James Joyce - Ulysses

Hello, I've have decided that I am in need of a new enjoyment of the classics. Which means that I haven't read much of it... however, I have read on the outskirts for some time. I went on the web and found many lists of 100 top books(fiction/non-fiction) and decided to begin the endeavor to read as many as I could. Top on most of the lists was James Joyce's "Ulysses", so this was the first book I started with. ...... I consider myself a semi?? educated person, but from the start of this book I was totally amazed that anyone could follow this story for more than 50 pages!!! A standard dictionary doesn't have one tenth the words that are used at the beginning of this novel. Does the noteriety of the book make it a "classic"????
Perhaps, I will revist this book at a later time, however, first impressions will dictate if that will happen.

I haven't read the book, but I must say, the more I hear people talk about it, the more intimidated I am by it. I can't even find a copy that states what it is about. All the book covers say is that it's one of the most influential books ever, blah, blah, blah.

I've read a substantial portion of this novel for classes, and I have to say I really stop enjoying it after Part I. I like some parts, but it's really too much sometimes. Should you really determine to get through the thing, though, you might check your library for Allusions in Ulysses or Don Gifford's Annotated Ulysses, which are essentially indices of most of the references that the modern reader cannot be expected to pick up on. They're pretty helpful, if you really want to do it. The question, of course, is does it all really bloody matter? Outside of the "stream of consciousness" sections, which can be interesting, there's really nothing to it - it's just a day in Dublin. I'd recommend pretty much anything else by Joyce - even sections of Finnegans Wake, strange as that might sound - but this one is a pain.

I read it slowly... in short burts...its easier to digest if you take 5 or 6 pages at a sitting, reflect, and re-read. Otherwise, work slowly into by trying something like Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man by Joyce. Its easier, and yet not easy by any means.

several readings is a must. the general outline of the story being second nature, one is apt to notice the most mundane matters in a new light, the joycean light, a rich greenish hue with a dab of grey.

The common comment about [I]Ulysses[I] is that you can not read the book, only re-read it. I confess that seems to be true. One aid that I found immeasureably helpful was the Teaching Company's lecture course on the book.

I think the book's reputation is deserved for two reasons. The first is that the book really does try to bridge the gap between life and our ideas about life as expressed in literature. It does this by treating the most humdrum thing, such as people passing each other in the Wandering Rocks chapter something to notice. Though I am reminded of Quentin Crisp's great line, "Never try to keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level." whenever I get bogged down in the book.

Secondly, it connects our inner lives to the great themes of existence. Think about it -- Joyce argues that a Jew of Hungarian extraction born and bred in Dublin IS another Ulysses without ANY trace of irony.

Wow. Reading Ulysses sounds like more of a chore than a pleasure!;) Still, I'll get to it eventually. Like the other two hundred books on my reading list......sigh.....

I've just begun reading Ulysses myself, and I must say that it's not quite as intimidating as it seems.

I'd suggest finding and reading a brief summary of Ulysses before beginning, as having a general understanding of the novel beforehand tends to make things much easier to follow. Also, when you finish a part, let it sit for a while and then go back and re-read it; as with any book, you gain more understanding with subsequent readings.

Joyce does have a way with words, I'll give you that. If you can't find a word's meaning in the dictionary, try deciphering the meaning of word in relation to the surrounding text. And again, if that fails, let the part you read and don't understand sit for a while and go back to it.

I think that before someone reads Ulysses one must read his previous works and read them all in a row. Everything will be much easier because our reading capability will evolve with Joyce's own writing ability. And I assure you: if you can read Joyce you can pretty much read everything else.
Another important advice that I give is that one must learn to accept that one must not understand everything in the book to enjoy it. Develop the "negative capability" as Keats puts it and accept that you can't control every aspect of the novel just as you can't control every aspect of human life (I'm not saying you shouldn't try though).
Get Don Gifford's Annotated Ulysses, it really helps a lot.
And when you start reading a chapter try not to stop. Reading Ulysses evolves a kind of tuning in but once is done is very easy going through it.
Enjoy it.

I read it for fun and found it more like a chore. Then again, its summertime and what else am I going to do? I view this book as more than a classic. It inspired me more because I want to be writer, and to try to copy or produce the same beauty as Joyce does, is just futile. I really got into this book, and once you get to understanding it and taking notes, you find the greatest of his story. Why would scholars put it so high in ratings?

"He laughed to free his mind from his mind's bondage" - Ulysses

I have two suggestions. First, give up trying to understand everything you're reading. Joyce wrote the book this way deliberately, in order to make you feel lost and overwhelmed. It is certainly possible to understand every detail refers to, but save that for later, I'd say.

Second, get Harry Blamires' Bloomsday Book. I picked this up when I was at 'Cyclops', basically understanding the story but feeling a little lost. From there on I would read the Ulysses episode, then the Blamires explanation, then the Ulysses episode again. A lot of reading, but actually far more enjoyable.

My teacher said that Ulysses would make other novels seem inadequate, and I found this to be true: no one I've read subsequently has imagined reality (however small the piece) in such depth and detail, so entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel A. C.

I have two suggestions. First, give up trying to understand everything you're reading. Joyce wrote the book this way deliberately, in order to make you feel lost and overwhelmed. It is certainly possible to understand every detail refers to, but save that for later, I'd say.

Second, get Harry Blamires' Bloomsday Book. I picked this up when I was at 'Cyclops', basically understanding the story but feeling a little lost. From there on I would read the Ulysses episode, then the Blamires explanation, then the Ulysses episode again. A lot of reading, but actually far more enjoyable.

My teacher said that Ulysses would make other novels seem inadequate, and I found this to be true: no one I've read subsequently has imagined reality (however small the piece) in such depth and detail, so entirely.

---

I've found that they're not so much inadequate as exceedingly easy, sadly sometimes to the point of banality.

I am reading Ulysses for the 2nd time. It is difficult but it is worth the effort.

I would recommend Anthony Burgess' REJOYCE as a sort of primer to not only introduce Joyce but to allow the reader to approach his work eagerly . Also I first read Dubliners and began to get an idea of the richness of his writings .

Enjoy

I started reading it and to be honest to you I cold not pick up on it. It is indeed a bulkily and wearily written stuff. Maybe a good piece of art. But unplmbed indeed. A master story teller, but who the hell is up to his level to comprehend the book and fathom the profunditiy of it.

That is why I do not read calssics much save a few short stories.

It seems the " Stream of Consciousness " is not only by his characters but the author himself.There does seem to be and there is a certain rambling.But compare it to ones own "stream".Clever of Joyce to use that erratic human jumble of thought/observations .

Joyce and particularly Ulysses is my winter reading . It takes concentration and a dedicated interest .Sometimes I can't seem to cope with the complexity and once in awhile I see his point .

Jackson and Costello biography John Stanislaus Joyce (James Joyce father) is also another work that has helped me understand Joyce .

I must confess that I have not read Homer's Odyssey but have a fair working knowledge of the epic return home .And as I undertstand Ulysses
it is a modern urban journey .And living in rural communities all of my life I may have to reach a bit further for the urban meaning of something. That is a challenge that is still worth the effort .It is part of the self-education that I willing partake to understand great literature.

And I really do need to get a copy of Homer's Odyssey !!

For those attempting to read one of the best books should try reading the Annotated Student Edition of Ulysses. It has over 250 pages of reference notes that help explain the context that Ulysses was written about. Joyce wrote about a day in the life of Dublin, Ireland and he assumed that the reader would be familiar with the context of that time and that place. There are many Irish idiosyncrasies associated with Ulysses that add layers of flavour to the story, and at times, can often leave the reader disconcerted without knowing that context. Although the notes can seem complied from from one point of view, the notes are taken from a number of different sources and does effectively fill in a lot of blanks. Try it, you might like it.

I'm reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and the only conclusion I could come to is that this book is only so well known and popular because it is from the same writer of Ulysses. I haven't read Ulysses yet, but I plan to as soon as I get it in English, and I do hope it's better than A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

However seeing the amount of authors I like that loved Ulysses, I am confident it's going to be better...

I thought "Portrait" was utterly spellbinding. Ulysses is far, far, denser, but it is brilliant all the same.

I think it's a very good book and pleasant, but it's highly overrated. What came to my mind as a possibility is that many people read this book because it's shorter and perhaps easier than other Joyce's and then can claim they like and have read Joyce and this would cause the book to be held so high in "ratings" - because of Ulysses, basically.

Or maybe I just didn't "get it"...

In my opinion, Joyce is under read...it is not overrated...Joyce was the Faulkner of Ireland....he was beautiful in his explicit description...many people refuse to read him, because he wrote a whole day and fit it into 500 plus pages...pure genius...peace, B

Ulysses is not for the faint of heart. It took me a little while before I was able to even begin understanding what was happening then something clicked. I did enjoy the complex stream of conciousness, because it is so unique. A good supplemental book to help understand the text was vital for me. (Thanks for the help picking one.) Also I read a few pages maybe a dozen or more then laid it down and just let myself soak in and think about what I read often rereading sections and pages several times. I am far from highly intelligent but what I lacked in mental strength I made up for with determination. If Joyce's goal was to confuse, he is without a doubt the Grand Master. Having said that, I still think everyone should have the experience of reading something like Ulysses simply to challenge their minds. I also feel that Ulysses is more art than literature because it paints a complex and vivid picture of the inner workings of the mind, something a paint brush can't pull off as completely as Joyce did.

I listened to the audio book as read by Jim Norton, and it was excellent. I have heard some of an audio book version read by an Irish fellow, and it was also fascinating but I found his accent too think for me to understand easily. After listening to these, I am convinced that this book is actually intended to be read aloud, and highly recommend getting the audio book version.

I wonder why a book needs to be complex to be good. I think it is the pride and pedantry of a writer that makes it more complex. Joyce is extraneously or unimportantlly complex. I do not waste my time for such stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

I think it's a very good book and pleasant, but it's highly overrated. What came to my mind as a possibility is that many people read this book because it's shorter and perhaps easier than other Joyce's and then can claim they like and have read Joyce and this would cause the book to be held so high in "ratings" - because of Ulysses, basically.

Or maybe I just didn't "get it"...

---

It is the style that makes A portrait. The book itself is narrated from the mind of the growing artist, and therefore seems to mature with him, and echo his thoughts. Also the political context is important. It is hardly as famous, but it is still a great read, simply for its style, which still seems the most unique and defined in all literature. But you are correct, its fame is somehow attached to the fact that it is Joyce. that is inevitable, but it still is a very famous, and great book, regardless of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mustbepatient

I listened to the audio book as read by Jim Norton, and it was excellent. I have heard some of an audio book version read by an Irish fellow, and it was also fascinating but I found his accent too think for me to understand easily. After listening to these, I am convinced that this book is actually intended to be read aloud, and highly recommend getting the audio book version.

---

You missed some things then, since some things don't translate to the audio. The page format is very important for many aspects of the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I wonder why a book needs to be complex to be good. I think it is the pride and pedantry of a writer that makes it more complex.

---

No: pride and pedantry of a writer does not make his/her novel more complex. When you push realism to it's absolute limits, attempting to examine almost every single minute detail in the confusion of events of one single day, then complexity is inevitable. It's done out of ambition and a need to develop one's work into greater maturity, something every good writer strives to do.

Simple, minimalistic prose is not the ideal prose style that every writer has to work towards. If that were the case then originality would die overnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambert

No: pride and pedantry of a writer does not make his/her novel more complex. When you push realism to it's absolute limits, attempting to examine almost every single minute detail in the confusion of events of one single day, then complexity is inevitable. It's done out of ambition and a need to develop one's work into greater maturity, something every good writer strives to do.

Simple, minimalistic prose is not the ideal prose style that every writer has to work towards. If that were the case then originality would die overnight.

---

You are right to some degree, but it is impossible to deny the fact that Joyce's word choices, and style were designed to be complex and enigma full. Just look at Finnegans Wake, and tell me he wasn't intentionally trying to be impossibly complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

You are right to some degree, but it is impossible to deny the fact that Joyce's word choices, and style were designed to be complex and enigma full. Just look at Finnegans Wake, and tell me he wasn't intentionally trying to be impossibly complex.

---

It's lackadaisical, though, to assume that FW is wilfully obscure to the point that the text is impossible to understand.

If you get the chance, read Seamus Deane's excellent introduction to FW. He pretty much believes like a lot of readers of FW that the book is about writing and interpretation, especially in a historical sense. To Joyce, as a modernist, there was no absolute, objective interpretation of history, only a series subjective viewpoints that constantly come in to conflict with one another (represented by the two brothers Shem and Shaun). But at the same time he believed that recording history in all its forms was not a futile exercise.

It's the same with Ulysses. You can see what Bloom is thinking, see the knowledge he has accumulated over the years, see how he acts and see how he relates to the people around, but you would never get to know the man absolutely, no matter how many styles Joyce lets you see him through. It's about what realism, and fiction in general, can and can't do.