New Author V.S Author SHowdown: Proust VS Joyce VS Faulkner

[Babak Movahed]

Alright, lets take your idea now - we can compare things, almost anything, so lets take the idea of discussing which work is greatest, or discussing the works themselves/comparing in a way that doesn't seek to say which one is better the aspects of the respective texts we find interesting. In short, few people commenting have read all three of these authors, and better yet, fewer in their original language, and better yet, even for those who have, this discussion of who is better just wastes time when we could look and say, "what makes these texts so good?" Comparatively then, which thread would be better, if what we are doing is comparing? The thread just saying "I read him and only him so he is better," or the thread that actually says something.

I noticed your guys conversation, and to an extent I agree with you. To be honest, I personally haven't read Proust in French. However, I believe you're really attacking the semantics of thread's title. It is absurd to simply say "he is better" but comparing three modernists is far from ridiculous. Also to attacking comparisons amongst works is preposterous! Literary cross comparison develops better notions stylistic variations, thematic variations, and differences in genres. To put in perspective; how can only fully understand a dystopian work when he/she hasn't study any utopian works? If you recognize that their is merit comparing works, which you've implied in the quote above, then clearly you can understand that a comparison between these three serves some purpose. Simply because some people haven't read the works, or because the thread is worded perfectly doesn't mean its a pointless question. Besides I would assume that you would understand the subjective nature of the question. Just because some people choose to answer with "he is better" doesn't mean everyone is going to.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Great poll man! Personally I believe Joyce is the master of point of view, which for those who don't know is the method by which stream of consciousness is conveyed, like when one thinks of Joyce that has to be the first thing that comes to mind. The evidence is in Ulysses, that book switches point of view multiple times just on the same page. You don't even have to read that monstrous work to figure it out, because by like page 10 Joyce has incorporated 3rd person limited, free indirect discourse, and interior monologue. He even uses seldom seen narration in the 7th episode with the way he embeds 4th person narration (narration by the media or press) by using headlines for paragraphs. I will admit that Faulkner's works have better plots and characterization, but in regards to stream of consciousness Joyce takes the cake.

This post served only one purpose: to prove that you know different narrative modes.

"Who is the better author?" is the question.

[Jeremydav]

Joyce is without a doubt the greatest artist of the 20th century. (Said that expecting things to be flung at me from across the proverbial room). Nothing, for me, will ever compare to the feeling I had when I finished Ulysses.

[stlukesguild]

Obviously there is some doubt as to Joyce' status... otherwise there would be no debate. Nor would I extend discussions' of Joyce to the whole of ART ("Joyce is without a doubt the greatest artist of the 20th century.") where he becomes a mere "also-ran" in comparison to Picasso.

Patrick Bateman's criticism of Babak Movahed's comments is certainly valid. He argues that Joyce was the greatest innovator of formal narrative techniques (and certainly in terms of language) but questions whether these are proof of Joyce's artistic superiority. John Cage, for example, is surely far more "innovative" than Mozart or Bach... but there is little doubt as to who the greater composers are. Babak Movahed admits that Faulkner is greater in terms of characterization and plot, but that Joyce is the master of "stream of consciousness". Are we to assume that this innovative narrative technique is a greater measure of literary worth than plot or character invention and development... or any number of other literary elements?

The "stream of consciousness" technique strikes me as little more than a gimic in some ways... perhaps not unlike Cubism (which is why Picasso eventually abandoned true Cubism and returned to a style that might correctly termed Expressionism). I think part of Joyce's strength lies in his mastery with language. Proust, however, is equally masterful in terms of his language, which like Joyce, can verge on the poetic... albeit a poetry of a very different tradition. Proust seems to be building upon the French tradition of Symbolism with its rich sensuality as well as drawing from such "decadents" as Wilde and Pater (who were profoundly impacted by the French Symbolists). Proust is also a master of character invention and development to the point that he rivals Shakespeare, Dickens and other masters of character. Bloom is a brilliant character... but few of the others characters are in any way as fully developed... which of course is due to the structure of the work in following the "odyssey" of Bloom on a single day. One might also bring up the question of accessibility. Accessibility is certainly noy a measure of artistic merit... for or against. It is only a measure of merit in terms of how great a degree of aesthetic pleasure is derived from a given work contrary to its difficulty. There are many who are quite well-read and lovers of literature who still question whether Joyce is far too difficult... intentionally so... especially in Finnegan's Wake... in contrast to the aesthetic pleasure he brings. Proust is obviously far more accessible... the great difficulty of his work being simply its length... which is a poor criticism in light of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Hugo and any number of other writers. It also ignores the fact that like Scott's Waverly novels or Balzac's La Comédie Humaine, the novels can be read as individual works.

[JCamilo]

I wont talk much about Proust, having not read enough of him. But I think some differences are not really differences. Those 3 are very similar. The irish, the american, the french versions of the modern romance writer. All of them broke barrier, had masterful language, could carry a plot with a blink of their eyes, are master of languages and could develop a character more than others (after all, you can not even use stream without a proper development.) And you also add a couple of other writers in the batch.

What could make Joyce different is in my opinion his perpection of literature. Not that the others did not. But Joyce perceived that language, the novel form, was all transitory. He was giving a burrial to the form, not inovating it. While Faulkner Proust seems to be exausting with mastery a form, after Ulysses Joyce, did the step ahead. The difference is Finnegans Wake. The extra that come from it, the very fact of writing a book that since it was born was bigger beyond its page. It is Joyce who cleans the path for Pierre Menard (I always thought Borges initial repulse of FW was his traditionalist side refusing the death of the book - this format so necessary for Romance and novels - which was his own spirit).

As inovations, overall, art inovations only matter if they can be copied and used by others. Romances like Ulysses abound (and Stream, I would argue, was actually a russian invention, heck, the Underground Man is not a character, but a Walking Stream of Conciousness) and even the play-word game (which existed before too) was matched (and looked less artificial) by Guimarães Rosa. I really would think, Joyce importance is his path to Borges, his inovation was not to take to a extreme the language fluidity, something that happens naturally, but erradicate all tradition by excess and then praise it.

[hanzklein]

Obviously there is some doubt as to Joyce' status... otherwise there would be no debate. Nor would I extend discussions' of Joyce to the whole of ART ("Joyce is without a doubt the greatest artist of the 20th century.") where he becomes a mere "also-ran" in comparison to Picasso.

Patrick Bateman's criticism of Babak Movahed's comments is certainly valid. He argues that Joyce was the greatest innovator of formal narrative techniques (and certainly in terms of language) but questions whether these are proof of Joyce's artistic superiority. John Cage, for example, is surely far more "innovative" than Mozart or Bach... but there is little doubt as to who the greater composers are. Babak Movahed admits that Faulkner is greater in terms of characterization and plot, but that Joyce is the master of "stream of consciousness". Are we to assume that this innovative narrative technique is a greater measure of literary worth than plot or character invention and development... or any number of other literary elements?

The "stream of consciousness" technique strikes me as little more than a gimic in some ways... perhaps not unlike Cubism (which is why Picasso eventually abandoned true Cubism and returned to a style that might correctly termed Expressionism). I think part of Joyce's strength lies in his mastery with language. Proust, however, is equally masterful in terms of his language, which like Joyce, can verge on the poetic... albeit a poetry of a very different tradition. Proust seems to be building upon the French tradition of Symbolism with its rich sensuality as well as drawing from such "decadents" as Wilde and Pater (who were profoundly impacted by the French Symbolists). Proust is also a master of character invention and development to the point that he rivals Shakespeare, Dickens and other masters of character. Bloom is a brilliant character... but few of the others characters are in any way as fully developed... which of course is due to the structure of the work in following the "odyssey" of Bloom on a single day. One might also bring up the question of accessibility. Accessibility is certainly noy a measure of artistic merit... for or against. It is only a measure of merit in terms of how great a degree of aesthetic pleasure is derived from a given work contrary to its difficulty. There are many who are quite well-read and lovers of literature who still question whether Joyce is far too difficult... intentionally so... especially in Finnegan's Wake... in contrast to the aesthetic pleasure he brings. Proust is obviously far more accessible... the great difficulty of his work being simply its length... which is a poor criticism in light of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Hugo and any number of other writers. It also ignores the fact that like Scott's Waverly novels or Balzac's La Comédie Humaine, the novels can be read as individual works.

There is actually no real debate, the people who love Joyce are the ones who gave it all to read Ulysses, finished it, and perhaps studied it in some depth, and the ones who tried, and maybe the work just went right over there heads, even if they finished. I know of no one who who has read Joyce in depth that doesn't greatly appreciate him. There is even a mini cult around him and Leopold Bloom, its ridiculous.

And of course none of the characters are as fully developed as Bloom, youre literally in his uncensored thoughts for hundreds of pages lol. I would also say Stephen Dedalus, Gabriel COnroy, Bloom, Molly, Blazes Boylan, Buck Mulligan, Simon Dedalus (and much more) are great and strong characters in Joyce's work. There is an extra layer to all of these characters because most of them are based on real life counterparts Joyce knew, so reading about that provides even more depth. And many also appear throughout other works and are not limited to one story, so there is some kind of sense of a real world these characters live in.

As for difficulty, Ulysses and Finnegans Wake operate under a philosophy that I dont feel like going into at the moment, but you should know there is a purpose behind the difficulty: none of it is difficult for its own sake. This ties in to my theory that after Dubliners and Portrait, Joyce went on to try to make epiphanies in his readers rather than characters.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I haven't read Proust, but between Faulkner and Joyce, I enjoy Faulkner the most, but I think Joyce is the more skilled of the two. I voted for Faulkner hastily, as at the time I didn't read the criterion that we were voting on the "best" author. I should have voted for Joyce. Hell, maybe I shouldn't have voted at all having never read Proust, but, alas, what's done is done.

If I were to read Proust, what would a good starting point be?

[arrytus]

If I were to read Proust, what would a good starting point be?

He only wrote a few things if you consider ISOLT a single novel. His early short stories and essays and poems I've read and see no reason for but an adamant scholar or fan to familiarize themselves with. First part of ISOLT is the classic Swann's Way but it's probably best to purchase the entire novel in two volumes so you have a single translator, unless you can read french in which case like every book in its original language it's even better.

[arrytus]

I read an article about Joyce somewhere a few weeks ago in which it relayed a story about how Beckett, who was Joyce's famulus at the time since the latter was purblind, was dictating to the former and heard the doorbell ring and the latter, as the former hadn't heard it, shouted out 'Come in!' and the former wrote it down in the manuscript and when read back Joyce decided to keep it in as he liked it better that way. so river run....

anyway for my part i will only be satisfied if the vote is a tie cuz none of them deserve to come in last

[stlukesguild]

There is actually no real debate, the people who love Joyce are the ones who gave it all to read Ulysses, finished it, and perhaps studied it in some depth, and the ones who tried, and maybe the work just went right over there heads, even if they finished. I know of no one who who has read Joyce in depth that doesn't greatly appreciate him. There is even a mini cult around him and Leopold Bloom, its ridiculous.

What a pretentious twit. First you accuse myself and others of being poorly read because we disagree with your assertions regarding Milton, T.S. Eliot, and Joyce, and now you take this to the logical conclusion that aesthetic superiority of Joyce is of such an unquestionable and unassailable nature that only those who have not read Ulysses... or lacked the ability (unlike yourself) to fully comprehend it could possibly fail to see this. The possibility that someone might might be far better read and far more intelligent than yourself and still feel that Proust or Faulkner (or Kafka or Borges or Neruda for that matter) was the greatest writer of the 20th century, and not Joyce is beyond all of your comprehension (as profound as you would lead us to believe it is). No one here has even suggested that Joyce is not a great writer... although you might be surprised to discover that there are many quite lucid and intelligent individuals who quite readily do believe as much. It has only been suggested that writers as great as Proust and Faulkner might lay equal claim to the rather inane title of "greatest writer of the 20th century".

And of course none of the characters are as fully developed as Bloom, youre literally in his uncensored thoughts for hundreds of pages lol.

And did I not say as much? As such, the secondary characters are only developed to the extent of their interaction with Bloom.

I would also say Stephen Dedalus, Gabriel Conroy, Bloom, Molly, Blazes Boylan, Buck Mulligan, Simon Dedalus (and much more) are great and strong characters in Joyce's work.

How strong or well developed these characters are is debatable. I would not suggest that they are flat, one-dimensional characters, but neither are they as fully developed as any number of characters in Faulkner or Proust.

There is an extra layer to all of these characters because most of them are based on real life counterparts Joyce knew, so reading about that provides even more depth. And many also appear throughout other works and are not limited to one story, so there is some kind of sense of a real world these characters live in.

And yet Dante's "invention" of the characters Dante and Virgil in the Comedia are were taken to task as lacking any depth because they were based upon real-life persona? Personally, I don't think that it matters whether the character is based upon real-life or not. What matters is how real... or rather how memorable... and developed the character is as a literary invention.

As for difficulty, Ulysses and Finnegans Wake operate under a philosophy that I dont feel like going into at the moment, but you should know there is a purpose behind the difficulty: none of it is difficult for its own sake.

Well you certainly can't question that critical argument. Dante is the greatest author ever because he operates under a philosophy, the nature of which I am not at liberty to divulge... you must simply take my word for it... he reigns supreme. Sounds more Kafkaesque than Joycean.

[JBI]

Meh, how are you judging and on what scale? The greatest in terms of following would be neither of those, in terms of mass appreciation would be neither of those, in terms of subsequent influence on the letters and culture that followed? Still none of those. In terms of artistry? what does that mean, and how can that be proven?

In terms of modernists, the most influential and significant modernist would be the Chinese author Lu Xun, who is still the most influential figure in Chinese letters around and after his time. Is he the best artist? I wouldn't argue that, but he certainly was the most significant one I can think of (simply put, a billion more people read him over Joyce).

Then we have the argument toward aesthetics. What does that mean? when last I checked, that was completely unquantifiable. Much less arguable as to who is worth more.

As for the bit abut Joyce not being difficult for difficulty's sake, he himself would beg to differ.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Awww, damn. I love seeing Stlukesguild throw the smackdown on someone. As long as it isn't me, of course .

[mortalterror]

Personally, I'd rather read Mrs. Dalloway than Ulysses, Lolita than In Search of Lost Time, and The Old Man and the Sea instead of The Sound and the Fury. If this were a poll to figure out who the best writer of the twentieth century were then you'd need to add a few more slots for Kafka, Marquez, Bellow, Kipling, Tagore, Mann, Hesse, Lagerkvist, Steinbeck, Camus, Pasternak, Mishima, Fitzgerald, Tanizaki, just in prose. At least O'Neill, Shaw, Beckett, Brecht, Pinter, and Pirandello for drama. Then Eliot, Pound, Yeats, Neruda, Lorca, Herbert, Stevens, Rilke, Milosz, Paz, Montale, Carducci, Walcott, Valery, Apollinaire, Perse, Heaney, Adunis, Pessoa, Gibran, and Eluard for poetry.

[arrytus]

In terms of modernists, the most influential and significant modernist would be the Chinese author Lu Xun, who is still the most influential figure in Chinese letters around and after his time. Is he the best artist?

I've got two books by him but I've yet to read them [the sweet and sour of having a backlog is the excitement of finding some new and inspirational perspective and yet the interminable discovery of finding you are still behind]. Could you tell me a bit more about him, or your favorite works of his?

[hanzklein]

What a pretentious twit. First you accuse myself and others of being poorly read because we disagree with your assertions regarding Milton, T.S. Eliot, and Joyce, and now you take this to the logical conclusion that aesthetic superiority of Joyce is of such an unquestionable and unassailable nature that only those who have not read Ulysses... or lacked the ability (unlike yourself) to fully comprehend it could possibly fail to see this. The possibility that someone might might be far better read and far more intelligent than yourself and still feel that Proust or Faulkner (or Kafka or Borges or Neruda for that matter) was the greatest writer of the 20th century, and not Joyce is beyond all of your comprehension (as profound as you would lead us to believe it is). No one here has even suggested that Joyce is not a great writer... although you might be surprised to discover that there are many quite lucid and intelligent individuals who quite readily do believe as much. It has only been suggested that writers as great as Proust and Faulkner might lay equal claim to the rather inane title of "greatest writer of the 20th century".

That's great if such an individual exists, I haven't seen them. Ulysses was eagerly recommended to me a Joyce fanatic in 2006. He said he spent 3 years studying the novel. Highly respecting this person's opinions, I went ahead reading the novel. The book just consumes your life, I've had dreams about Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, however sad that may be. Yet, every single one of those seconds I found to be totally worth it to get to the novels deeper message, its punchline. Ulysses has influenced far too many people in far too short a time to not be considered the greatest text in literature. Faulkner himself said it best when he said: "You should approach Joyce's Ulysses as the illiterate Baptist preacher approaches the Old Testament: with faith." If you don't completely understand it (no one does), or don't want to read it, that's fine. However, if you come here bashing the novel claiming to have read it and analyzed it in depth enough to understand it, I'm going to call you out on it.

And did I not say as much? As such, the secondary characters are only developed to the extent of their interaction with Bloom.

Not really, there are 4 entire chapters dedicated to another character, one even dedicated mostly to minor characters, and every chapter is littered with other characters so much that I wished it would go back to Bloom. What you are saying doesn't make sense. Three characters are at the focus, Molly, Bloom and Stephen. All other secondary characters are developed as humanly as possible and make numerous appearances throughout the novel, I don't understand what you expect.


How strong or well developed these characters are is debatable. I would not suggest that they are flat, one-dimensional characters, but neither are they as fully developed as any number of characters in Faulkner or Proust.

Well, Proust had thousands of more pages to develop his characters. I just completely disagree with this statement, I know Bloom's daughter, his dead child, his middle name, what he ate for breakfast, what his favorite food is, what he does for a job, what he thinks about Irish nationalism, what religion he is, what country he's from, who his dad is and how he committed suicide, the house and street he lives on....do I need to go on? because I can. Show me one Faulkner character who has that much level of detail, and also make a list like I did. Also, a Proust one if possible (I admit to not having read the entirety of In Search, just sections long ago).


And yet Dante's "invention" of the characters Dante and Virgil in the Comedia are were taken to task as lacking any depth because they were based upon real-life persona? Personally, I don't think that it matters whether the character is based upon real-life or not. What matters is how real and developed the character is as a literary invention.

Not the same thing at all. Dante was writing fiction/fantasy, Joyce was trying to literally recreate Dublin through text while at the same time write an enjoyable novel. Did Dante rent out a book of all the dwellings and tenements of hell and incorporate it into his work?

Well you certainly can't question that critical argument. Dante is the greatest author ever because he operates under a philosophy, the nature of which I am not at liberty to divulge... you must simply take my word for it... he reigns supreme. Sounds more Kafkaesque than Joycean.

My point was that there is more to Ulysses than you see. The difficulty was intentional, to explain why, would entail more words that would overshadow the intent of my original post. But if you're dying to know, Joyce believed profound works of art should not be handed to people (as this diminishes enjoyment), but also the hardest parts of Ulysses are hilarious satire (Oxen of the Sun, Proteus). Many well respected scholars have come forth saying the novel is easy to read, as well as readers. Personally, I think that's true if someone goes in with the right mindset.