War and Peace or Ulysses in terms of form and content?

[blazeofglory]

I have started Ulysses several times but to no avail. I have started since this book got so many applauds by critics all over the world. Craftsmanship if we really have in our mind this book is unbeatable. James was a very erudite personality he had experimented with a new technique. Yet I find the book full of verbatim. I have to look up for many words and even if I know the words I find the really onerously unreadable. I do not know why critics admire this book so much whereas most readers simply find the book awkward. I believe that books must be readers-centric. Few read these days Milton, Dryden or Pope notwithstanding that their craftsmanship or philosophy was never touch and go. But Tolstoy is different and his book is not only philosophically grand artistically also his works are eloquent. What is more, people find the book highly arresting, and it is not only erudition that engages the reader and there are many things that arrests the reader. I have both books at hand and yet I love to read war and peace highly appealing.

Of course the people here on the forum may have their own say and I will be more curious about their views and choices.

[dfloyd]

and more than a good copy of The Odyssey. There is a book thicker than Ulysses which gives all of the trivia which Joyce put into his novel. With this book in hand and forearmed with a college-level course, I found it still very hard to make sense out of Joyce's novel. Chapter three is particularly difficult. I feel that Ulysses is overly praised by those who have got through it because they believe they belong to a select few and are proud of there accomplishment. If you find it too difficult to read, don't worry. Many college professors have the same problem.

[mal4mac]

Is it trivia, or is it the stuff of life?

Could it be that those who have got through it, but haven't recognised its aesthetic value, would rather dismiss the book than make the effort needed to understand it? Or have they had their pride hurt so much by not understanding/enjoying it that they dismiss it rather than face their own limitations? By taking this attitude are they building a barrier against overcoming those limitations?

There are too many professors, great writers, and good critics who have praised this book to allow anyone, even someone who has read through it with a big handbook by their side, to dismiss it it so easily. Also I find it rather sad that someone should take such a low view of the many admirable characters who have read this book. Do you really think that the literary figures who praised this book to the heights are so shallow? These include Eliot, Pound, Wells, Woolf, Bloom, ... and on ... just about anyone who is/was anyone...

Which College professors have found it too difficult to read?

I actually failed to read Ulysses on my first attempt, but am building up to attempting it again. I attempted it without any 'help notes', which was a mistake. But I also feel that handbooks can be a real hindrance, especially when they are longer than the book itself! You can get bogged down in detail by using the pedantic handbooks. They can destroy the merits of the original book, by drowning it in academic dust.

It might be better to approach Ulysses by first reading Joyce's earlier works and a good biography. This has worked for me, so far. I really enjoyed Dubliners, Portrait, and Ellmann's biography. I used the "Wordsworth" edition of "Portrait" which has excellent notes - just enough to explain the religious/political references and "trivia", but not enough to drown me with Gradgrindery. Ellmann's biograophy gave me a good idea of what Joyce was about in writing these strange works, which helped a lot with "Portrait", and should help with "Ulysses". He has almost tempted me to try Finnegan's Wake :)

I'm about to read the Oxford World Classics edition of Ulysses, which seems to be the best version "with notes". I may end up just as perplexed and unhappy with it as dfloyd, but having read Ellmann and the earlier works I will not dismiss the book so readily... we need to be humble enough to realise the inadequacies may lie in us rather than the work.

All great literature has to be reader-centric! But why should books be immediately transparent? With Tolstoy and Dickens, and most modern novelists, they had become transparent, but books have not always been that way - Dante is not transparent. Dante has too many unexplained references to obscure Italians and texts to allow the common reader to gain immediate understanding. Joyce was much influenced by Dante. By using Irish slang and making lots of references to Irish politics and catholic religion he was following Dante. But in doing this, he was simply talking about things he knew about, in the way he expressed them in his everyday life. That is, he put truth before transparency. Tough luck if the reader didn't have sufficient knowledge of the culture to understand him! All it should need to get round this, of course, is an edition with good notes...

[Brad Coelho]

Blazes,
I agree w/ your premise. Without pleasure, that which is merely provocative does not tend to engage the senses enough to sustain our attention. That said, I actually enjoyed Ulysses- perhaps I did so in all preparation of indulging in a work that was atypical. There were chapters that I invested my emotions, others that I read from a distance to appreciate the brilliance of method (particularly the chapter that parallels an actual birth w/ the gestation of the English language- terribly hard to read on the surface, but beguiling from a distance).

Joyce's own criticism of the novel, that it was too systemitized, demands that you appreciate, or at least understand the system. Once I appreciated that the cloudy template of the Odyssey tied the novel together, I began to embrace the banality of the plot as a satire, spooled in webs of anti-climax & humor. The aforementioned 3rd chapter seemed daunting at first, but when I 'let go' a bit as a reader and took it for what it was, as a dizzying steam of consciousness, I become a bit emotionally bonded to the character. It is a fascinating piece of poetry, w/ some stray nuggets & some genuine intrigue in the mind of Stephen. Just a stroll on the beach linearly, but the real dimension of the chapter is a stroll through his mind, which is a fascinating exercise. While this is certainly not for everyone (much like art, I'm the last person to apologize for a contemporary canvas that I don't get), I think my perspective allowed me to enjoy & appreciate the work.

Joyce's real contribution to literature was his ability to demonstrate how artful the English language and mind can be, particularly amidst the most tame, everyday circumstances that normal human beings go through. Few see the grind as he did, perhaps because he was too entangled in the words & minds that surround the grind.

[Adagio]

I'm about to read the Oxford World Classics edition of Ulysses, which seems to be the best version "with notes". I may end up just as perplexed and unhappy with it as dfloyd, but having read Ellmann and the earlier works I will not dismiss the book so readily... we need to be humble enough to realise the inadequacies may lie in us rather than the work.
I'm currently studying the same edition in my frist year at university. It's a great edition!

I am almost finished with the novel and getting ready to write an essay on it. I must say that there are parts -- even with a guide and critical work -- that were lost on me. Joyce was a master of language, so expect some mighty and unfamiliar words to greet you; not only does he play with language he makes it play with the reader which can, at times, make reading Ulysses more difficult. However, there are sections of the book (especially the final episode) which are some of the best I've encountered in literature. Full of humour, tragedy and the utmost beauty. I'd say Joyce's work is well worth the effort even if a minority of the novel is going to touch you. Trust me, that minority will never leave you.