joyce, genius or not

[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

[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.

[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.

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!