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:
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.
There was sides?
Yes, some thought Joyce deserved his place atop lists of best novelists, and others didn't.
Ouch, why would anyone bother who is in the top or not when it is not some reference to sex?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanzklein
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?
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."
"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?"
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.Quote:
Can Ulysses still mirrors the moment we live in? Does that become the voice of the day.
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.Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
And, again - when you say 'we', who do you mean? Who comprises the 'we' that's sceptical about its relevance?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.Quote:
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.
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