A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce

This is one of the best books I have ever read.It influenced me greatly and gave me a reason to think for the months to come.Reading it,I couldn’t help but wonder what would have happened if Joyce wouldn’t have been there with his advanced mentality.
I find the book a manifesto.Mainly a religious(or anti-religious)manifesto.Because in the end Dedaluses agnosticism is a form of protest against this overly catholic Ireland that is keeping the people from political progress.
By this I don’t intend to offend anyone.In the end,Joyces doubt is not about the existence of God(although this might have been,too),it is more about the benefits of religion.Even his immorality is a form of protest in this closed mentality.It is the only way he can call to people and say: wait a second,it is time to go ahead.He identified the regress with religion and by declaring himself and his character agnostic,he divided himself from this regress and worked for at least the intellectual freedom of Ireland.
But then,still,the book remains even a treatise on beauty and aesthetic philosophy.I have always wondered if in the end,one of the things that Joyce is trying to say is that beauty is what makes our life.Political,religious,physical,intellectual or moral it doesn’t matter.As soon as we can distinguish what makes us feel really good and happy,we can go on and make...progress.

Good review, Remarkable (and greetings). I would add, however, that there is a sense in which the Portrait is a form of mild self-parody, by which I mean that, though Joyce probably shared SD's lofty little intellectual aspirations (I believe the journal extracts are from JJ's own, no?), by the end of my Joyce seminar the prof had me pretty convinced that the conclusions SD reaches at the end aren't entirely the same as those of the Joyce of Ulysses. It seems more like SD's semi-snobbery is sort of a necessary reaction against his repressive upbringing, but will eventually mature into the later Joyce. It is, after all, only a "portrait" - not necessarily an idealized projection like, say, an Ayn Rand novel...
Anyway, that's my verdict at the moment. Need to read it again sometime, though.

Portrait was a monthly book club read last year I think. Here's the discussion on it if you're interested: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ortrait+Artist

Ah, thanks, Virg. Looks like a good discussion; will read later tonight.

Thank you,Virgil,I believe it will be useful!

Hi friends, well i am honestly speaking that i also read that book but i have not influenced with it. I think this book is just full of lies and those things are not possible at any way. Well don't take it too hard, all this is my personal point of view about this book.

Thank you.

His religious departure was also do to the fact that he wanted nothing more than to impregnate the Virgin Mary, and use her as a surrogate mother for his art. (what a strange mind).

I think it was alright/good, there were some good moments. Although, I've read Dubliners and Ulysses as well, and both of these works are much better than Portrait in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

I think it was alright/good, there were some good moments. Although, I've read Dubliners and Ulysses as well, and both of these works are much better than Portrait in my opinion.

---

My sentiments exactly.

:lol: @ posts 6 and 7.

Hi. I just found this website today, and I'm really excited about it. I actually found it because I just read Portrait and found it to be very slow and hard to get through. I wanted to see what people valued in it. So this has been very helpful. I still think it was slow. But maybe I'll try Dubliners--I see that that might be the group book for March.

Wish I had been on this site earlier as I would have loved to re-read Portrait.

Many people regard Joyce as the best writer of the 20th century. After reading some of his work, that comes as no surprise! :)

Really nothing special, I expected much more, to be honest.

Honestly I didn't like Stephen nor will ever like him. But because of what Joyce did in this novel this character did go under my skin. (This is the 2nd time I read it, the first time I completely overlooked what Joyce is trying to achieve here)

The book is a question of maturity. The final line from his mother sums up it whole "know what the heart is and what it feels like". Stephen lacks compassion and sympathy, he knows he lacks something in order for him to feel his maturity but is unaware what it actually is; and he kept looking at the wrong places. He sees things through logic alone. He figures life as if it was an equation. He's ashamed of his father's sentimentality.

These will lead to that scene on the shore.

I think this is one of the most honest things written about growing up, and we see how the author (or Stephen) ackowledged his deficiencies and overcoming it. I like the way how Joyce divided the novel, and how scenes recur when Stephen is at a point of decision.

In the end he achieved what he desparately needed by writing Dubliners, which I believe I have to read again.

I personally found it quite wonderful.
The affirmation from the first line, "Et ignotas annimum dimmitit in artes" is that this is a work encouraging personal experience of truth, specifically meditation as the only means of achieving 'the intellectual freedom' of the socialists...a protest against agnostisism if anything. He certainly never says he rejects god, nor ends the book with any more doubt than he begins with. what he may or may not have learned is irrelevant though, because he is urging us to explore religion for ourselves and examine our own conclutions...along with compelling insight into his own upbringing, Irish Catholisism, early 20th century Dublin etc.