a longer history of critical information when arriving at his judgments. Remember, at one time, the elite reader was the average reader. It was only through study and application that he rose.

Often, the educated reader is taught not to appreciate all books more, but to despise what before he had cherished. This is an error. One does not need to hate in order to love better. There should be a shift in emphasis, a refinement of taste, but to define oneself in opposition to another leads to all sorts of fallacies. The proper aim of academics, writers, and other elites should be to seek out the best of the popular books, and to educate others as to why they are so popular and successful, why they work so well, what is enduring about them. Dickens, Shakespeare, and Homer are all good examples of this type of writing.

I think that the reason Ulysses has such a good reputation in certain circles is because you already have to be a member of his target audience to know anything about him. People don't stumble across his book on a library shelf. Friends don't pass his book around amongst each other. Ulysses has to either be taught or sought out, and by the time one or the other has happened you can tell a certain number of things about the person reading the book: their motives, tastes, education, and expectations. I'm not going to say that it's a homogeneous group, of one mind and one opinion, but I will say that it lacks some of the variety you can find in the readers of Shakespeare.

I'm a stubborn person, but when someone makes a good point they make a good point; well done.

I enjoyed Dubliners, but I knew it, as a whole, was an acquired taste and would not recommend it to the average person.

I went to Barnes and Nobles today and looked at the best-sellers shelf. Dean Koontz's Odd Hours, the fourth book in what has become a fan favorite, was on the shelf. I decided to read the first few paragraphs. Trash! But someone likes it and I, as a book lover, should be happy people are reading. Popular books keep oddities on the shelf I guess.


Yes if the critic helps one understand the work. Most of the time today critics are on this deconstruction or feminist or Marxist or new historicist or sociological criticism where the critic reads into the work. That's a bunch of garbage. :sick:

Agreed ... but I hope deconstruction isn't a complete waste, because I have a few book on it. Does it concern semantics?

[a lost weekend]

Reading criticism is way over rated. If the work doesn't stand as a work of art on its own, then forget it. I'm not saying that applies to Joyce, but on ciritcism itself. Criticism gives college professors a job which allows them to think they are as important as the author. ;)

I expected (rightly) nothing less from ye, dear sir.

Malcolm Cowley--a critic--was responsible for the revival of Faulkner's career when ol' Bill (ol' "corn-drinking Melifluous") was obscure and out-of-print...

[NickAdams]

I expected (rightly) nothing less from ye, dear sir.

Malcolm Cowley--a critic--was responsible for the revival of Faulkner's career when ol' Bill (ol' "corn-drinking Melifluous") was obscure and out-of-print...

Thank you Mr. Cowley. I say a prayer for him every night before I go to bed, but wasn't Sanctuary still in print?

Critics do add importance to an author.

So was Joyce a genius, or just a sexual deviant?

[JBI]

Virgil, I think you are mixing up criticism with theory. Theory in many ways is pointless, but criticism is essential. Moby Dick would not be read if it weren't for critics, and I doubt Faulkner would either. Exposure to texts is really determined by the critics, and the academics. Even Dan Brown was reliant on criticism to fuel his sales.

To say a book is bad because it is not enjoyed by the public is also silly. As education increases, people's literacy increases. I see no reason that people should not be reading more challenging books if our standards of education increase. It's like saying Hart Crane should be burned because he was difficult, and god knows what should happen to Proust. It's silly.

Just because you don't understand Joyce, doesn't mean you have to. Just because it is only English enthusiasts who read Joyce doesn't mean he is bad. Just because the Backstreet Boys outsold almost all of their contemporaries doesn't mean we should be listening to their music.

[NickAdams]

Just because the Backstreet Boys outsold almost all of their contemporaries doesn't mean we should be listening to their music.

Amen!:banana:

[mortalterror]

To say a book is bad because it is not enjoyed by the public is also silly.

So, people enjoying a book is not an indication of whether it's good and universal appeal has no relationship to quality?


As education increases, people's literacy increases.

And as the number of rocks increase, I will have more rocks. That's just a reflexive statement.


I see no reason that people should not be reading more challenging books if our standards of education increase.

We have close to 100% literacy in the western world. This means more books, and more writers, not better books. The average person still only reads at the high school level. I think that you will find that college educated adults read much the same thing, unless they are in an English department. My friend with a masters degree in Psychology, besides reading advanced psychological texts, reads comic books and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. One of my lawyer friends reads nothing but pulp science fiction novels, and another one with a Ph. D. in Physics owns the complete collection of Dragonlance. When you raise an individuals level of education, they tend to read at a higher level within their own field.

Last I checked, human physiology hasn't changed in 100,000 years and certain standards are universal. There are a very small range of stimulae which men are hard wired to find pleasurable. They don't change. If you want to change what people like, then build yourself a better human. Biologically, we are about as smart as we ever were, which is why Shakespeare and Homer remain unsurpassed after centuries. They represent the high water mark of human literary achievement, the very best we are capable of in this field. You can't run a one minute mile, you can't hold your breathe for ten minutes, and you can't write better than Shakespeare. We have the advantage of the ancients, in that we can read the ancients, but that knowledge does not help us to write better books than them. Shakespeare, like Hemingway, didn't even have a college education; so your statement that education is the key to a better literature is demonstrably innaccurate. The sciences show progression, but not so much the humanities. When you educate somebody in a field like history, what you get is better informed people making the same mistakes.

But that's unfair of me. You weren't talking about writers. You were refering to readers, to which I reply that King Lear and The Odyssey were big favorites among the illiterate unwashed masses of their times. Likewise, people read trashy romance novels, and pulp fantasy about pirates and magical schoolboys back when literacy was only 10%. We don't tend to preserve those works. But if you look back in history they probably comprised a comparable share of the literary marketplace to what they hold in todays day and age. The uneducated tend to know a good thing when they see it too. Let's do them some justice. You don't have to be well educated to appreciate high art, and Michaelangelo's Pieta effects everybody whether they can define it's effect or not. I can't tell you why I like Verdi's music because I'm not a trained music scholar, but I know what I like. What I am, rather clumsily, trying to say is that people's tastes don't tend to change that much, which is one of the reasons why great art endures.

Let's say that you make advanced education compulsory and every person on the planet gets the equivalent of a B.A. education in English. I think what you will find is that you get a greater variety of well made literature. You'll get a rise in the quality of comicbooks, action movies, science fiction, fantasy, and thrillers. It will be a renaissance for literature as a whole, but the increase in the number of readers and writers of the kind of literature which you enjoy will be marginal. Joyce appeals to a very small minority of the global community, and the type of people who like him are the types of personalities already drawn to English departments. In political terms, that's your base. In marketing terms, that's your target market.

Let's stick with the marketing terminology for the nonce. Have you ever heard of the concept "diminished returns"? I want to sell potato chips; so I buy $100 million in advertisements. My sales go up 10%. I spend another $100 million and I get a 3% increase in sales. After a while, there comes a point when you've saturated your market, and every person who is willing to buy potato chips is buying your potato chips, and you won't sell another bag no matter how much money you spend or how much advertising you buy. There are just some people who don't like potato chips. That is why the audience share for elitist art does not increase at the same rate as a dramatic increase in the level of education. If you double the number of people reading, you can double the number of people already reading Ulysses, but the percentage of readers reading Ulysses stays the same. If you raise the quality of their literary education you might pick up a few, but it's never going to be anything like 100%. You're never going to make Ulysses a best seller. Sorry.


It's like saying Hart Crane should be burned because he was difficult, and god knows what should happen to Proust.

It's more like saying that in the field of natural selection certain survival characteristics are favored over others and that adaptations which do not lend animals an advantage both to breed and live longer do not pass on their genes, become recessive traits, and die out. I'm not trying to kill 'em. I'm just pointing out where they've hurt their chances.


It's silly.

That's me. Silly old terror.

[JBI]

King Lear and the Odyssey were not favorites. Hamlet and the Iliad surely, but not King Lear, that is certain. Lear's position in the pantheon was established after the 2nd world war. Critics before then, such as Dr. Johnson, went as far as to say the edited version with the alternative ending was better. Lear was seen in a new light after the atrocities during the 2nd world war, when a lot of old European thought was put into question.

In terms of anatomy we are the same as ever, but in terms of capability, we have new tools. We have more efficient ways to learn how to read. We have more time to do so. We have an easier life than our ancestors, and longer lives at that. With that comes the point of stretching boundaries. What was once seen as difficult can now be seen as simple. What once thought impossible can now be seen as merely difficult. I see no reason why difficulty should get in the way of someone enjoying literature. Just because you do not like Joyce doesn't mean he is not of value. Just because you do not understand his work doesn't mean he is impossible.

Aristotle's Ethics is one of the most difficult philosophical books I have encountered. Does that devalue it? Its profound affect on thought over the ages proves it to be as important, if not more. as the most accessible philosophical work. The value is not determined by how many can understand it, but by what comes from the understanding.

One cannot read Faulkner or Woolf the same way without reading Joyce. One cannot read Borges, Eco, Calvino, or Nabokov the same way without reading Joyce. One cannot really read or understand Beckett without reading Joyce (this is for real understanding, not merely pleasure reading). The fact that he has had such influence solidifies his spot in the canon, regardless of whether or not you find him difficult. Literature is not about easiness.

You mention Verdi, but can you appreciate Verdi's last few Operas the same way without looking at Wagner? The very dimming of the lights in the opera hall was because of him. Most people I know who like opera don't tend to like Wagner, and prefer the lighter operas, like Puccini's and Rossini's, that does not make Wagner bad. Bruckner and Mahler, and even Schubert as composers are neglected often because of their mature richness and thickness. That isn't even considering Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Debussy, who pretty much hammered down all the rules, and yet are still less listened to. Just because Mozart is more important doesn't mean we should only listen to him. Just because something is difficult to understand, play, or comprehend doesn't mean it has no value.

I bet more people read pornography, and listen to Britney than enjoy even Hemingway. Does that mean the guy who writes the cheesy porn articles is a better writer? Does that mean Britney even makes good music? The masses hardly are any judge of anything since most of them are too busy to decide anything for themselves on most subjects.

It is the same with literature. There are those who like to read it, those who like to study it, and those who like to escape into it. The escape group are not reading but escaping, the first group are reading but not for depth, and the last group are the ones determining what should be read.

Sure, Ulysses may not be everywhere, but high school text books are likely to contain a short story of his or two. The Norton Anthology of English Literature has a nice section of its body directed to Joyce. All studies in modernist literature involve Joyce in one way or another. All studies in modern literary structure involve Joyce in one way or another. His influence and importance allow one to consider him a genius, despite how frustrated you may get by not understanding his work. He didn't write it for you, did he.

Also, you have no faith in the education system. To say that people have the same skill at reading now as they did before is foolish. Many people could not even read before, and those that could many could not read well. If you have strong focus on literacy you can have a population reading Shakespeare at 10-12, and reading Joyce by 15. It's possible, just difficult. literacy rate doesn't just mean higher percent of people can read, it means higher percent of people can read well. The more developed a country is, the better education it has. that being said, it will mean that better methods of teaching will allow one to learn more in less time, and thereby create superreaders in the process.

[kat.]

Virgil, I think you are mixing up criticism with theory. Theory in many ways is pointless, but criticism is essential. Moby Dick would not be read if it weren't for critics, and I doubt Faulkner would either. Exposure to texts is really determined by the critics, and the academics. Even Dan Brown was reliant on criticism to fuel his sales.

To say a book is bad because it is not enjoyed by the public is also silly. As education increases, people's literacy increases. I see no reason that people should not be reading more challenging books if our standards of education increase. It's like saying Hart Crane should be burned because he was difficult, and god knows what should happen to Proust. It's silly.

Just because you don't understand Joyce, doesn't mean you have to. Just because it is only English enthusiasts who read Joyce doesn't mean he is bad. Just because the Backstreet Boys outsold almost all of their contemporaries doesn't mean we should be listening to their music.


HAHAHAHA....great post!!!! :D

[sofia82]

I've not read Ulysses yet, but about the portrait of an artist it is a great novel. I remember that one of the teachers told once Never read Ulysess when you are young you have to find the proper time to read this great novel else you will get dissapointed. As it is said, it the style and form of narration which make Joyce a great figure.

[jikan myshkin]

I'm glad jazz musicians didn't think this way. That is a very limiting view. I think Joyce might view that as a crippling stasis. It's the layers that make you return to a text. I enjoy writers like Joyce, because a book like his on my shelf is not just matter in space. I own it, because I will return to it. What a waste it would be of a couch you use once and nver throw away.

i don't understand the reference to jazz?

this thread has told me all i need to know about this forum. :D and if you don't understand what i mean i cannot really tell you for it would be very unseemly for me to assume that i know best and that my truth is your truth. on the subject of degrees, i found that my teachers seemed hell bent on destroying what enjoyment one could get from literature and were more interested in you drawing their conclusions or preaching about their beliefs. i found iniversity good in the sesne that it enabled me to have free time to pursue my own reading, but as far as the course, well as my sister said, anyone who does a eng degree becomes an arrogent snob, which is true with my teachers and the majority of my class mates.

mortalterror, vigil, i enjoy your posts, it seems we are all from a similar mindset, one of illiteracy:lol:

[Scheherazade]

Please refrain from resorting to personal remark/inflammatory comments.

Such comments will be deleted without any further warning.

[Caliban Deladus]

The brilliant thing about Finnegans Wake is that if you saw two people talking about it;
One who had read the book
and the other who had not read the book;
You could never tell which was which.

And neither could they.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The supplementals don't help. I give this book a shot every couple of years, bending over backwards in some sort of masochistic effort to be fair and open minded. Every time I read an essay on Ulysses or the Cliff Notes, or a book of criticism to try and get a better handle on it, I think I understand what should be going on, but then I go back to the book and it's complete gibberish. The book everyone's describing sure sounds nice, but it's not the one I've been reading.

I can see why somebody would like a James Patterson novel or a harlequin romance. That's just bad taste. But it's comprehensible and human. You can see where they fall short and with a few changes bad literature can become good literature. As for Ulysses, I don't think that's even English. I don't think people are really even capable of enjoying that book no matter what they do. Homo sapiens just aren't hardwired for that kind of garbage.

If somebody tells me they liked it, I have to assume a)they're lying. Either they are pretentious navel gazers who want to sound intelligent, or they are so bitter after reading this book that they want others to share their pain in a sort of vindictive conspiracy. Or maybe b)they're all brainwashed, like in one of those sick Charley Manson style cults. They aren't right in the head. They enjoy pain. And possibly c)they haven't really read the book. They're just saying what they've heard other people say about it.

Everyone who claims to like this book say that they like it for its originality. Yes, that is fair. That is an excellent assessment. Other books which came before it were good, and this is completely different from all of those. No author who's ever written a worthwhile book has written anything even remotely like it.

I cannot express in English how much I dislike this book. Perhaps, if I were writing in whatever nonsense language Joyce wrote his novels in they'd have a word for it. In conclusion, I think this book was sent by the devil himself to destroy mankind. It's a black hole from which light and joy cannot escape, a blight on the land, a splinter in your mind, a place where dreams turn to ash and sorrow loses all meaning. It's a golem. It's a frankenstein. It's the boogieman. It'll come in the night, rip your children from their beds, and eat them! Lord have mercy. Protect us from this unholy thing.

:smilielol5: This is the first of the infamous MortalTerror rants against Ulysses, and I just gotta say I loved it.

[Lykren]

"Let's be honest, reading only for the sake of "enjoying" is like mowing the grass without cutting anything. Your skin reflects the time spent, but your lawn still looks disheveled, and you have essentially wasted time. If however, the work helps to bring some sort of expansion/perception that you never had before, well then, I guess it is worth reading."

JBI, this and other statements suggest that you find expanding your consciousness and literary awareness an unenjoyable activity. Can this really be so?

[Yulehesays]

Oh certainly. Beckett helped Joyce write when the latter's eyes gave a fuss. & who (who! i ask, who!) could forget/ignore Beckett's powerful defense of Finnegan's Wake Dante...Bruno. Vico..Joyce from Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress.

For that matter, what is it with these god-damn Irishmen?--Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, Shaw, O'Casey, Banville... solid gold, solid gold.

Don't forget Oscar Wilde, Patrick Kavanagh and Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney!

[maxphisher]

Are you always this pretentious when you try to make someone feel bad about not enjoying a book? Joyce's work is intimidating as it is; I doubt that the folks who have not understood it, or who might be seeking constructive insight, really gain too much from you trying to make them feel like idiots. We get it, you read the book; get over yourself.


You don't need a "key" to enjoy Ulysses; it's perceived "difficulty" is vastly (um, greatly) overrated--I know many people who aren't particularly interested in literature & who - certainly - have no expertise in the area, but are still amazed by Ulysses. The "superiority" thing is for lil' kids who read for the sake of making themselves feel smarter. Ulysses is, 1st and foremost, a very great novel. Different; yes. Experimental; yes. But difficult? Nay...

That said--people who aren't willing to submit themselves to the, er, 'challenge' of reading a novel that will (permantently, perhaps?) alter their view of the form should stick to reading stuff that requires less concentration & attention &, well, thought.

To all future readers of Ulysses: shed your prejudice, whether it's of the "I read Ulysses because I'll seem smarter" or the "Wah, wah, it requires a key it's an arrogant, complicated book" kind. Simply shed your illusions & hopes & expectations &--plan & simple--enjoy it. Language like none other.