No, that was why he wrote Finnegans Wake.Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
No, that was why he wrote Finnegans Wake.
It is a bit silly to argue Joyce does not communicate considering the huge ammount of followers or admirers which include guys like Borges, Cortazar, Faulkner, Eliot, Guimarães Rosa, Beckett, Umberto Eco, Bataile, Barthez, Nabokov... It is obviously false. Those guys understand a thing or two about literature enough to pass by Ulysses gibberishes, Joyce self-glorification or lack of communication... Apparently it was all absent, right?
Anyways, it is beyond silly claiming to people who reads Ulysses 90 years after it was published that Joyce didn't communicate. He obviously do. (And with Finnegans too, of course).
Of the fun to be had with Ulysses, it is well to be read aloud.
I haven't read Finnegan's Wake, haven't even tried. I take it's not too accessible then....
OK, some of you are fans of this lifeless writer for his boring erudition. A kind of myopic attitude. And running after a style. I loathe this classical stigmatic icon. I choose not to be a wastrel. I do not want to waste even 10 minutes on such rubbishes. What do I look for there? Style? There are other greats style-wise. Content or philosophy? And there is none and some others said better what they wanted to say. A stupid literary committee formed everywhere to list the best books come from a dimwitted academics. They are updated themselves with the goings-on today in literatures, reading culture, people's interests, beliefs and most importantly the stream of modernity.
I am a voracious reader and I read all sorts of books but when it comes to making an analogy of such writers and their overrated statuses I find the very basis of judge repelling
I disliked the way he incessantly overrated shadowing some of the greater writers by some literary judges and that is why I raised this issue to read the views of the rest of readers. There are some blind supporters and they are simply an devoutly idolizing him. It is also interesting to read their fanatical ideas too.
I have some professors who teach literature and when it comes to teach Ulysses they start sweating. Same with the students who have to compulsorily read this book. I really cannot understand why they prescribe this book in their academic curriculums
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
See, that's much more honest. Not very persuasive, but at least sincere.
Pick it up in a library and look it over. There are some people who love it, but it is csolid wordplay.
James Joyce and his Ulysses. It has stirred up lots of sensations. An Idol of a legion of literary fools. With his hogwash he fooled all. I find it unworthy of even ten minutes' read. I simply remain stunned why our readers remain so much obsessed with his rashness to aesthetically lionize him for his terse syntactic structures and unusual words. Today any fools can come up with a cache of long-winded words but he cannot succeed the way James Joyce could. Ulysses had once been highly admired and down the channel of history the rest of judges imported from the early critics
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
I feel the same about Lawrence. Shaw felt the same about Shakespeare. Everybody's allowed one.
Oh, hang on - two. I need a slot for Tolkien.
Ditto for Tolkien and Lawrence... And Hardy.
Let's say three for everyone, shall we?
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I never care who feel what for anybody. That is not my business. All I am arguing about is there are great books for book lovers and why still university professors keep on prescribing such unappealing books? Most aspirants, including myself always loathed this book. I loathed some other classics like poems by Alexander Pope, Dryden and Milton etc but I disliked Ulysses most.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
Right. Gotcha.
Aspirant to what?
For the most part I agree, however, I don't really see a lot of erudition in Joyce. I suspect if the reader is familiar with the plot of Hamlet and has familiarity with the Latin Mass and the culture of Catholicism, that is all one really needs to understand Joyce's references.
For example, it might appear to be erudition when Joyce has Buck Mulligan say, "Introibo ad altare Dei", but the altar boy in Joyce would have likely responded immediately, without understanding what he was saying with: "Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam." I suspect it is a common as the Hindu Gayatri mantra for those who regularly attended the old Latin Mass.
For me Ulysses actually began well. I enjoyed Mulligan wiping his razor with Daedalus' "snotgreen" dirty handkerchief as well as the dialog with the woman who brought milk for their breakfast. The problem is that Joyce could not keep it going.
Skipping to the end of the book and reading what appeared to me to be drivel was the final disappointment.
When someone with supposed authority lists a book as one of the best books in English they are implying that everyone who is competent should be reading that book. When the book fails to communicate, fails to deliver on the promise these authorities have made, confusion results.
People who want to write start thinking: "Maybe I should write drivel too if this is what makes a book great!" So they do. Soon they wonder why no one reads them. They wonder why the academics who praised Joyce so much haven't included their work in the list as well. Even readers wonder if just maybe they are too stupid to enjoy this, too dumb to see the clothes on the Emperor prancing around in his underwear (or less), but unfortunately for the academics who made the list, those doubts don't last long.
Blazeofglory's rants have really tickled my funny bone.
What this argument amounts to is: I'm clever enough to see that this is rubbish peddled by mistaken or fraudulent academics, but a lot of you apparently aren't.
Which is as bad, frankly, as a Joyce-fans suggesting that they are clever enough to understand it, but you apparently aren't.
I don't think Joyce can be blamed for the fact that he has so many less-talented imitators.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 05-04-2011 at 10:04 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote