joyce, genius or not

[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!!!!

[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. 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

[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.

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.