Printable View
Most people have one of two opinions on Joyce: Psychosadistic crackpot or utter genius. I, like many, started out in the first category and moved to the second...
I view Joyce as "before his time". In recent years, we've had some authors showing up (in the mainstream!) that, to my mind, echo Joyce in some way--Chuck Palahniuk and Mark Danielewski are the first that come to mind, but there are more.
Do you think we might be catching up? Do you think we ever can?
Joyce was an experimenter who never found his true voice as a writer. Experimentation is often confused with avant-garde or revolutionary literature. Joyce produced only two good books during his career -- Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and Dubliners -- and both were rather traditional in form.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcockey
I don't understand the popularity of the writer I call Upchuck Palahniuk. He's a mediocre stylist who has an obsession with violence and ghoulish gore.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcockey
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
How about Ulysses, one of the most important books of the 20th century?
Not in my opinion. Ulysses was more of an historical novelty than a breakthrough in literature. Stream of consciousness style was an experiment at the time. It's been done to death since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
Of Joyce's books, I have read only Potrait. Even though it is not one of favorite books, I thought it was a good experiment (both for the author and the reader). I don't think that makes Joyce either crackpot or genius. He tried something new and deserves credit for doing it successfully. However, I cannot say the same thing for the other books written using the stream of consciousness technique (especially Woolf's).Quote:
Originally Posted by pcockey
Starrwriter has a point that it was a novelty but surely it has worn out since Joyce's days.
Joyce was by far the greatest writer of the twentieth century. Like shakespeare, the depth of joyce's novels is limitless. If you've read portrait or ulysses, reread it and i think youll see it in a whole new light and the genius of joyce will become very clear. Also, i dont think any contemperary writer can be compared to joyce; he stands alone with shakespeare and dante.
My personal opinion, however, is that joyce was conceited and a show off. Ive read a few biographies and essays about joyce and it seems to me that joyce was writing for the purpose of showing that he could as much as for the purpose of defining beauty (like in portrait). But he proved himself. Portrait is one of my favorite books.
"The greatest" I don't agree with that. I've always been put off by the Joycians who equate Joyce with Shakespeare. And Dante? No I don't agree. And there have been lots of great writers in the 20th century, where does one get off calling him the greatest, especially since his output wasn't all that much?Quote:
Originally Posted by coreyg37
Yes, on the other hand, Joyce is a great novelist. Yes, however, Ulysses is a great novel. I've read it twice, and I admit, it's hard slog at times. But there is great richness in it. We can get into why I think it's a great novel and why some don't think it's a great novel. There are points and counter-points. We can save that for a different discussion. But a great writer himself and a student of the novel, Vladimir Nabokov, did not feel it was a great novel. Flaws can be pointed out.Quote:
If you've read portrait or ulysses, reread it and i think youll see it in a whole new light and the genius of joyce will become very clear.
One always feels that the Joycian scholars are just as blustery and over the top as Joyce himself.Quote:
My personal opinion, however, is that joyce was conceited and a show off.
Remember quality not quantity. Im not saying that Joyce was similar to Shakespeare and Dante in his style or subject; Im saying that he was similar in the depth of his novels. Those three had a control of their languages and of almost all literature that came before them and were able to combime those to qualities to produce great works. And also, those three are probably the most influential writers of all time. Joyce's stream of conciousness and the maturation of the narrator in Portrait so new and done so well that he has to be at least considered one of the greatest novelists of all time, even if he doesnt stand with dante and shakespeare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And other writers of the 20th century haven't had the depth and control of language? D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner. And I'm only mentioning those who wrote in english. Joyce didn't invent the stream of conscious technique, and frankly very few writers claim to have been influenced by Joyce. Who? Look I agree he's a great writer. But he's no Shakeapeare or Dante.Quote:
Originally Posted by coreyg37
Anyone who has ever read joyce has been influenced by him. I dont care if they claim to have been or not. I know he did not invent the stream of conciousness style; DH Lawrence published Fathers and Sons (I think thats the title) a year before Portrait and used stream of conciousness. But Joyce did it better in my opinion. Out of curiosity, who would you label the greatest 20th century novelist? and why?
Corey, I can only speak on writers who have written in english. Probably William Faulkner. He doesn't just have one great novel, he's got at least five great novels.Quote:
Originally Posted by coreyg37
Believe it or not, I would say Joyce is close, mostly on the strength of one novel. Ulysses is the novel that defines modernism. One major criticism: the fact that every chapter is written in a different technique challenges (I almost said destroys, but that's too strong a word) the reader's ability to suspend his reality for the illusion of the book's reality. This is the primary art of a novel. The ever changing techniques are aesthetically jarring. I think this was Nabakov's major criticism with it. But, I think we can get by with it, knowing that it's always evolving. I find it to be a great novel. But it's Joyce's only major work. Portrait is a good novel. There are a few stories in Dubliners that really stand out, but mostly they're ok. And nobody reads Finnagan's Wake. Shakespeare and Dante were head and shoulders above their respective competition in their day. There are lots of writers in the 20th century that are as good as Joyce.
Virgil, I like your posts very much but I don't agree with the notion that the primary art of a novel is always to allow the reader to suspend their reality for that of the book. Many of my personal favourite authors, both before Joyce (Sterne, Rabelais) and after (Borges, Calvino) have used similar 'metafictional' tricks. Such a careful writer as Joyce can only have meant to challenge the reader in this way.Quote:
Originally posted by Virgil
One major criticism: the fact that every chapter is written in a different technique challenges (I almost said destroys, but that's too strong a word) the reader's ability to suspend his reality for the illusion of the book's reality. This is the primary art of a novel. The ever changing techniques are aesthetically jarring.
A suspension of disbelief is necessary when a writer means to immerse their audience in a believable world, for whatever purpose. However, Joyce was more interested in examining language, literature and consciousness itself, and required the reader to be aware of their own relationship to the book.
I think what you say is true for Sterne, Rabelais, Borges, and Calvino. I'm not sure it's true for Joyce. I don't think Ulysses is a work of meta fiction. It is I think a work of realism, realism pushed to it's limits. He writes of the minute details of a single day, of Bloom's every thought and emotion. Like I say in a post above, it was Nabokov who pointed out the jarring transitions of style. Someone else also said that the novel works as a series of short stories casually linked. I think that's going to far, but it still relfects the problem I point out. Nonetheless, it's a great work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Panurge
BTW, thank you for liking my posts. At least someone does.
My opinion of Joyce has evolved over the years, and I eventually came to the decision that Joyce is an excellent writer--perhaps the best of the 20th century--but he never wrote a good book. For Ulysses, Virgil makes a great point on why it's not a good book.
Beyond that even, there's no uniting story to it. It's a day in the life of someone who doesn't do anything. While the style sometimes makes it interesting to read, it's not enough to make a good book (it's difficult to call such a work a novel).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
However, it's got some of the most beautiful writing I've ever read. The last chapter, "Penelope," is one of the best things written in the twentieth century. Say what you will about the stream of consciousness as an outmoded style, Joyce used to perfection. (Side note: Joyce credited the invention of the stream of consciousness to Eduard Dujardin's "We'll to the Woods No More," written in 1887.) Style like this can make excellent writing, but it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the quality of a book, and Joyce's style doesn't. His writing is consistently brilliant, but his story and overall work are negligible.
I wouldn't go that far. There is a story there, the story of Bloom, with all his history and background, and his quest to care for Stephan and Molly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unspar