Whose works do you like more Samuel Beckett or James Joyce?

[osho]

I have read both and I have repeatedly and somewhat amusingly read Beckett's Waiting for Godot and I liked it somehow though I never fathomed the depth at which the booked was written and I did not seek for the meaning or the plot the book had or hadn't. I did not care and I enjoyed the mastery or craft the writer had and it was not a tiring read.

On the contrary I have read James Joyce but never to complete it smoothly. I was taken aback in some cases where he was so superbly stylistic and grand and the choice of words and syntactically structured sentences moved me deeply and yet I wound up in despair and I must be honest to say that I could get nothing to entertain or instruct myself from the book, a few reveling and relishing stuffs at some joints.
I wonder as to what would be the literary panels have to say about their experiences with both

[mal4mac]

I also quite liked "Waiting for Godot", while wondering what it was all about, but I found the later novels of the two writers really heavy going - in fact I gave up after only a few dozen pages of both Ulysses and the Beckett "trilogy". I liked "Dubliners", as readable as a collection of Chekhov short stories - convinced me that Joyce had something before he became a modernist nut case! "Portrait" was just also worth reading, but a tough slog in places (the Wordsworth edition had excellent notes, which eased the pain without being too scholarly... )

[breathtest]

I've never read Beckett, although we're studying him shortly, so maybe I'll pop back onto this thread after I have read some of his books, but I think it will be hard for him to beat Joyce for me.

I think Joyce was so clever as a writer that it is hard for him to be beaten stylistically, and his descriptions of simple things I find are always perfect. Something like Ulysses can be read so many times, and each time round you get a bit more meaning from it. Like poetry really, in that sense. Potrait of the Artist was a very powerful book for me, as somebody interested in the mind-set and the behaviours of religious people (though not anywhere near a believer myself). Each of his books seems to give something completely different.

Anyway, I'll see how it goes with Beckett and get back to you.

[Charles Darnay]

Tough call. "Waiting For Godot" and "Endgame" are both wonderful, but I think that Joyce takes the prize for me.

As far as enjoyment goes, there is hardly anything better than Ulysses. Even if you are not "reading for meaning" as it were and trying to decipher every cryptic use of syntax, the story itself is amusing and insightful and such a pleasure to read and re-read (as I do in the weeks leading up to Bloomsday).

Also, I think that "Araby" (part of The Dubliners) is one of the best short stories ever written.

As for Joyce as a Modernist "nut" - I suppose it's a hard claim to argue against when Finnegan's Wake stares you in the face - but he had sense about him there is a great purpose to all his works, including "Wake"

[My2cents]

I have to say Joyce based on content. Strict, religious upbringing; rejecting the precepts of that upbringing to take up the artistic life; the black sheep motif; the cuckold; and the love/hate relationship descriptions of one's rejected home--all of that make for a compelling read.

Stylistically, Beckett is more reader friendly (prose is straightforward and at times exquisitely poetic) but what he writes about is so bleak and forbidding I find him readable in only small doses.

[osho]

In fact I have garnered a lot of ideas from all of you. It is really hard to say who is favorable. James is very tough indeed and in fact I find him the toughest novelist though I find his Dubliners simple and moving. The only one I found unreadable in the beginning was Ulysses. However I find a great amount of poetry in this book. I do not find this the Stephen King kind, something we can enjoy reading at airport terminals or at bus-stops. I have to corner or isolate myself in my room and I need a lot of time to read this book. If I am singled out in a room all day I can enjoy reading this great book. I need several dictionaries. In fact I read it online since I can make use of some of the best dictionaries available online. I know now I am far from being mature to comprehend this great book. Maybe in near future or in a couple of years I can grasp his literary depth and his grand style. He is an ideal, a peak for all of us. He is unmatched.
I have read Beckett too and his Waiting for Godot really moved me beyond limits. It is unlike Joyce's Ulysses very simple stylistically and of course word-wise. However this book too is hard from a different perspective and this is written on the idea of absurdity. If any reader wants a meaning or a theme or something like this in this book he will end up disappointed.

[hanzklein]

I think Beckett has lots of meaning, but it isn't something you exactly want to reach...its the most bleak view of humanity in literature once you put all the pieces together and it may mess you up psychologically.

[Loganm]

Joyce is the perfect writer, I don't know how anyone could stand up to him. I am a fan of Beckett's prose in Murphy and the trilogy. I think Beckett was funnier than Joyce, but he seems to depend on Joyce too often and never attained to anything as sublime as Ulysses.

[ZTay]

Beckett is the clock on the wall; while Joyce is not only the wall where it hangs, but the house where it stays.

[Mr Endon]

[Double post! Please remove me.]

[Mr Endon]

You've said it: Beckett is funny even if you're not digging for the meaning. Although he started out a bright if almost painfully pedantic writer, throughout his life, from novel to novel (and, later, play), you can see the change of paradigm into minimalism, powerlessness, ignorance, 'striving for the unword' (also so as to distance himself from the omniscient/omnipotent Joycean style).

My recommendation to you would be Watt, Beckett's insane wartime novel written 'in order to stay sane' (quoting from memory). Not more accessible than Murphy ('accessible' is a word you might as well forget about when dealing with Beckett), but definitely a hilarious piece. It's true it occasionally indulges in 7-page lists of engrossing stuff like 'from the window to the door, from the door to the bed, from the bed to the window' (for me it's part of the fun, really). But he doesn't advertise his impressive scholarly knowledge, and it's peppered with good humour throughout.

One note to other posters: Beckett's bleakness is there all right, but it's all too often overstated. His pitch-perfect humour, which some of you have mentioned, prevents him from sliding into nihilism or, what's worse, taking himself and his worldview too seriously.