Why the hell James Joyce's Ulysses always tops the list of best novels?

[blazeofglory]

It is all a foolery and judges whoever they are and what academic height they have ascended are foolhardy guys to select James Joyce for his aesthetic excellence, in fact artistic claptrap. I had been a wastrel to devote the rarest moments of my life to this arty idiocy. I will henceforth not give any attention to it. I have read a few chapters to waste my time.
I have to rack my brains to read his outlandish words. It is a wordy book and written out of his hubris sophisticating it to the degree getting even scholars or professors of English giddier and giddier.
Why cannot a great piece of art simple and why the panel choose a book them for the highest score. I have some friends pursuing higher academic courses who find the book really disgusting.

[PeterL]

Because it is very interesting. If you want outlandishness, then read Finnegans Wake. Ulysses is quite straighforward.

Rather than reading those, you might try writing something like what Joyce might have written. There is a market for grest literature, and the sales will continue for a long time unlike popular fiction that is usually forgotten when the press run ends.

[YesNo]

It is all a foolery and judges whoever they are and what academic height they have ascended are foolhardy guys to select James Joyce for his aesthetic excellence, in fact artistic claptrap. I had been a wastrel to devote the rarest moments of my life to this arty idiocy. I will henceforth not give any attention to it. I have read a few chapters to waste my time.
I have to rack my brains to read his outlandish words. It is a wordy book and written out of his hubris sophisticating it to the degree getting even scholars or professors of English giddier and giddier.
Why cannot a great piece of art simple and why the panel choose a book them for the highest score. I have some friends pursuing higher academic courses who find the book really disgusting.
I like the sound of "arty idiocy". Nice choice of words. I probably would have said "artsy idiocy".

At least you only read a few chapters. I haven't read any of it yet, but now I wonder if I should even bother. I'm sure it is a million pages long as well.

One rule of thumb I have when selecting movies is to check if the movie has won any of those artsy film festival awards. If it has, I don't bother with it. However, I've probably missed some good stuff with this technique.

[fb0252]

possibly you chose the wrong chapters to sample.

[AuntShecky]

In the purest sense of the word "novel," Ulysses was absolutely brand new, both in terms of subject matter and artistic expression. No other single prose work of the twentieth century transformed literature as much as this masterpiece did. That's why the novel tops so many lists.

[Ecurb]

Joyce is one of the great literary geniuses. Although some might prefer his simpler works (try his brilliant story "The Dead", the last paragraph of which comprises some of the most beautiful prose ever written), he is probably the single most original and brilliant novelist of the twentieth century. I'll grant that Ulysses is difficult -- but so are a lot of things that are worthwhile.

[Lokasenna]

It's fundamentally a matter of taste. I think Joyce is massively overrated, but that's only my opinion - I'm sure there are plenty of Joyce-lovers out there who would dismiss my medieval gumph as horrible.

As for Joyce being a literary revolutionary, well, let's just say that change isn't always for the better in my opinion!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can see why someone wouldn't enjoy the works of Joyce, but if someone can't appreciate it and how much thought and detail went into a piece of work like Ulysses, I'm sorry, but you're just being dense.

Anyways, the OP offers nothing of real criticism, or even reasons as to why Ulysses is so horrible. It really just comes off as an extremely bitter "I don't get it" rant.

[Ecurb]

It's fundamentally a matter of taste. I think Joyce is massively overrated, but that's only my opinion - I'm sure there are plenty of Joyce-lovers out there who would dismiss my medieval gumph as horrible.

As for Joyce being a literary revolutionary, well, let's just say that change isn't always for the better in my opinion!

I think that disliking Joyce's books is quite different from claiming he's "massively overrated". I've never been a big Dostoevsky fan -- my tastes run more toward Tolstoy. But I would never say, "Dostoevsky is massively overrated." (Or, I might say it, but I wouldn't think it.)

Joyce's talent is so apparent that even if it doesn't appeal to someone personally, I find it hard to believe that it's easily dismissed. So I disagree. Whether you like the books personally is "fundamentally a matter of (personal) taste." But I always thought my antipathy for Dostoevsky's novels is MY failing, not Dostoevsky's. I can recognize his talent, even though it may not appeal to me.

Here's the last paragraph of "The Dead":
A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.

Here's the last bit of the famous run-on sentence at the end of Ulysses:
O that awful deepdown torrent O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and the pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

Joyce's novels may not appeal to someone's personal taste. Certainly Ulysses is overblown, snooty, deliberately obscure, etc., etc. Nonetheless, the literary talent -- the feel for sounds, words, and images -- is so massive that calling him "massively overrated" (based on one's own personal taste) seems extreme.

Personally, I can't read either of these exerpts without feeling the chills.

[MystyrMystyry]

The book is bloody hilarious! There's at least one belly laugh per paragraph!

The reason it's always featured in the best books is because it's one of the best books!

You're not supposed to sit in a quiet corner and read it solemnly as though it's some sacred religious text - you're supposed to laugh out loud - that was his intention and that is what he achieved

But maybe this thread should be called Why is Ulysses so Funny?

[hanzklein]

Ulysses is the best novel ever made, and may be the only piece of original writing in Western civilization.

[Lokasenna]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you, Ecurb!

Joyce is, in my subjective opinion, massively overrated - and I believe that I am justified in saying that. I'm not setting myself up as any sort of iconoclast, but as someone who has read widely I honestly do not rate Joyce, and I find it slightly baffling that anyone else does. I accept, however, that taste comes into it - those two passages that so move you leave me feeling rather cold.

As such, I think it's entirely possible to claim that someone is overrated, while understanding that their work will appeal to some people.

[Flyonwall]

You're not supposed to sit in a quiet corner and read it solemnly as though it's some sacred religious text - you're supposed to laugh out loud - that was his intention and that is what he achieved


Did you see the scene in Lost where Ben Linus was reading it on a plane? The actor played it with a solemn facial expression no doubt trying to convey the profundity of his intellect.

[blazeofglory]

James Joyce is an overrated novelist and just because of his experiment with language or arty or artsy linguistic use and a little innovative swings he must be ranked above the rest of other epoch making writers.

Most of us are hooked to a certain stylistic vehemence and form and we like Miltonic prose and yet few really enjoy reading them. We are accustomed to applaud a certain piece of literature and we are always admiring the Shakespearean mold or biblical fervor but in actual fact that remains to be limited to the textbook type. We are always told to read some great classics but in actuality do not enjoy them. Great epics have always been subjects of admiration and they cannot engage us when we read them.

In the same vein we tirelessly admire James Joyce but I do no think anyone really can enjoy reading this mass of nonsense.

James Joyce' s main motive is to startle his reader with his elegance art.
Kafka for instance was a great novelist yet Kafka has simplicity in his style

Tolstoy's war and piece is so beautifully written even style-wise but he was capable of engaging our minds with his grand thought.

Joyce' is a paragon no doubt as a novelist but we need to read and read and read at least 10 times each sentence or else he is such a bore and of course repulsive.

I have tried to read his Ulysses with a dictionary in front of me but I always found it arduous job and I realized I have been a wastrel.

I do not suggest to any aspiring readers to read especially his Ulysses. There are so many other great books you can enjoy reading and learn.

[MarkBastable]

Yet again I'm going to challenge one of your generalisations.

Tolstoy's war and piece is so beautifully written even style-wise but he was capable of engaging our minds with his grand thought.

Oh no it's not. War and Peace is very very dull - in Russian and in English - and Tolstoy doesn't engage my mind at all. Who were you including when you said 'our'?

[Ecurb]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you, Ecurb!

Joyce is, in my subjective opinion, massively overrated - and I believe that I am justified in saying that. I'm not setting myself up as any sort of iconoclast, but as someone who has read widely I honestly do not rate Joyce, and I find it slightly baffling that anyone else does. I accept, however, that taste comes into it - those two passages that so move you leave me feeling rather cold.

As such, I think it's entirely possible to claim that someone is overrated, while understanding that their work will appeal to some people.

I think you're misusing the word "overrated". It's reasonable to dislike Ulysses, based on your subjective opinion. However, to think that OTHER PEOPLE "overrate" his novels requires more objectivity than that. After all, you are not the one overrating Joyce; you dislike his novels. Instead, you are making the claim that those who rate the novels as masterpieces are making a mistake. Surely such a claim can only be reasonable if it is based on something more substantial than a vague, personal distaste.

Here's a (long) essay from the London Times on Ulysses that I sent to a friend on the 100th "Bloomsday". It enumerates some of the qualities of the book (I would have linked it but I have a copy, not a link):


100! Happy Bloomsday
By Jan Morris
As James Joyce fans prepare to celebrate the centenary of 'Poldy' Bloom's progress around Dublin in Ulysses, this writer examines why the epic novel continues to baffle, infuriate, impress and delight

A CENTURY ago next Wednesday, on June 16, 1904, Mr Leopold "Poldy" Bloom spent the day pottering around his native city of Dublin, and so bequeathed to the world its most celebrated peregrination - so famous that thousands of people still assiduously follow the route, and June 16 is commemorated to this day as Bloomsday.

Actually, of course, Mr Bloom meandered only through the pages of a novel, James Joyce's Ulysses, but that doesn't make him and his day's wandering any less real to countless aficionados. Whole books have reconstructed Bloomsday Dublin, and Bloom's movements have been timed to the minute. Scholars have noted every shop he passed, every pub he dropped in at, and some of the pubs have prospered by his custom ever since.

It is perfectly possible to accompany Mr Bloom without setting eyes on Dublin - plenty of route-maps are available, some even showing the manhole cover opposite his house in Eccles Street that he was obliged to avoid at the start of his day, not to mention the direction of the Glasnevin funeral cortège that he joined later in the morning. But there are thousands of readers in the world who feel the urge to walk the same pavements, prop themselves at the same bars, and a large proportion of them will be in Dublin next Wednesday, the first centennial Bloomsday.

Who called it Bloomsday? I don't think the word appears in the book itself, but as a sort of literary logo it exactly suits the cult that surrounds Ulysses. Its knowingness, its in-jokiness, its hint of the T-shirt or the anorak, its commercial potential - all express the nature of this worldwide enthusiasm, which ranges from the academic (eg, Ulysses and the
Metaphysicals: A Comparative Bibliography) to the yobbo (eg, Bloomsday Bingeing by the Liffey).

Actually the cult has two epicentres. There is Dublin, of course, of which Joyce himself said his book would be a permanent model, and there is Trieste, where he wrote much of Ulysses, and which has a school of Joyce studies and an annual Joyce symposium. Sometimes the passage of Joyceans between the two cities has a migratory air to it, as the flocks of devotees arrive in their thousands to roost temporarily at one or the other.

The author of Ulysses and the Metaphysicals is sure to be there, the man who can recite the whole of Molly Bloom's soliloquy by heart, the couple who fly in every year from Hong Kong, scores of American D Phil thesis-writers and dozens of earnest addicts, conversant with every last metaphor of the book, who remind me rather of trainspotters. If they are in Trieste they take their coffee-break at the Caffè Stella Polaris, where Joyce was a regular; if they are in Dublin, Davy Byrne's pub is the place. In Dublin the Sandymount Martello tower, where Ulysses opens, compels them one and all; in Trieste they can do the round of the Joyce family's successive uninviting apartments (itineraries obtainable at tourist offices).

Have they all read the book, cover to cover? I very much doubt it. Most people who say they have are evasive when pressed, and all who claim to have read and understood it without a crib are lying through their teeth. Far from being an "accessible" work, as publishers like to claim, much of it is immediately incomprehensible. I started to read Ulysses in 1942 and did not succeed in finishing it until 1989, by which time I had acquired Mr Harry Blamires's indispensable line-by-line commentary, The New Bloomsday Book.

For one thing Ulysses is, in my opinion, unnecessarily obscure - what's the point? For another it is often tediously ostentatious, in learning as in language. It has so many separate themes, winding and unwinding around one another, that exhausted readers may feel as though they have had one too many at Davy Byrne's - or one too few. And it intermittently purports to be related, episode by episode, to corresponding passages in Homer's Odyssey - Bloom himself being its Ulysses, miscellaneous whores and bigots representing Circe, Cyclops and the rest, and Mrs Bloom revealing herself, at the very end, as a less than immaculate Penelope.

Joyceans are inclined to be touchy if you mention the opacity of the work, because half their pleasure comes from worrying out the meanings of Ulysses, matching texts, arguing about locations and following the Dublin street maps (though Joyce sometimes mischievously confuses even them - now and then he puts a shop on the wrong side of a road, or has somebody getting off a train at Lansdowne Road when the 10am train from Bray didn't stop there . . .)

And yet . . . dear God, how often have I blessed Mr Blamires, ever since he first enabled me to read Ulysses all the way through. However maddening this book can be, however boring or ostentatious, I recognise it as one of the universal literary masterpieces. There! I have declared myself a Joycean, and as a matter of fact, when I opened one of my several editions of Ulysses today, out fell the packaging of a cake of lemon soap, bought years ago at the Sandymount Martello tower and sold in memory of the lemon-scented soap that Poldy bought for himself at Sweny's in Lincoln Place (page 69, line 510, 1986 edition). I have kept it for 17 years, and one can hardly get more Joycean than that.

Actually it was the protean nature of the book that finally convinced me of its greatness. I take nothing back about multi-themes and unconvincing Homerisms, and I still feel free to skip whenever I want to. But I marvel now at that tangle of themes which used to tire me so, because it means that the book is, so to speak, many books in one, conveying many parallel messages - and many morals, perhaps.

First and most obviously it is a book about Dublin. Lots of Dublin has disappeared since 1904, but lots hasn't, and it is still a fascination to follow that famous meander through its streets, looking out for the Ormond Hotel where the barmaid-Sirens were, or Nichols the undertakers, or hoping to buy some kidney at Dlugacz's butcher's shop (not a chance, because it is one of the few purely fictional establishments in the book). There we go, we Joycean trainspotters, with our maps in our hands and dear Mr Blamires in our capacious string bags - year after year, Bloomsday after Bloomsday, deploring still the demise of the Bath Avenue tram, rejoicing to find the coffee fragrant as ever outside Bewley's.

Then Ulysses is also the portrait of a man - some critics say the most complete portrait of a man yet written. Bloom is a very ordinary person, except that he is a Jew. He feels an outsider always. He is more sensitive than most, more confused about himself sexually and socially, and as we accompany him around the city, all through the day, we seem to glimpse every last nuance of his character, admirable and pathetic, sad and hopeful.

Ulysses is a study in jealousy, too, because during the afternoon Bloom is cuckolded, and knows it. It is a comedy, sometimes aspiring to farce. It is a poem. It is a play. It is a sort of @!#$ manual, because a multitude of @!#$ preferences and variations are observed, recalled or simply imagined; if Bloom exposes himself in many kinds of pornographic self-indulgence, Molly brings everything to a celebrated climax with eight pages of undiluted and unpunctuated literary @!#$. It is full of sorrows. It has a happy ending.

To my mind the glory of the thing is this: that we can read it how we please (if we manage to read it at all). I choose to find in it an elementary lesson in morality, because I believe that at its core there lies a parable of goodness. "Poldy" Bloom is as fallible a man as ever lived, a lascivious daydreamer, but he is good at the heart, and my favourite passage in the whole work concerns his passing over O'Connell Bridge at about 11 on Bloomsday morning. As he walks he scrumples up a piece of paper and throws it over the parapet, wondering if the seagulls fluttering around will think it edible. Of course they don't, but a few moments later Poldy feels sorry for those birds, feels ashamed to have tried to deceive them, and buying a couple of Banbury cakes from a nearby stall (price 1d), he crumbles them, returns to the bridge and makes recompense to the gulls.

One could not be basically bad and do that: and my own grand lesson of Ulysses is that you can be an idler and a lecher, the most pretentious of writers, the most pedantic of scholars, the silliest of literary groupies, the drunkest of louts down at Temple Bar next Wednesday night, and still be as kind a man as Leopold Bloom.

[blazeofglory]

Yet again I'm going to challenge one of your generalisations.

Tolstoy's war and piece is so beautifully written even style-wise but he was capable of engaging our minds with his grand thought.

Oh no it's not. War and Peace is very very dull - in Russian and in English - and Tolstoy doesn't engage my mind at all. Who were you including when you said 'our'?


Have you ever heard about anybody overrating War and Peace the way there is a plethora of argument against Joye's Ulysses.
While War and Peace is great thematically and stylistically. There is a philosophy too. There is a direction.

But Joyce is a heap of stylistic garbage, very wordy too. There is no spontaneity there and what hooks some scholastic fools is his pedantic manner.

[Alexander III]

Yet again I'm going to challenge one of your generalisations.

Tolstoy's war and piece is so beautifully written even style-wise but he was capable of engaging our minds with his grand thought.

Oh no it's not. War and Peace is very very dull - in Russian and in English - and Tolstoy doesn't engage my mind at all. Who were you including when you said 'our'?

Wait a sec, so Blaze loves W&P and hates Ulysses, but you hate W&P and love Ulysses....maybe just maybe, this whole art thing is subjective...maybe just maybe if I hate Dickens, the logical conclusion is not that Dickens in truth sucks and it is a huge conspiracy which has given him his reputation...maybe just maybe I=Everyone else is not true.

[blazeofglory]

Reading Ulysses sucks up a great deal of time and maybe I must devote months to read and enjoy his work. I cannot do that considering my busy schedules and of course most of people too.

I have to stop at every word and look up in the dictionary for its intricate meaning and try to analyze.

I hate to read the textbook type these days. I do not read it just a few academics prescribe at some universities.

This is an outdated book and in today's fast life style few want to be academically oriented and corner themselves to enjoy this book except a few old styled ones who are still living in their past ideals.

[PeterL]

Reading Ulysses sucks up a great deal of time and maybe I must devote months to read and enjoy his work. I cannot do that considering my busy schedules and of course most of people too.

I have to stop at every word and look up in the dictionary for its intricate meaning and try to analyze.

Maybe you should put it aside until you have more of the background, so that you won't have to think about every little item.


This is an outdated book and in today's fast life style few want to be academically oriented and corner themselves to enjoy this book except a few old styled ones who are still living in their past ideals.

Ulysses was terribly popular book, because it requires that the reader know a great deal about literature and other things. There are many people who find things like Ulysses interesting, but no one ever thought that it was for all people. Joyce certainly didn't think that it would be a best seller. If it isn't for you, then so be it. While I enjoyed reading it, it isn't one of my favorite books.

[JCamilo]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you, Ecurb!

Joyce is, in my subjective opinion, massively overrated - and I believe that I am justified in saying that. .

No, you are not. Simple because you are just saying that. No justification at all. It is quite easy - as Blaze, who was someone who loves "Miltonic prose" and would save poetry - is claiming a book is bad because he dislike it.

This way is easy. People dislike things. Those things are overrated (albeit as what, I am not sure).

[YesNo]

The book is bloody hilarious! There's at least one belly laugh per paragraph!

OK. I see the book is in the local library. I'll give it a try.

[Ecurb]

If you are going to read Ulysses by yourself, I definitely recommend a "guide". I read it with the Balmires guide (The New Bloomsday Book) listed in the Times article, and it was very helpful.

There's no doubt that Ulysses is difficult, and that it takes some effort to get through it. It's also funny, charming, infuriating, moving, and enlightening (which makes the effort worthwhile). For those who have never read Joyce, I'd recommend trying some short stories or Portrait of an Artist to see if you have a taste for him before wading into Ulysses, which does take some effort.

[MarkBastable]

Wait a sec, so Blaze loves W&P and hates Ulysses, but you hate W&P and love Ulysses....maybe just maybe, this whole art thing is subjective...maybe just maybe if I hate Dickens, the logical conclusion is not that Dickens in truth sucks and it is a huge conspiracy which has given him his reputation...maybe just maybe I=Everyone else is not true.

I didn't say I loved Ulysses. I didn't even mention Ulysses.

And my point was that Blaze didn't suggest that his mind is engaged by War and Peace. He insisted that ours is. But, as you say, we all don't find that to be the case. My mind, for one, is not engaged.

Should I ever suggest that we all love Dickens, then we'll have an argument. As things stand, I think we agree with each other.

[Lokasenna]

I think you're misusing the word "overrated". It's reasonable to dislike Ulysses, based on your subjective opinion. However, to think that OTHER PEOPLE "overrate" his novels requires more objectivity than that. After all, you are not the one overrating Joyce; you dislike his novels. Instead, you are making the claim that those who rate the novels as masterpieces are making a mistake. Surely such a claim can only be reasonable if it is based on something more substantial than a vague, personal distaste.


Well, I suppose this is more of a semantic argument than anything else. I do, however, think it is perfectly acceptable to voice a personal opinion that something is overrated. It is not even really to do with enjoying the consumption of it - I don't dislike Joyce's work, I would say my feelings are more neutral than that.

I fully accept that many people consider Joyce a great artistic genius - an opinion they are fully entitled to. As it happens, I disagree - an opinion I am fully entitled to.


No, you are not. Simple because you are just saying that. No justification at all. It is quite easy - as Blaze, who was someone who loves "Miltonic prose" and would save poetry - is claiming a book is bad because he dislike it.

This way is easy. People dislike things. Those things are overrated (albeit as what, I am not sure).

I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying here, but I think you're making the same point as Ecurb? In which case, my answer stands. I am entitled to my opinion.

[hillwalker]

In the same vein we tirelessly admire James Joyce but I do no think anyone really can enjoy reading this mass of nonsense.

You destroy any argument you are trying to make by crass generalisations like this. There are many people who have enjoyed reading Ulysses for its playful use of language and bold originality. The fact that it doesn't appeal to you is neither here nor there - it is unlikely one reader's opinion is going to turn the tide against Joyce.


I have tried to read his Ulysses with a dictionary in front of me but I always found it arduous job and I realized I have been a wastrel.

In a nutshell you have demonstrated why you will probably never appreciate or enjoy this masterpiece. If you constantly have to refer to a dictionary while reading it then it's unlikely to prove a pleasureable experience. But I hardly think Joyce's literary standing hinges on your ability to cope with his verbosity.

H

[YesNo]

If you are going to read Ulysses by yourself, I definitely recommend a "guide". I read it with the Balmires guide (The New Bloomsday Book) listed in the Times article, and it was very helpful.

There's no doubt that Ulysses is difficult, and that it takes some effort to get through it. It's also funny, charming, infuriating, moving, and enlightening (which makes the effort worthwhile). For those who have never read Joyce, I'd recommend trying some short stories or Portrait of an Artist to see if you have a taste for him before wading into Ulysses, which does take some effort.
The library doesn't have that guide, but there are a few others. I'll just pick one that feels useful when I get there this evening. I plan to wade at least as far as blazeofglory did which I guess was 3 chapters.

I'm curious to see what the problem is. Also I hear that Joyce is a "modern" writer rather than a "post-modern" one which might be interesting (or not).

EDIT: At least I'll find out which pubs to go to if I ever get to Dublin.

[hanzklein]

Reading Ulysses sucks up a great deal of time and maybe I must devote months to read and enjoy his work. I cannot do that considering my busy schedules and of course most of people too.

I have to stop at every word and look up in the dictionary for its intricate meaning and try to analyze.

I hate to read the textbook type these days. I do not read it just a few academics prescribe at some universities.

This is an outdated book and in today's fast life style few want to be academically oriented and corner themselves to enjoy this book except a few old styled ones who are still living in their past ideals.

So, basically, you're saying the novel is too hard for you. Don't come in with silly nonsense like 'its outdated', Ulysses is so ahead of its time that if it were to be written tomorrow but appropriate edits placed to preserve the time period, it would be called 'decades ahead of its time'. The problem you seem to have is that you don't realize the novel's subtleties. Yes, it takes months to study and read, but after being read, there will not again be a need to read another novel ever.

This isn't just some group of professor's favorite boring old book, its a complex literary project whose appreciation can only come with careful dedication. Its a book for people tired of reading normal novels, as Ulysses basically utilizes the whole of the literary world to communicate itself. The amazing thing about Joyce is that he was so advanced he didn't go about trying to communicate this like some kind of pretentious prophet, instead, he did it with mockery and humor. Bloom literally is James Joyce when he wrote Ulysses, Stephen Dedalus is him when he was younger - uninvolved, in the library, thinking philosophically, and looking down on everyone else. He meets Bloom on June 16 1904 - which on that date the real Joyce met Nora, who he said "made a man out of me". Joyce, when he wrote Dubliners as Dedalus, envisioned himself how he would be if he stayed in Ireland in the last story - dead on the inside and possibly outside after learning his wife cheated on him. In Ulysses, Bloom is portrayed as not only accepting his wife's promiscuity, but enjoying it and himself around Dublin.

[Ecurb]

I fully accept that many people consider Joyce a great artistic genius - an opinion they are fully entitled to. As it happens, I disagree - an opinion I am fully entitled to.

.

The question, however, is whether your personal indifference to Ulysses is sufficient reason to reasonably hold the opinion that Joyce is not an artistic genius. If your opinion is based on something other than personal distaste, you have yet to reveal your reasons. Surely it is possible to recognize the "artistic genius" of someone whose works don't appeal to you personally, is it not?

[JCamilo]

I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying here, but I think you're making the same point as Ecurb? In which case, my answer stands. I am entitled to my opinion.

It is quite similar, but I am just poiting your opinion is not justified (the right to have an opinion do not justify it), as you did not explained in which basis your gave such opinion. Just like when Blaze does, we discover a list of gross generalizations which do not support his rant, which in the end is just one more rant against art elitism which Joyce represents (god know why).

Not saying you are the same, but if your opinion is justified, it is just interesting to hear those justifications.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In the same vein we tirelessly admire James Joyce but I do no think anyone really can enjoy reading this mass of nonsense.
These really are the most ignorant statements one can make. Just because you don't understand it or enjoy it, no one else can? You really have a high opinion of yourself.

James Joyce' s main motive is to startle his reader with his elegance art.
Possible, but arguable. And, even if this was his main motive, what's the difference? His motives don't change the piece of art he produced. For example, Sinclair's main motive for writing The Jungle was to promote socialism. Does this take away from the wonderful story that is told? No. (Well, maybe a bit towards the end, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make.)


Joyce' is a paragon no doubt as a novelist but we need to read and read and read at least 10 times each sentence or else he is such a bore and of course repulsive.
Repulsive?

I have tried to read his Ulysses with a dictionary in front of me but I always found it arduous job and I realized I have been a wastrel.
To me, the fact that you had to use a dictionary so arduously is a further testament to Joyce's genius.

Have you ever heard about anybody overrating War and Peace the way there is a plethora of argument against Joye's Ulysses.
Most great works spawn plenty of detractors.

But Joyce is a heap of stylistic garbage, very wordy too. There is no spontaneity there and what hooks some scholastic fools is his pedantic manner.
Pejoratives will only hurt your argument.

I've tried reading Ulysses twice and failed both times. I wasn't ready. Still, I couldn't help but see the genius that it had to take to write such an intricate and complex novel. Works like Ulysses boggle my mind. To even think a human mind can come up with something so complicated, and yet so cohesive when analyzed, is just astounding.

[Lokasenna]

Surely it is possible to recognize the "artistic genius" of someone whose works don't appeal to you personally, is it not?

Of course, but I'm really not convinced that Joyce is an 'artistic genius'. In part this comes from my general antipathy towards modernism as a whole, but even on stylistic grounds I find Joyce rather impenetrable, and rather overwrought. I think Ulysses was a springboard for the author to try a variety of linguistic experiments, some of which worked but many of which failed, and as a result it does not, in my opinion, hold together well. It manages to be less than the sum of its parts. My opinions are based on my analysis of the text as I read it.

I'm sure other people will disagree; the thing you posted up earlier is clearly a love letter to Ulysses written by someone who holds it in the highest regard. And that's fine, but its not exactly academically rigorous. It is predominantly one person's emotive reaction to the work.

The argument works both ways. To assert the greatness of something without a reason is just as illogical as asserting the baseness of it.


Don't come in with silly nonsense like 'its outdated', Ulysses is so ahead of its time that if it were to be written tomorrow but appropriate edits placed to preserve the time period, it would be called 'decades ahead of its time'.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with blaze on this issue - but I would argue that Ulysses was very much a product of its time. It's not outdated by any means - but if it were published tomorrow, it would be seen as somewhat old fashioned. We are, so I'm told, post-modernists these days!


Yes, it takes months to study and read, but after being read, there will not again be a need to read another novel ever.

Woo, that's a BIG claim to make. Are you really sure you mean this?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It is quite similar, but I am just poiting your opinion is not justified (the right to have an opinion do not justify it), as you did not explained in which basis your gave such opinion. Just like when Blaze does, we discover a list of gross generalizations which do not support his rant, which in the end is just one more rant against art elitism which Joyce represents (god know why).

Not saying you are the same, but if your opinion is justified, it is just interesting to hear those justifications.
I think what J is saying is that for an opinion to carry any weight, you have to back it up with some logical reasons. Which I agree with. I will listen to the person who says, "The movie sucked because of this and this and this," much more than the person who just says, "The movie sucked." Both have equal entitlement to their opinions, but one opinion seems a bit more valid than the other, no?

EDIT: I think you just made a perfect example, Lok, as the following seems to show:

Of course, but I'm really not convinced that Joyce is an 'artistic genius'. In part this comes from my general antipathy towards modernism as a whole, but even on stylistic grounds I find Joyce rather impenetrable, and rather overwrought. I think Ulysses was a springboard for the author to try a variety of linguistic experiments, some of which worked but many of which failed, and as a result it does not, in my opinion, hold together well. It manages to be less than the sum of its parts. My opinions are based on my analysis of the text as I read it.


And you do know hanzklien is the board's resident Ulysses fanboy, right Lok? It's like trying to tell a Star Wars nerd that The Empire Strikes Back may, just possibly, not be the greatest movie ever made.

[Ecurb]

Of course, but I'm really not convinced that Joyce is an 'artistic genius'. In part this comes from my general antipathy towards modernism as a whole, but even on stylistic grounds I find Joyce rather impenetrable, and rather overwrought. I think Ulysses was a springboard for the author to try a variety of linguistic experiments, some of which worked but many of which failed, and as a result it does not, in my opinion, hold together well. It manages to be less than the sum of its parts. My opinions are based on my analysis of the text as I read it.

I'm sure other people will disagree; the thing you posted up earlier is clearly a love letter to Ulysses written by someone who holds it in the highest regard. And that's fine, but its not exactly academically rigorous. It is predominantly one person's emotive reaction to the work.

The argument works both ways. To assert the greatness of something without a reason is just as illogical as asserting the baseness of it.


I thought that the Times essay was a balanced approach. It pointed out some of the failings of Ulysses, as well as its strengths. In addition, Jan Morris uses specific examples illustrating Ulysses strengths. I first read the column before I'd read Ulysses, and the story of Bloom and the scrumpled paper and the seagulls sounded charming to me even then. It's one of the reasons I read the book.

I'll grant that Morris' column is a love letter -- but, unlike your critique, it hints at the very real charms of the beloved. Morris agrees with you that Ulysses is unnecessarily "impenetrable". Nonetheless, works of "genius" need not be perfect. Instead, they must contain moments of brilliance, originality, and emotional resonance. Morris mentions a little scene, an ordinary moment in Bloom's day, that exemplifies those qualities.

[YesNo]

The argument works both ways. To assert the greatness of something without a reason is just as illogical as asserting the baseness of it.

For what it's worth, I agree.

There are a lot of things I don't like that others do and vice-versa. So what? In general, I don't think I need to justify my opinion beyond stating it unless I find it entertaining to do so.

I remember a decade ago a co-worker friend recommended that I read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. I didn't understand a word of it. Luckily it was short. But I did enjoy quoting it to my wife and we both ironically found Wittgenstein amusing thinking that this is the sort of book my friend would recommend.

[hanzklein]

O
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with blaze on this issue - but I would argue that Ulysses was very much a product of its time. It's not outdated by any means - but if it were published tomorrow, it would be seen as somewhat old fashioned. We are, so I'm told, post-modernists these days!


Ulysses is a product of its time in what way? Definitely, there are influences from the time period such as slang, historical references, customs, etc. which is to be expected when trying to replicate life in early 1900's Dublin. But, the writing is shockingly original, all of the archaic sounding passages are parodies of a specific writing style. The book is very modern, everything is made with a self-awareness. Look at the stream of consciousness sections.

Furthermore, the book has practically no category that its lumped into, so therefore it can't be dated. It's 25% stream of consciousness, but Joyce's style was unique, how can something be dated that was practically invented by the author and belongs to no time period and has not ever since been replicated?


BLOOM (Meaningfully dropping his voice.) I confess I'm teapot with curiosity to find out whether some person's something is a little teapot at present.

MRS BREEN (Gushingly.) Tremendously teapot! London's tea pot and I'm simply teapot all over me. (She rubs sides with him.) After the parlour mystery games and the crackers from the tree we sat on the staircase ottoman. Under the mistletoe. Two is company.

BLOOM (Wearing a purple Napoleon hat with an amber halfmoon, his fingers and thumbs passing slowly down to her soft moist meaty palm which she surrenders gently.) The witching hour of night. I took the splinter out of this hand, carefully, slowly. (Tenderly, as he slips on her finger a ruby ring.) Là ci darem la mano.

MRS BREEN (In a onepiece eveningfrock executed in moonlight blue, a tinsel sylph's diadem on her brow with her dancecard fallen beside her moonblue satin slipper curves her palm softly, breathing quickly.) Voglio e non. You're hot! You're scalding! The left hand nearest the heart.

BLOOM When you made your present choice they said it was beauty and the beast. I can never forgive you for that. (His clenched fist at his brow.) Think what it means. All you meant to me then. (Hoarsely.) Woman, it's breaking me! (Dennis Breen, whitetallhatted, with Wisdom Hely's sandwich board, shuffles past them in cadet slippers, his dull beard thrust out, muttering to right and left. Little Alf Bergan, cloaked in the pall of the ace of spaces, dogs him to left and right, doubled in laughter.)

ALF BERGAN (Points jeering at the sandwich boards.) U.p.: Up

Are you saying this passage would remind you of 19th century writing?


Woo, that's a BIG claim to make. Are you really sure you mean this?


Uhh, yeah, and I'm not the only person who's made it. There's a reason Ulysses fans made a holiday dedicated to the book. Can you tell me any other novel that is celebrated worldwide on a specific date as a holiday?

[MarkBastable]

Can I suggest that the rest of us get out of the way and let Hanzklein and Blaze slug this one out on their own? I suspect that standing aside with a pint and a packet of nuts will be more fun than getting involved.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Uhh, yeah, and I'm not the only person who's made it. There's a reason Ulysses fans made a holiday dedicated to the book. Can you tell me any other novel that is celebrated worldwide on a specific date as a holiday?
And this is proof of anything how?

But, I'm with Lok. Do you really mean what you said? That after reading Ulysses, that there's no where to go? Nothing else is worth reading, because Ulysses is just that good. This even goes beyond claiming that it's the best piece of literature ever written--now you're saying it's as good as all works of literature accumulated. Really?

[MystyrMystyry]

The thing is all these allusions you seem to be so scared of aren't merely literary works you haven't read - they're also the junk and refuse of his life and time - there are references to popular tunes and advertising jingles, people and events of the day that have been long forgotten, folklore and superstition, overheard bits of conversation, all sorts of STUFF jumbled up and spilling out like a day on the street living (or even surfing the internet at times)

The river of consciousness is made of the random and disruptive thoughts that go through a normal person's mind and heart every day

If you're too lazy to read it download an audio-book to your mp3 player, close you eyes and let the magical rhythms of the Dublin brogue carry you through time to a more innocent and wonderful place

But I still recommend you read it because it contains chapter upon chapter of brilliance and each separately will become a valuable friend, and the entire work something you can marvel and laugh at and with for your entire life

[Lokasenna]

Can I suggest that the rest of us get out of the way and let Hanzklein and Blaze slug this one out on their own? I suspect that standing aside with a pint and a packet of nuts will be more fun than getting involved.

Hmm, I think you might be right.

[blazeofglory]

Okay Ulysses is a fine read. Of course his rhetoric style and grand theme can rock any reader. We always adulate a person who can scale the height we always dream of mounting but to no avail and look to it from a distance fixedly and attentively.

Yes he has scaled the height of pomposity, grandiloquence and adjectivally he is very praiseworthy.

So were Alexander Pope, Milton, Dryden and if we still go farther in the history of literature a whole herd of poets and scholars and they are almost forgotten today. We do not name them except for discussion in the classroom.

But I simply cannot stand the way he is getting a series of applause and praises. There are other great writers worthy of our praise like Kafka, Sartre to name a few.

Today so many great writers emerged and maybe not the way James started. James' days and values are gone and we are awakening to new realities and new circumstances. Of course there are a few domains of life wherein the values he set and defined are still valid but not all else. New values and circumstances are advancing and any piece of literature that cannot mirror the realities of the day cannot be still graded number one though that can say volumes of the day gone by.

That is why I think and some others too agree with me James Joyce remains always overrated.

[hanzklein]

Okay Ulysses is a fine read. Of course his rhetoric style and grand theme can rock any reader. We always adulate a person who can scale the height we always dream of mounting but to no avail and look to it from a distance fixedly and attentively.

Yes he has scaled the height of pomposity, grandiloquence and adjectivally he is very praiseworthy.

So were Alexander Pope, Milton, Dryden and if we still go farther in the history of literature a whole herd of poets and scholars and they are almost forgotten today. We do not name them except for discussion in the classroom.

But I simply cannot stand the way he is getting a series of applause and praises. There are other great writers worthy of our praise like Kafka, Sartre to name a few.

Today so many great writers emerged and maybe not the way James started. James' days and values are gone and we are awakening to new realities and new circumstances. Of course there are a few domains of life wherein the values he set and defined are still valid but not all else. New values and circumstances are advancing and any piece of literature that cannot mirror the realities of the day cannot be still graded number one though that can say volumes of the day gone by.

That is why I think and some others too agree with me James Joyce remains always overrated.
I would see where you're coming from when speaking of Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (his lesser works), but Ulysses is completely different. Unless, of course, you consider a husband encouraging his wife to cheat on him an accepted modern or previous value. When you think about it, all that's going on in the novel is people talking and going on about their daily lives in a city. Joyce was very social in life, having moved dozens of times back and forth over various countries throughout his lifetime. Its not hard to relate to whats going on eventually.

James Joyce can't accept anyone's praise; he died 60 years ago. There's no need to be 'jealous' of the man, or angry at some supposed over-representation.

[Trumpetlinger]

I strongly recommend anyone reading Ulysses download an app analysis of this book for their iPod . Just as you wouldn't explore the amazon river without a guide and gps, so too, ulysses requires some guidance for the first time reader. It is so grand and complicated that it will paralyze the uninitiated. I'm happy to give cogent examples if anyone desires them.

[Trumpetlinger]

E.g., Ulysses contains more unique words than any other piece of literature in the history of mankind. But rather than argue who is the best, let us give thanks for the plethora of brilliant literature in the world.

[Mr.lucifer]

My personal philosphy is that everything is overrated.

[stlukesguild]

Wait a sec, so Blaze loves W&P and hates Ulysses, but you hate W&P and love Ulysses....maybe just maybe, this whole art thing is subjective...maybe just maybe if I hate Dickens, the logical conclusion is not that Dickens in truth sucks and it is a huge conspiracy which has given him his reputation...maybe just maybe I=Everyone else is not true.

Hmmm... I think you might be onto something here.:smilewinkgrin:

[billl]

Yes, and frankly, I don't think it is a point that Blaze was ignorant of when he opened this up for debate--this was a pretty fun discussion to read, and I saw some excellent points made on both sides.

[JCamilo]

There was sides?

[billl]

Yes, some thought Joyce deserved his place atop lists of best novelists, and others didn't.

[JCamilo]

Ouch, why would anyone bother who is in the top or not when it is not some reference to sex?

[billl]

Heh, well, it was maybe just an exaggerated way to explore an interesting issue, most likely. We should applaud the ambition, what with the omission of sex at the beginning.

[MarkBastable]

Yes, it takes months to study and read, but after being read, there will not again be a need to read another novel ever.



If this were true, by the way, it would be a very good reason not to read it, at least not until you were within sight of death. I mean, why would you want to render every other novel redundant? What would you read for the rest of your life?

[stlukesguild]

Little Hanz obviously will simply read Ulysses again and again. I think one of the quotes in my signature is quite relevant here: "Beware the man with one book."

[JCamilo]

"Ulysses is a great book. The name is because another book..."
"Which book?"
"I have no idea. I have read only this one."
"..."
"Ulysses is a great book. One of the main characters appears first in another book..."
"Which book?"

[blazeofglory]

James Joyce was no doubt a man of wisdom or else why so many critics or literary judges would have so much been hooked to his literary cannons and experimental techniques. He had arduously worked hard and that was why he could write an oversize book like that. Few could undertake a project of that mammoth magnitude. My hat is off to this great legendary author.

Despite this what always flabbergasts me is why he alone and no geniuses hold that ranking. Since literature has gone through great evolutionary phases and today we do not think we write worse though our styles have been rather liberal and simpler. It is not just a bunch of jumbo words elegant alliterations, intricate sentence structures that make a piece of art elegant. It must be the voice of the day.

Can Ulysses still mirrors the moment we live in? Does that become the voice of the day.

We are indeed skeptical about its relevance today, its pedantic techniques not withstanding.

We are blind aficionados and this is not a rational judgment. This is the halo effect or something that is just taken for granted.

Judges are not judicious and their decision is foolhardy

[PeterL]

James Joyce was no doubt a man of wisdom or else why so many critics or literary judges would have so much been hooked to his literary cannons and experimental techniques. He had arduously worked hard and that was why he could write an oversize book like that. Few could undertake a project of that mammoth magnitude. My hat is off to this great legendary author.

Despite this what always flabbergasts me is why he alone and no geniuses hold that ranking. Since literature has gone through great evolutionary phases and today we do not think we write worse though our styles have been rather liberal and simpler. It is not just a bunch of jumbo words elegant alliterations, intricate sentence structures that make a piece of art elegant. It must be the voice of the day.

Perhaps to take rankings by critics too seriously. such things are matters of opinions. While I think that James Joyce was a great writer, I believe that there have been greater writers, but I am confident that there are people who would hold as the greatest writers some of whom I think. I don't hold that against them, unless they are impolite about my opinions.


Can Ulysses still mirrors the moment we live in? Does that become the voice of the day.

Yes, it can still reflect these times, because it is not about current events; it is about being human, and that is why Joyce harkened bcak to literature that was more than 200 years old. That also reflects what it means to be human.


We are indeed skeptical about its relevance today, its pedantic techniques not withstanding.

We are blind aficionados and this is not a rational judgment. This is the halo effect or something that is just taken for granted.

Judges are not judicious and their decision is foolhardy

You may be skeptical about the relevance of Ulysses, but we are not. Similarly you may be be a "blind aficionados", but we are not.

[blazeofglory]

Perhaps to take rankings by critics too seriously. such things are matters of opinions. While I think that James Joyce was a great writer, I believe that there have been greater writers, but I am confident that there are people who would hold as the greatest writers some of whom I think. I don't hold that against them, unless they are impolite about my opinions.



Yes, it can still reflect these times, because it is not about current events; it is about being human, and that is why Joyce harkened bcak to literature that was more than 200 years old. That also reflects what it means to be human.



You may be skeptical about the relevance of Ulysses, but we are not. Similarly you may be be a "blind aficionados", but we are not.


This is nonsensical. The world is really a big place and with many voices around the globe. Westerners think they write better than the rest of other people. They do not want to go out of their border, the western frontiers. They are still colonial in their attitudes.

Great literature is written in many other global languages too but the fact is most coveted literary prizes are given to the western place world alone

[MarkBastable]

This is nonsensical. The world is really a big place and with many voices around the globe. Westerners think they write better than the rest of other people. They do not want to go out of their border, the western frontiers. They are still colonial in their attitudes.

Great literature is written in many other global languages too but the fact is most coveted literary prizes are given to the western place world alone

So is your objection to Joyce that he's Western? And if not, what's the use of that observation in this discussion?



We are indeed skeptical about its relevance today, its pedantic techniques not withstanding.

We are blind aficionados and this is not a rational judgment. This is the halo effect or something that is just taken for granted.



And, again - when you say 'we', who do you mean? Who comprises the 'we' that's sceptical about its relevance?

[PeterL]

This is nonsensical. The world is really a big place and with many voices around the globe. Westerners think they write better than the rest of other people. They do not want to go out of their border, the western frontiers. They are still colonial in their attitudes.

Are you one of those "Westerners" that you are trying to describe? If you want to get hung up on Ulysses, then do so. Some of us are very happy to read a wide variety of literature.


Great literature is written in many other global languages too but the fact is most coveted literary prizes are given to the western place world alone.

Yes, great literature can, and has been, written in many different languages. If you want to give too much weight to literary prizes, then you should remember that they are popularity contests. A good look at the winners of the Nobel prize in literature shows some real losers along with some great literature.

[blazeofglory]

Literature was once an art that was written to entertain or instruct a few erudite people and the general public were not included in that herd. But in the course of time literary values got reconsidered and it was co0mmonly agreed that a piece of literature must be all inclusive people from a gamut of social layers must profit from it not just the aristocratic elites. From this perspective even Joyce was within this frame of thinking. He did not write for the mass and he solely write for the few academic class. That is why he is not the one to be selected or prized

[PeterL]

Literature was once an art that was written to entertain or instruct a few erudite people and the general public were not included in that herd. But in the course of time literary values got reconsidered and it was co0mmonly agreed that a piece of literature must be all inclusive people from a gamut of social layers must profit from it not just the aristocratic elites. From this perspective even Joyce was within this frame of thinking. He did not write for the mass and he solely write for the few academic class. That is why he is not the one to be selected or prized

You mean that you just don't like Ulysses, but you would love to find a good reason for not loiking it, so you are trying some silly reasons. I am I correct?

[YesNo]

I read the first 20 some pages of the book and then skipped around after that for about a total of 50 pages.

The final 20 some pages appear to be rambling comments without even rudimentary punctuation or grammar. Basically, a child older than 12 who does reasonably well in school would write better than this.

The author did not seem interested in trying to communicate anything to the reader. When I checked Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) I see that Pound promoted Joyce. I put 2 and 2 together and suspect Joyce is part of the Imagist school and that actually explains why the writing doesn't make sense.

I realize that people will say I should give the book more time, perhaps months, but the book has not kept my interest. That is, it has not offered enough to justify that investment of my life. In time any gibberish can start taking on meaning. The books that I would dedicate months to are of the order of, say, The Bhagavad Gita, not some Imagist experiments.

In conclusion, I agree with blazeofglory. In fact, I would go further. The book is not worth anyone wasting their time on.

[Pierre Menard]

In conclusion, I agree with blazeofglory. In fact, I would go further. The book is not worth anyone wasting their time on.


No, that's completely false. It's clearly not worth YOU wasting your time on. Don't tell other people it's not 'worth it' because you couldn't get through it.

[blazeofglory]

Yet again I'm going to challenge one of your generalisations.

Tolstoy's war and piece is so beautifully written even style-wise but he was capable of engaging our minds with his grand thought.

Oh no it's not. War and Peace is very very dull - in Russian and in English - and Tolstoy doesn't engage my mind at all. Who were you including when you said 'our'?

Ours means not necessarily yours.There are so many readers who enjoyed Tolstoy. You may read James Joyce with a lot of strain and arduousness. You cannot read naturally and spontaneously. You read it like a school boy and has to have a dictionary with you or must have a summary to understand it.

Whereas war and peace is a good read and you can read it easily.

People read Milton not because they enjoy the reading just because they must.

[MarkBastable]

Ours means not necessarily yours..

Whose then? Whose, besides blazeofglory's?



You may read James Joyce with a lot of strain and arduousness. You cannot read naturally and spontaneously. You read it like a school boy and has to have a dictionary with you or must have a summary to understand it.

I can read Joyce without too much strain, and I can do it naturally and I can do it sponateneously, and I don't need a dictionary or a summary. This doesn't mean I like it - it just means that I can read it.

So when you say 'you' here, you don't mean me, do you? You mean you.




Whereas war and peace is a good read and you can read it easily.

No, I can't. I've read it in both Russian and English, and I find it very heavy going.




People read Milton not because they enjoy the reading just because they must.

I tend to agree with you about that (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=680635)(not that that makes either of us right).

[blazeofglory]

Whose then? Whose, besides blazeofglory's?




I can read Joyce without too much strain, and I can do it naturally and I can do it sponateneously, and I don't need a dictionary or a summary. This doesn't mean I like it - it just means that I can read it.

So when you say 'you' here, you don't mean me, do you? You mean you.




No, I can't. I've read it in both Russian and English, and I find it very heavy going.




I tend to agree with you about that (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=680635)(not that that makes either of us right).

Not you does not mean not the rest. That You have found the book heavy going does not mean the rest to feel the same.

I have read this great classic but I found it easing going. What is more, there were no elements of swankiness in it the way Ulysses is full of it

[MarkBastable]

Not you does not mean not the rest. That You have found the book heavy going does not mean the rest to feel the same.


Aha. And that you have found Ulysses incomprehensible does not mean the rest feel the same. So perhaps when you talk about it, you should not say 'we' or 'you', but 'I'.

[hillwalker]

Why not just admit that you found Ulysses too difficult and beyond your attention span? We would respect you more - rather than trying to get us all to agree with your pointless generalities about what books you like and those you do not.

We all have our personal tastes and some of us like to be challenged by what we read. The fact that you (and others who support your OP) don't share the same feelings for Joyce as some of us is neither here no there - and is hardly grounds for denigrating his memory or his literary legacy.

H

[JCamilo]

I read the first 20 some pages of the book and then skipped around after that for about a total of 50 pages.

The final 20 some pages appear to be rambling comments without even rudimentary punctuation or grammar. Basically, a child older than 12 who does reasonably well in school would write better than this.

The author did not seem interested in trying to communicate anything to the reader. When I checked Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) I see that Pound promoted Joyce. I put 2 and 2 together and suspect Joyce is part of the Imagist school and that actually explains why the writing doesn't make sense.

I realize that people will say I should give the book more time, perhaps months, but the book has not kept my interest. That is, it has not offered enough to justify that investment of my life. In time any gibberish can start taking on meaning. The books that I would dedicate months to are of the order of, say, The Bhagavad Gita, not some Imagist experiments.

In conclusion, I agree with blazeofglory. In fact, I would go further. The book is not worth anyone wasting their time on.

Joyce is not part of the imagist school, in fact, he was James Joyce, that was all. I suspect that your relation to poetry makes you a not ideal reader for Joyce. Ulysses is quite simple while compared to Finnegans Wake, but even then, the absence of proper grammar norms is an attempt to bring to memmory the oral conversation and that was very usual among modernist writers.

[hanzklein]

I read the first 20 some pages of the book and then skipped around after that for about a total of 50 pages.

The final 20 some pages appear to be rambling comments without even rudimentary punctuation or grammar. Basically, a child older than 12 who does reasonably well in school would write better than this.

The author did not seem interested in trying to communicate anything to the reader. When I checked Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) I see that Pound promoted Joyce. I put 2 and 2 together and suspect Joyce is part of the Imagist school and that actually explains why the writing doesn't make sense.

I realize that people will say I should give the book more time, perhaps months, but the book has not kept my interest. That is, it has not offered enough to justify that investment of my life. In time any gibberish can start taking on meaning. The books that I would dedicate months to are of the order of, say, The Bhagavad Gita, not some Imagist experiments.

In conclusion, I agree with blazeofglory. In fact, I would go further. The book is not worth anyone wasting their time on.

Huh? Joyce didn't belong to any school, he was his own person in every possible way. You said gibberish can start to take on meaning: gibberish is an idea we've never saw before. The Bhagavad Gita which you seem so tolerable of reading was at one point a mass of meaningless symbols to you.
You have no clue about Ulysses' intricate text and writing methods. The final chapter is poetical, complex, and one of the most highly praised ones of the book. A child could not have wrote one sentence; is it because Joyce decided to decline the use of proper grammar? Or because he didn't follow accepted beliefs that the chapter is horribly written?
We think a good novel is usually preset in its narrative form. I.e., there should be a narrative voice describing what's going on, there should be some kind of easy to understand moral to the story at the end, there should be a main theme, the book should yield to story telling cliches, etc, etc. What happens when this system isn't there? Some people just lock up and call into question anything that so vehemently undermines the basic novel premise (and by basic, I mean things such as the idea that words have to be easily understood, even after consulting a dictionary).




Ours means not necessarily yours.There are so many readers who enjoyed Tolstoy. You may read James Joyce with a lot of strain and arduousness. You cannot read naturally and spontaneously. You read it like a school boy and has to have a dictionary with you or must have a summary to understand it.

Whereas war and peace is a good read and you can read it easily.

People read Milton not because they enjoy the reading just because they must.

Wouldn't the same be true for Shakespeare? The amount of vocabulary he used throughout his works is roughly equatable to Ulysses'. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Because a writer is using the English language, to its maximum, as it should be used artistically, this is somehow deeply against him?

Also, why do you think complexity is a bad thing, and easiness a good one? If you didn't notice, complexity is needed to arrive at simple yet beautiful and profound truths. E = MC^2 anyone?

[stlukesguild]

Literature was once an art that was written to entertain or instruct a few erudite people and the general public were not included in that herd. But in the course of time literary values got reconsidered and it was co0mmonly agreed that a piece of literature must be all inclusive people from a gamut of social layers must profit from it not just the aristocratic elites.

Ummm... when exactly did this happen and where was this great communal vote taken concerning what literature SHOULD be? Somehow I missed it.:skep:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Joyce. I found Ulysses brilliant with passages that I absolutely loved... but as a whole he didn't engage me. Considering his impact upon later writers and how respected and admired he is by a great many experienced readers I am fully willing to admit that the failing may indeed be mine.

I am somewhat bemused by the repeated threads which have popped up recently in which individuals clearly assume that if the find they don't like (or couldn't even understand and finish reading) a given "classic" novel or a "classic" poem it must be because the poem/novel isn't really a "classic" and anyone who thinks differently must be some sort of idiot.

In other words, that which you personally like is not necessarily one and the same with what is "good" or "great", and that which you personally don't like is not automatically one and the same with that which is "bad".

[hanzklein]

You may read James Joyce with a lot of strain and arduousness. You cannot read naturally and spontaneously. You read it like a school boy and has to have a dictionary with you or must have a summary to understand it.

Also, just want to point out that there are possibly hundreds of recordings out there of people reading Ulysses, including James Joyce himself. In fact, his musicality is really brought to light in reading aloud certain passages.

[MarkBastable]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
In other words, that which you personally like is not necessarily one and the same with what is "good" or "great", and that which you personally don't like is not automatically one and the same with that which is "bad".


Quite. Most people seem incapable of seeing - or admitting - that some of the stuff they don't like is really very good, and some of the stuff they do like is crap.

However, they seem to have no trouble suggesting that what's really good and what they like are absolutely and inseparably coincident.

So, given that no one else likes exactly the same selection of stuff, each of these people implicitly believes that he, by some happy quirk of fate and culture, is the de facto sole arbiter of What's Really Good.

[YesNo]

Huh? Joyce didn't belong to any school, he was his own person in every possible way. You said gibberish can start to take on meaning: gibberish is an idea we've never saw before. The Bhagavad Gita which you seem so tolerable of reading was at one point a mass of meaningless symbols to you.
You have no clue about Ulysses' intricate text and writing methods. The final chapter is poetical, complex, and one of the most highly praised ones of the book. A child could not have wrote one sentence; is it because Joyce decided to decline the use of proper grammar? Or because he didn't follow accepted beliefs that the chapter is horribly written?
We think a good novel is usually preset in its narrative form. I.e., there should be a narrative voice describing what's going on, there should be some kind of easy to understand moral to the story at the end, there should be a main theme, the book should yield to story telling cliches, etc, etc. What happens when this system isn't there? Some people just lock up and call into question anything that so vehemently undermines the basic novel premise (and by basic, I mean things such as the idea that words have to be easily understood, even after consulting a dictionary).


Gibberish is pretty common. Good writers avoid it. Bad writers keep wallowing in it. And mediocre academics pump drivel that has become canonical to boost their reputations.

What happens when some literary system or other isn't there? I don't know or care, but the question assumes that Joyce has done something special by avoiding something common. I don't think he has done either. When writers do not communicate they generate a situation of sentimentality, that is, they leave it to the reader to fantasize what is going on.

[Emmy Castrol]

I've tried to read Ulysses several times and failed everytime but I try to keep a humble perspective. I really liked his short stories in Dubliners and I didn't mind Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (at least I found it accessible!) so I am more inclined to think that perhaps I am not mentally ready for Ulysses just yet.

I have a feeling he didn't write it for the purpose of his readership; more likely I suspect he wrote it to fulfil a duty to his individual, artistic god.

[PeterL]

I have a feeling he didn't write it for the purpose of his readership; more likely I suspect he wrote it to fulfil a duty to his individual, artistic god.

No, that was why he wrote Finnegans Wake.

[JCamilo]

Gibberish is pretty common. Good writers avoid it. Bad writers keep wallowing in it. And mediocre academics pump drivel that has become canonical to boost their reputations.

What happens when some literary system or other isn't there? I don't know or care, but the question assumes that Joyce has done something special by avoiding something common. I don't think he has done either. When writers do not communicate they generate a situation of sentimentality, that is, they leave it to the reader to fantasize what is going on.

It is a bit silly to argue Joyce does not communicate considering the huge ammount of followers or admirers which include guys like Borges, Cortazar, Faulkner, Eliot, Guimarães Rosa, Beckett, Umberto Eco, Bataile, Barthez, Nabokov... It is obviously false. Those guys understand a thing or two about literature enough to pass by Ulysses gibberishes, Joyce self-glorification or lack of communication... Apparently it was all absent, right?

Anyways, it is beyond silly claiming to people who reads Ulysses 90 years after it was published that Joyce didn't communicate. He obviously do. (And with Finnegans too, of course).

[Argyroneta]

Of the fun to be had with Ulysses, it is well to be read aloud.

[Emmy Castrol]

No, that was why he wrote Finnegans Wake.

I haven't read Finnegan's Wake, haven't even tried. I take it's not too accessible then....

[blazeofglory]

OK, some of you are fans of this lifeless writer for his boring erudition. A kind of myopic attitude. And running after a style. I loathe this classical stigmatic icon. I choose not to be a wastrel. I do not want to waste even 10 minutes on such rubbishes. What do I look for there? Style? There are other greats style-wise. Content or philosophy? And there is none and some others said better what they wanted to say. A stupid literary committee formed everywhere to list the best books come from a dimwitted academics. They are updated themselves with the goings-on today in literatures, reading culture, people's interests, beliefs and most importantly the stream of modernity.

I am a voracious reader and I read all sorts of books but when it comes to making an analogy of such writers and their overrated statuses I find the very basis of judge repelling
I disliked the way he incessantly overrated shadowing some of the greater writers by some literary judges and that is why I raised this issue to read the views of the rest of readers. There are some blind supporters and they are simply an devoutly idolizing him. It is also interesting to read their fanatical ideas too.

I have some professors who teach literature and when it comes to teach Ulysses they start sweating. Same with the students who have to compulsorily read this book. I really cannot understand why they prescribe this book in their academic curriculums

[MarkBastable]

OK, some of you are fans of this lifeless writer for his boring erudition. A kind of myopic attitude. And running after a style. I loathe this classical stigmatic icon. I choose not to be a wastrel. I do not want to waste even 10 minutes on such rubbishes. What do I look for there? Style? There are other greats style-wise. Content or philosophy? And there is none and some others said better what they wanted to say. A stupid literary committee formed everywhere to list the best books come from a dimwitted academics. They are updated themselves with the goings-on today in literatures, reading culture, people's interests, beliefs and most importantly the stream of modernity.

I am a voracious reader and I read all sorts of books but when it comes to making an analogy of such writers and their overrated statuses I find the very basis of judge repelling
I disliked the way he incessantly overrated shadowing some of the greater writers by some literary judges and that is why I raised this issue to read the views of the rest of readers. There are some blind supporters and they are simply an devoutly idolizing him. It is also interesting to read their fanatical ideas too.

I have some professors who teach literature and when it comes to teach Ulysses they start sweating. Same with the students who have to compulsorily read this book. I really cannot understand why they prescribe this book in their academic curriculums

See, that's much more honest. Not very persuasive, but at least sincere.

[PeterL]

I haven't read Finnegan's Wake, haven't even tried. I take it's not too accessible then....

Pick it up in a library and look it over. There are some people who love it, but it is csolid wordplay.

[blazeofglory]

See, that's much more honest. Not very persuasive, but at least sincere.

James Joyce and his Ulysses. It has stirred up lots of sensations. An Idol of a legion of literary fools. With his hogwash he fooled all. I find it unworthy of even ten minutes' read. I simply remain stunned why our readers remain so much obsessed with his rashness to aesthetically lionize him for his terse syntactic structures and unusual words. Today any fools can come up with a cache of long-winded words but he cannot succeed the way James Joyce could. Ulysses had once been highly admired and down the channel of history the rest of judges imported from the early critics

[MarkBastable]

I feel the same about Lawrence. Shaw felt the same about Shakespeare. Everybody's allowed one.

Oh, hang on - two. I need a slot for Tolkien.

[Scheherazade]

I feel the same about Lawrence. Shaw felt the same about Shakespeare. Everybody's allowed one.

Oh, hang on - two. I need a slot for Tolkien.Ditto for Tolkien and Lawrence... And Hardy.

Let's say three for everyone, shall we?

[blazeofglory]

I feel the same about Lawrence. Shaw felt the same about Shakespeare. Everybody's allowed one.

Oh, hang on - two. I need a slot for Tolkien.

I never care who feel what for anybody. That is not my business. All I am arguing about is there are great books for book lovers and why still university professors keep on prescribing such unappealing books? Most aspirants, including myself always loathed this book. I loathed some other classics like poems by Alexander Pope, Dryden and Milton etc but I disliked Ulysses most.

[MarkBastable]

I never care who feel what for anybody. That is not my business. All I am arguing about is there are great books for book lovers and why still university professors keep on prescribing such unappealing books? Most aspirants, including myself always loathed this book. I loathed some other classics like poems by Alexander Pope, Dryden and Milton etc but I disliked Ulysses most.


Right. Gotcha.

Aspirant to what?

[YesNo]

OK, some of you are fans of this lifeless writer for his boring erudition. A kind of myopic attitude. And running after a style. I loathe this classical stigmatic icon.
For the most part I agree, however, I don't really see a lot of erudition in Joyce. I suspect if the reader is familiar with the plot of Hamlet and has familiarity with the Latin Mass and the culture of Catholicism, that is all one really needs to understand Joyce's references.

For example, it might appear to be erudition when Joyce has Buck Mulligan say, "Introibo ad altare Dei", but the altar boy in Joyce would have likely responded immediately, without understanding what he was saying with: "Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam." I suspect it is a common as the Hindu Gayatri mantra for those who regularly attended the old Latin Mass.

For me Ulysses actually began well. I enjoyed Mulligan wiping his razor with Daedalus' "snotgreen" dirty handkerchief as well as the dialog with the woman who brought milk for their breakfast. The problem is that Joyce could not keep it going.

Skipping to the end of the book and reading what appeared to me to be drivel was the final disappointment.

When someone with supposed authority lists a book as one of the best books in English they are implying that everyone who is competent should be reading that book. When the book fails to communicate, fails to deliver on the promise these authorities have made, confusion results.

People who want to write start thinking: "Maybe I should write drivel too if this is what makes a book great!" So they do. Soon they wonder why no one reads them. They wonder why the academics who praised Joyce so much haven't included their work in the list as well. Even readers wonder if just maybe they are too stupid to enjoy this, too dumb to see the clothes on the Emperor prancing around in his underwear (or less), but unfortunately for the academics who made the list, those doubts don't last long.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Blazeofglory's rants have really tickled my funny bone.

[MarkBastable]

When someone with supposed authority lists a book as one of the best books in English they are implying that everyone who is competent should be reading that book. When the book fails to communicate, fails to deliver on the promise these authorities have made, confusion results.

What this argument amounts to is: I'm clever enough to see that this is rubbish peddled by mistaken or fraudulent academics, but a lot of you apparently aren't.

Which is as bad, frankly, as a Joyce-fans suggesting that they are clever enough to understand it, but you apparently aren't.


People who want to write start thinking: "Maybe I should write drivel too if this is what makes a book great!" So they do. Soon they wonder why no one reads them. They wonder why the academics who praised Joyce so much haven't included their work in the list as well. Even readers wonder if just maybe they are too stupid to enjoy this, too dumb to see the clothes on the Emperor prancing around in his underwear (or less), but unfortunately for the academics who made the list, those doubts don't last long.

I don't think Joyce can be blamed for the fact that he has so many less-talented imitators.

[hillwalker]

Am I to understand that blazeofglory doesn't like Ulysses because it is highly rated by certain unidentified literary committees - and that those of us who like it purely as a book - (not idolise it) must therefore be fools? Strange basis for a logical argument.

And for one who professes not to be willing to spend 10 minutes considering the book,


I do not want to waste even 10 minutes on such rubbishes.

he's gone on and on and on for..... well, you get the message.

H

[blazeofglory]

Am I to understand that blazeofglory doesn't like Ulysses because it is highly rated by certain unidentified literary committees - and that those of us who like it purely as a book - (not idolise it) must therefore be fools? Strange basis for a logical argument.

And for one who professes not to be willing to spend 10 minutes considering the book,



he's gone on and on and on for..... well, you get the message.

H

I apologize if I have hurt anyone. This is a wonderful forum and literature is a subjective domain. Of course you may be enchanted to read, but I avoid reading it.

As a reader and writer too I have found James full of arrogance and he won though he did not qualify for it. The world is like that. There is no standards

[hillwalker]

The only person you have 'hurt' is Joyce and he's past caring.
Perhaps you are mistaking erudition and cerebral virtuosity for arrogance... and I'm guessing it's not Joyce's fault that he is held in such high esteem by various literary organisations who chose to commemorate his skills before and after his death.

There are standards in this world - but sometimes the least skilled are most fondly remembered or given unwarranted publicity (so-called celebrity writers for instance) and sometimes those more deserving of wider respect are forgotten. It's hardly fair to lay the blame for all this at Joyce's door.

But we are all entitled to our opinions - even on here!

H

[Emmy Castrol]

I feel the same about Lawrence. Shaw felt the same about Shakespeare. Everybody's allowed one.

Oh, hang on - two. I need a slot for Tolkien.

Not D.H. Lawrence???!!!! But his writing style is very different to James Joyce. D.H. Lawrence's work is very life affirming. I have to admit, if there is any author I do idolise, it would be D.H. Lawrence....

Who I can’t stand is Jane Austen.


I As a reader and writer too I have found James full of arrogance and he won though he did not qualify for it. The world is like that. There is no standards

He did not come across as arrogant in his earlier work and they are quite good so it is not as if he is undeserving of his reputation ... it would be quite inconsistent that he was suddenly arrogant for Ulysses... perhaps Joyce was just an eccentric? I really do not think he wrote Ulysses to make fun of or to fool anyone.

[YesNo]

What this argument amounts to is: I'm clever enough to see that this is rubbish peddled by mistaken or fraudulent academics, but a lot of you apparently aren't.

Which is as bad, frankly, as a Joyce-fans suggesting that they are clever enough to understand it, but you apparently aren't.

:)

Some people see UFOs.

Some people see meaning in drivel.

Some people see the Emperor's new clothes.

Some people don't.

We're all clever enough to see whatever we want or don't want to see. All that's left is convincing the other guy that we're not the nutty one.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We're all clever enough to see whatever we want or don't want to see. All that's left is convincing the other guy that we're not the nutty one.
That's pretty clever. Did you make that up?

[MarkBastable]

:)

Some people see UFOs.

Some people see meaning in drivel.

Some people see the Emperor's new clothes.

Some people don't.


I think you missed one:

Some people see drivel in meaning.

[blazeofglory]

I never blame Joyce and He never expected to be rated so highly and venerated. He is great I can say but cannot be the greatest unremittingly. He made an epoch, agreed. He had been very eloquent, powerful and made wonderful allusions, deductions. He had perfectly and minutely portrayed some of the intricate realms of human understanding. I will withdraw whatever reproaches I made of this great artist. But all I want say is despite this he is not that great to put in the shade the rest of writers. It is literary committees or judgmental modus operandi only. Their follies, biases, preoccupations, sidedness causes the rest of writers to suffer or lose interests in literary persuasions. There are different dimensions of beauty and aesthetic excellence. We are not endowed with the power to observe all. Our ken is limited to certain facets and we cannot see beyond that. Let us poise our outlook and enable ourselves to see the unseen or generally unnoticed part of beauty.

Let him grow in our mind and reverence. Let him shine in our spiritual and astral world. But if he remains as a literary dictator the rest go dwarfed before his overgrowth. He was not a despot, but some blind followers have been adulating him

[maxphisher]

Okay, I think that one of the biggest problems with this argument is the belief that because his language and writing style are sometimes perceived as "non-sensical," he is a bad writer, or he has no concept of how to write properly. That's far too simple of a cop-out for anyone attempting to dig into Joyce's works. In fact, one of the most impressive things about Joyce's writing is his ability to write wonderfully and perfectly. This is what allowed him to take the liberties he did with language. Only by fully understanding the language he chose to deconstruct did he make it possible to do so. Thus, I think it's only fair to admit that he earned the right to compose anything in any way that he chose: which, is what he did.

Now, to argue that he is overrated, and that other writers deserve to placed above him on some sort of scale, really might be a fair assumption. But, I think it's also important to understand just how influential some of those authors, that you propose, actually were to Joyce. If it is nothing else, Ulysses is Joyce's homage to almost every notable writer that came before him. It's a hybridization of the bunch. If you love Shakespeare, Homer, Dostievsky, Dickens, Wilkie Collins, Mohammed, the apostles, Sacher Masoch, Pushkin, Flaubert, Ovid, Chaucer, etc.... even to the point of considering pulp fiction and trashy romance novels, then Joyce offers some of that in his novel. He consumed literature like a machine, and the truth of the matter is that he loved them all in different ways. Even those works that he ademantly claims to reject are found buried deep within Ulysses. Honestly, that seems to be part of his plan. If he could prove to himself that he could accomplish the same things as his predecessors, then he would know that he had written something of value. If he could accomplish all of them at once.... well then, he had created a masterpiece. Regardless of your opinion of the man or his writing, to deny that he did just that is a horrible mistake.

And, finally, it would be more accurate to ask why Ulysses always tops the list of "20th Century Novels" because that is the real case we are facing here. That being said, it pretty much did lay the groundwork for Modernist and Post-Modernist fiction novels, though it was definitely not alone. However, if you consider the progress of the novel from the Romantic period, where it technically gained its weight, to the beginning of the 20th century, it really is just a logical progression into the mind of the character. The difference that Joyce made is that that mind is much more natural and human than it had been before. It is disjointed and complex. Sometimes it is logical, and sometimes it is fantastic and frightening. Yet, it is common, and it is honest. As a result, his novel is exactly what he said it was meant to be, a book for the common man. Now, if that common man must rabidly consume the annals of the world to read it, what harm is really done in accomplishing that? Has knowledge really become that unappetizing???

[SomeObjectivism]

It's on the top of all of those lists because it influenced many authors, and since it's old, it's influenced many more authors than newer books. Anyone's opinion is always going to be biased, so go and find some books you like. If you want to find some classics that are interesting and fast-paced, read Catch-22, Gravity's Rainbow, Slaughterhouse 5, The Great Gatsby, Under the Volcano, Farenheit 451, Animal Farm, or Stephen King. Also, if you want to read more linear Joyce works, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man isn't bad.

[E.A Rumfield]

Many writers mention Joyce as a strong influence. There are a lot of writers that I like who are influenced by writers I can't stand. I like Dos Passos. He wrote at the same time and in a similar style as Joyce. I've never read Joyce. There are many writers to go dragging through the mud before getting to Joyce though. Let us start with F Scott. He was a hack and a society kid and he proved it with his last novel. Tender is the Night. A novel about a bunch of whiny rich people. Blah blah blah. He's overrated like Hemingway is overrated, but the people need a fresh source of blood to latch onto.

Joyce once said that he had "put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant," which would earn the novel "immortality". It is clear with a comment like that that Joyce was stroking his ego when he wrote this, and his stupid mustache.

Let me say this, art should be made to improve life, not as a rare thing only the select few are worthy of.

[cafolini]

Well, Joice's must have been made to improve so much of life that the other farting life found it necessary to burn the shipment of his writings.

[blazeofglory]

:)

Some people see UFOs.

Some people see meaning in drivel.

Some people see the Emperor's new clothes.

Some people don't.

We're all clever enough to see whatever we want or don't want to see. All that's left is convincing the other guy that we're not the nutty one.

I am very impressed by this metaphoric expression, and indeed life is like that! We all are confused lots and there are funny things in life and no common values and sides that are common standards. Sometime I happen to believe in mysticism and at other times scientism.

Man has down the eternity of time been unable to dig up truth. No books of science, philosophical or religious treatise have helped man to arrive at truth. The truth or meaning of life, the truth about why we are here, the truth about the afterlife of human beings or of any creatures.

[blazeofglory]

Many writers mention Joyce as a strong influence. There are a lot of writers that I like who are influenced by writers I can't stand. I like Dos Passos. He wrote at the same time and in a similar style as Joyce. I've never read Joyce. There are many writers to go dragging through the mud before getting to Joyce though. Let us start with F Scott. He was a hack and a society kid and he proved it with his last novel. Tender is the Night. A novel about a bunch of whiny rich people. Blah blah blah. He's overrated like Hemingway is overrated, but the people need a fresh source of blood to latch onto.

Joyce once said that he had "put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant," which would earn the novel "immortality". It is clear with a comment like that that Joyce was stroking his ego when he wrote this, and his stupid mustache.



Let me say this, art should be made to improve life, not as a rare thing only the select few are worthy of.

What we expect of a good writer is something that appeals to us intellectually and stirs us emotionally. Of course the use of enigmas and puzzles and metaphors startle us and yet it fails to entertain us and we get lost in the halfway while reading his novels.

We can understand bits and pieces of him, not in its wholes. He drives us erratically, confusedly and finally I decide to discontinue reading

[Desolation]

Let me say this, art should be made to improve life, not as a rare thing only the select few are worthy of.

And Joyce can't improve life?

I would never say that anyone who didn't like it didn't get it, but I might say that I think some people made up their minds not to get it before they really tried. While a lot of it might be genuinely impenetrable (especially on the first go through, and without any guides or help), most of it isn't so out there. But it really does hurt your understanding of a book when all you hear about it beforehand is that it's hard...Suddenly perfectly coherent sentences start to look like gibberish because you go in expecting not to understand anything. This is one of the many reasons that I think the "Ulysses is for the scholarly elite" argument is trite bull****. It poisons the well. Anyone could read it if they really tried. Joyce wrote for the common man, and was highjacked somewhere along the way.

If some people thought it was boring, that's a different story altogether. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. I find Victorian literature boring, a lot of people here go crazy for it. Nothing wrong with any of that. I personally enjoyed Ulysses from start to finish, even during those sections that had me scratching my head and asking what the hell was going on. It was an amazing, challenging experience.

[E.A Rumfield]

And Joyce can't improve life?

I would never say that anyone who didn't like it didn't get it, but I might say that I think some people made up their minds not to get it before they really tried. While a lot of it might be genuinely impenetrable (especially on the first go through, and without any guides or help), most of it isn't so out there. But it really does hurt your understanding of a book when all you hear about it beforehand is that it's hard...Suddenly perfectly coherent sentences start to look like gibberish because you go in expecting not to understand anything. This is one of the many reasons that I think the "Ulysses is for the scholarly elite" argument is trite bull****. It poisons the well. Anyone could read it if they really tried. Joyce wrote for the common man, and was highjacked somewhere along the way.

If some people thought it was boring, that's a different story altogether. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. I find Victorian literature boring, a lot of people here go crazy for it. Nothing wrong with any of that. I personally enjoyed Ulysses from start to finish, even during those sections that had me scratching my head and asking what the hell was going on. It was an amazing, challenging experience.

I never read it.

[Desolation]

I know...But your sentence was the most convenient springboard for my rant that I could find. Sorry about that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I never read it.

That's real surprising.