Ulysses - work of genius or emperor's new clothes?

SuperInfinity

With people celebrating Ulysses today, I'm just curious as to what this board thinks of the book?

Do you think it's something worth reading? Personally I doubt it would be worth it, I think it would be an enormous waste of time. I'm all for classics... give me Frankenstein, Dracula, Robinson Crusoe, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Around the World in Eighty Days, The Telltale Heart etc. any day before some vague and boring about one man's single day. Or going back further, give me the Bible and those enjoyable ancient Greek novels like An Ethiopian Story before James Joyce crap.

I think it's a case of emperor's new clothes, another way for certain snooty literature people to prove how they're a class above the average reader. What do you think?

jam_mac_jam

I think you should read it first and then comment or at least try...

c montgomery

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think you should read it first and then comment or at least try...

David Norris was on radio today saying that its only on the second reading of the book where its genius comes through.

I dont think i could put in the time to read it in the first place.

Whats it actually about?

jam_mac_jam

c montgomery wrote: »

David Norris was on radio today saying that its only on the second reading of the book where its genius comes through.

I dont think i could put in the time to read it in the first place.

Whats it actually about?

loads of stuff, jealousy, love, infedility, death, republicanism, insecurity, I am missing lots of stuff. I really liked some parts, did not have a fuppin clue what other ones are about. I would agree its hard work in some places however I dont think you can critisize something untill you have read it, and I dont think its emperor's new clothes it changed the whole style of the way fiction was writen.

sxt

SuperInfinity wrote: »

With people celebrating Ulysses today, I'm just curious as to what this board thinks of the book?

Do you think it's something worth reading? Personally I doubt it would be worth it, I think it would be an enormous waste of time. I'm all for classics... give me Frankenstein, Dracula, Robinson Crusoe, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Around the World in Eighty Days, The Telltale Heart etc. any day before some vague and boring about one man's single day. Or going back further, give me the Bible and those enjoyable ancient Greek novels like An Ethiopian Story before James Joyce crap.

I think it's a case of emperor's new clothes, another way for certain snooty literature people to prove how they're a class above the average reader. What do you think?

It depends...If people start out reading it because it is the 'best book in the last 750 million years' or 'a book you should read before you are 43'...then you are not going to enjoy it. You might enjoy it alot if you egnore the hype etc...

Polynomial

It's a truly great book, but it takes an effort. I'd recommend reading a guide book to help you get into it. There are a few good ones out there.

Eliot Rosewater

The problem with a book like Ulysses is that it's not directed at lay-readers but rather at academically minded people. There seems to be a perception amongst the general reading public that just because they can physically read the words on the page they can understand - or have some right to understand - what is actually going on. When it comes to books like Ulysses, or to the kind of books that win Nobel and other such awards, there's much more to it than just reading the plot.

So there is much more to being a reader than simply reading the words. One is expected to look out for allusions, symbols and metaphors and to analyze characters etc etc. People often get their back up when they can't "understand" a book and go on a rant against the author and against what they see as academic pretensions. If a lay-reader, like myself, doesn't "get" a book, it doesn't necessarily mean the book is bad. It just means that the book isn't that accessible.

And finally, some people will argue that such books are innately useless and that accessibility should be the primary concern. However, if an author is concerned with being accessible he will invariably have to simplify the work and thus take a lot of the literary power out of it.


I myself haven't read Ulysses myself, but in any case, happy belated Bloomsday!

sron

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think it's a case of emperor's new clothes, another way for certain snooty literature people to prove how they're a class above the average reader. What do you think?

I think that's exactly what you're doing in this post; you're trying to make yourself look smart by deriding those who enjoy high brow literature. It's failing by the way; you come off as an anti-intellectual would-be snob.

Read the damned book before you make pronouncements that make you look stupid!

Denerick

I hope to read it someday. And I'm quite sick of this constant accusation of snobbery or elitism thats associated with it. From what I've read, and what I've heard from people, it truly is a masterpiece that gets to the very bottom of the human experience, and whats more, does it in Dublin City! How can an Irishman possibly not read it?

youcancallmeal

Tried reading once before and I got about as far as Oxen of the Sun. I gave up as it started to get harder to understand what was going on and I think I had other books waiting to be read which were too tempting. What I did read I found very good and I even laughed out loud a few times. I'll definitely go back to it again but armed with a guide book this time!

OxfordComma

I haven't read it, so I can't say whether or not it's a case of "emperor's new clothes", but considering how highly it's regarded around the world, I'm sure it must have some literary merit! I would like to read it at some point, but it sounds like hard work, and off the top of my head I can think of lots of other very lengthy novels that appeal to me more than Ulysses.

I'll hopefully get around to reading it some time... Not for quite a while though!

tHE vAGGABOND

but it takes an effort. I'd recommend reading a guide book to help you get into it.

Any book which requires multiple readings and a guide book to read it is not great IMHO

Denerick

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Any book which requires multiple readings and a guide book to read it is not great IMHO

Not really, it shows that there is amazing depth. For example, one of the characters is called 'the citizen', who is modelled after the founder of the GAA. Without knowing the broader context of the novel there would be no way of knowing that.

Kai

Denerick wrote: »

Not really, it shows that there is amazing depth. For example, one of the characters is called 'the citizen', who is modelled after the founder of the GAA. Without knowing the broader context of the novel there would be no way of knowing that.

I think if i had to read it multiple times and follow a guide simply to understand that a character is based on the founder of the GAA then id be pretty annoyed. I see your point about hidden depths but whats the point in scaling the depths if all you find is the flat uninteresting bottom...

I have tried on 2 occasions to read it and gave up after a few chapters, it may be considered a great book but I did not find it so. I'm sure if i got a guide and invested some time in destructing the text then it would show as a work of greatness but that is not a process I want to go though in order to read a book.

Also as someone else pointed out, if the book is only accessible to the relatively small group of people who are prepared to invest that amount of effort then surely that is failure in some respect.

As Bukowski said "An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way. "

Bottom line: If you honestly enjoyed it then I'm happy for you. If you pretended to have read and enjoyed it (im guessing this is the biggest group) then you should be ashamed for not being honest. Finally if like me you tried reading it and found it wasn't for you, move on

Denerick

Kai wrote: »

I think if i had to read it multiple times and follow a guide simply to understand that a character is based on the founder of the GAA then id be pretty annoyed. I see your point about hidden depths but whats the point in scaling the depths if all you find is the flat uninteresting bottom...

I have tried on 2 occasions to read it and gave up after a few chapters, it may be considered a great book but I did not find it so. I'm sure if i got a guide and invested some time in destructing the text then it would show as a work of greatness but that is not a process I want to go though in order to read a book.

Also as someone else pointed out, if the book is only accessible to the relatively small group of people who are prepared to invest that amount of effort then surely that is failure in some respect.

Look, it was written in the early 20th century. Obviously, trying to understand the cultural context or the political climate will necessitate a broad knowledge of the period. He is meant to have written about lots of things, including the Casement report and O'Connell, Castle Catholics and Republicanism... How can you really understand the book if you're not prepared to understand these events and concepts and people! It is as much about capturing a certain time and place, I'm sorry if that offends the 21st century reader who has no interest in the past?...

As Bukowski said "An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way. "

Bottom line: If you honestly enjoyed it then I'm happy for you. If you pretended to have read and enjoyed it (im guessing this is the biggest group) then you should be ashamed for not being honest. Finally if like me you tried reading it and found it wasn't for you, move on

I haven't read it, but have read other works that allude to it. Lots of people I respect consider it one of the most important works of all time, so I'm bound to consider it in a good light. But I find your kind of inverted snobbery just as repulsive as the out and out kind.

Eliot Rosewater

It's the same with Dante Aligheri's Divine Comedy as far as I know. On the soundtrack to the film Hannibal, Anthony Hopkins talks about the appearance in one canto of a particular historical figure (Pietro delle Vigne) and how he is compared to Judas Iscariot for his betrayal of the Holy Roman Emperor's trust. Dante's poem is supposedly filled with examples of historical and political figures, giving the commentary an intense depth.

Denerick wrote: »

But I find your kind of inverted snobbery just as repulsive as the out and out kind.

The "out and out" kind isn't even that snobby. I make no excuses about not liking Dan Brown. It's not that I turn my nose up at him and get snooty, he just doesn't even occur in my mind. On the other hand, those rebelling against supposed "intellectual snobbery" certainly are looking down their noses, in my opinion.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The "out and out" kind isn't even that snobby. I make no excuses about not liking Dan Brown. It's not that I turn my nose up at him and get snooty, he just doesn't even occur in my mind. On the other hand, those rebelling against supposed "intellectual snobbery" certainly are looking down their noses, in my opinion.

You're preaching to the converted. I am a snob. But I really hate this attitude that somehow you're some kind of dickhead if you like 'highbrow' literature (Though highbrow is itself an arbitrary term...)

fontanalis

Does he soar through all the galaxies?
Anyway, must check it out at some stage to see what all the fuss is about. probably best to finish Dubliners first.

windycity

As a teacher it is a very difficult book to teach because it draws on a vast amount of prior knowledge, and in many ways, I think it could be argued that Ulysses is dependent on that and that that issue has contributed to its success and critical acclaim. At the very least, it is controversial on many levels and it demands something of the reader-which I don't think is a bad thing-especially in this day and age.

Most of my readers who encounter this book for the first time don't like it, because they don't "get it," feel it is somewhat elitist, too much work to sift through, and end up being discouraged. I like the book as a teaching tool, but not really as a story. Joyce definitely had some better tales that were much more simple, yet, effective in conveying a message. Plus, Joyce was not nice to Yeats, and I have always had a soft spot in my heart for that old guy.

sron

windycity wrote: »

Plus, Joyce was not nice to Yeats, and I have always had a soft spot in my heart for that old guy.

Joyce wasn't too on Yeats and admired him more than any other writer of the time. I like Yeats but his balloon needed some deflating (all that gyre business is just silly).
Joyce was much harder on Gogarty, which is why I find it funny that the Oliver St. John Gogarty pub trumpets its Ulysses connection, given that the man hated the book and its (probably unfair) portrayal of him.

By the way, the book doesn't really need a primer; get the annotated oxford addition instead, which gives copious notes where they're needed (in the library chapter, I believe there's about 3 pages of notes per page of text). It should also be stated that references and the tone of the book can be understood far more easily by the Irish than anyone else, so consider yourselves in a privileged position, with most of the requisite research already done.

windycity

Now you've sparked my interest in Gogarty, and of course, I will now have to investigate. Thanks a lot- I could have been watching t.v. tonite. The gyre is a bit strange, I have to agree.

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

You're preaching to the converted. I am a snob. But I really hate this attitude that somehow you're some kind of dickhead if you like 'highbrow' literature (Though highbrow is itself an arbitrary term...)

I know you're a snob (:p) but my point is that in general "intellectual snobs" aren't actually half as snobby as "anti-intellectual snobs". When I'm in a shop and I see Maeve Binchy I just gloss over it. When some people who read plot-based books see James Joyce they don't just gloss, they go out of their way to sneer. This, in my opinion, is being more snobby than the "high-brow" folk. Which is ironic, I think, because they're always the ones making the fuss about snobbery.

That's in my limited experience.

melody1

Started reading Ulysses two weeks ago and am half way through with the help of excellent guide 'Ulysses and Us' by Declan Kiberd. I am reading Ulysses because I skipped iit in college many years ago and now want to give it a chance. Can see why I avoided it back then and am not yet sold on the value of reading it now. However I do think Joyce was an a genius and a magician with language. Perhaps you need to be a bit of a genius to read it with ease! As for me - I'm struggling!

Kai

Denerick wrote: »

How can you really understand the book if you're not prepared to understand these events and concepts and people! It is as much about capturing a certain time and place, I'm sorry if that offends the 21st century reader who has no interest in the past?...

I haven't read it, but have read other works that allude to it. Lots of people I respect consider it one of the most important works of all time, so I'm bound to consider it in a good light. But I find your kind of inverted snobbery just as repulsive as the out and out kind.

Sorry but the snobbery comment is over the top. I at least attempted to read it and gave my personal opinion that it wasn't for me. Just for the record i have read many classics and enjoyed them. I can hardly be called an inverted intellectual snob or whatever your trying to imply simply because i didn't like Ulysses.

Lots of people I respect consider it one of the most important works of all time, so I'm bound to consider it in a good light. But I find your kind of inverted snobbery just as repulsive as the out and out kind.

Perhaps you should read it yourself and make up your own mind rather than accepting the inherited wisdom of others. I think you've shown yourself to be a repulsive snob with comments like that.

Denerick

Kai wrote: »

Sorry but the snobbery comment is over the top. I at least attempted to read it and gave my personal opinion that it wasn't for me. Just for the record i have read many classics and enjoyed them. I can hardly be called an inverted intellectual snob or whatever your trying to imply simply because i didn't like Ulysses.

No, you're not 'just saying' that at all, and you must think us idiots if you expect us to believe that. You're saying that a) most people who claim to read it haven't, and b) most people think that its crap but claim its good.

Perhaps you should read it yourself and make up your own mind rather than accepting the inherited wisdom of others. I think you've shown yourself to be a repulsive snob with comments like that.

I intend to. Maybe it is crap. But I won't prejudge it like so many others just because its 'uppity, like'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tyler71

Yeah, I'd go along with that, Ulysses is a mix of everything - classical myths, poetry alongside toilet humour. I have to say I absolutely love the book, and have re-read it a number of times over the years and there are very few books I can say that about. Although I loved it the first time, it does improve when you have background knowledge about the local characters, Dublin itself, the mythology being used, etc, so I can see where the use of a guide would help. But is it all it's cracked up to be? Definitely -100%
If you can't get into it, then as was also said, it just isn't your type of book, but that doesn't make it a bad book or you a bad reader.

However - Finnegan's wake - now that's a tough read! Like a 400page cryptic crossword.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Mod note:

Personalising the discussion tends to be non-productive as well as ill-advised, please avoid it. It deflects from the point of the thread, which after all is the worth of James Joyce's seminal work "The Continuing and Most Fantastic Adventures of Leopold Bloom the ogler and his friend Steve, who likes to pee behind rocks"... More light, less heat please.

Keeping that in mind as you post would be good.

/mod

Kinski

Contrary to what a few posters here are saying, I'd advise people reading Ulysses for the first time to do so without a guide or notes (though it's definitely worth reading A Portrait first - which is a great novel itself.)

sron wrote: »

in the library chapter, I believe there's about 3 pages of notes per page of text

That's why.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kinski

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps, but when reading anything which is dense and complex I often find it useful to read it through without notes the first time and then return for a more careful second reading with them. Ulysses is a great novel after all - there's so much in there to savour without having to catch all the references.

Introductory material is always useful, but I think that constantly flipping to the back of a book to chase down notes might put off some first-time readers - though I'm clearly in the minority on this point.

moonpurple

emporers new clothes...and I read it..so boring

flann obrien was right

'useless'

opportunity for knobs to gather in knob groups and feel important
listen to norris read the wave sound paragraph...gibberish

anthony burgess was right

joyce wrote two good books
dubliners
portait of the artist as a young man

you want good literature
the simpsons
or the lyrics of leonard cohen

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

moonpurple wrote: »

anthony burgess was right

joyce wrote two good books
dubliners
portait of the artist as a young man

I'm not sure if you're just taking the piss here. Burgess wrote a number of critical studies about Joyce, he produced an abridged edition of Finnegans Wake and he includes the latter in his "Ninety-Nine Novels: The Best in English since 1939". It's also a commonly held belief that Flann O'Brien was heavily influenced by James Joyce. So yeah, I think you may be joking!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Busi_Girl08

I read it last summer, over 3 months, with a 2 week break.

It was on my big list of books to read, so I set it as a challenge for myself, looking back, it probably wasn't the best way for me to go into it.

It started off ok, I kind of liked the narrative, then from page 170 or so, it all started to blur a little. I found it hard to follow, confusing (I had a publication that included some notes at the back, this helped a little bit) and found it a little difficult to tell the characters apart.

Then somewhere two thirds in, it all started to click a little bit, and I got into it again (I think this was after my break, so that probably helped), I found it a lot more comprehensive and could follow the narrative better.

Then another few blurry pages, then Molly Bloom's monologue. Christ, take a ****in' breath, woman.

The whole time I was reading it, I was cursing Joyce's name and his sadistic book that was slowly driving me insane.

But then when I finished it (with relish, and if it wasn't a library book, I would have flung it quite violently across the room), I sat back, and thought about it for a day or two, and realised how, in some ways, it wasn't as ridiculous as I thought. Some parts of it made sense, and I did actually enjoy the *portrayal* of Molly Bloom in the long rant of hers.
To be honest though, you could ask me for a summary of it, and I probably couldn't tell you

All in all, I am glad I made the effort. Yes it was hard in places, frustrating in others, and I did get a bit of a chuckle out of some parts.

Mostly, I am proud that this is one book that I managed to get through, that my Dad didn't (and he reads, A LOT)

Robbyn

I just started reading it, and I would agree some sort of guide would help as it is hard work in some places, although most editions these days have an introduction, giving at least a little background into the story. If your irish then you have a huge advantage, but so far I find it tough, but enjoyable, you have to be in the mood to read it really.

Valmont

I'm currently reading A Portrait of the Artist as Young Man and I am finding it very enjoyable. However, I have absolutely no intention of reading Ulysses or Finnegan's wake. I like to challenge myself but I'm not attracted to the prospect of having to read a huge book multiple times with a reference handy, just to "get it". I don't see how its exclusivity can lend it any strengths against something like Pale Fire which one can just pick up and read without having to know about ancient mythology.

Meh. Maybe I am a begrudger but I'm not a masochist either!

Robbyn

Valmont wrote: »

masochist

what a perfect way to describe someone determined to "get" Ulysses
I will read it, and possibly come back to it in a few years to re-read it just to see

deisedude

Ulysses is on my to read list for a while, is there any good guide books/notes etc that i could find online so i don't have to pay for one:D

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blue_steel

Read Portrait of the Artist and found it prosaic. Read Dubliners and found it mind-numbingly prosaic. Have no intention of ever trying Ulysses.

Acacia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

With people celebrating Ulysses today, I'm just curious as to what this board thinks of the book?

Do you think it's something worth reading? Personally I doubt it would be worth it, I think it would be an enormous waste of time. I'm all for classics... give me Frankenstein, Dracula, Robinson Crusoe, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Around the World in Eighty Days, The Telltale Heart etc. any day before some vague and boring about one man's single day. Or going back further, give me the Bible and those enjoyable ancient Greek novels like An Ethiopian Story before James Joyce crap.

I think it's a case of emperor's new clothes, another way for certain snooty literature people to prove how they're a class above the average reader. What do you think?

If you go into reading "Ulysses" with preconceived notions like these you're going to be disappointed with it, and probably not like it very much...

If you have never even read the book I fail to see how you could make an assessment such as it being "emperor's new clothes... a way for snooty literaure people to prove how they're a class above the average reader." I suggest you give the book a chance on its own merits instead of immediately disowning it based on some flawed assumptions.

Granted it's taken me a few college courses in Joyce to begin to understand the blooming thing ( pun not intended! ) but I believe it's well worth it. It's funny that most people think it's going to be "vague and boring" because it's just about one man's day... but in fact so much happens. Just because it's not all action and adventure like some of the novels you've mentioned above doesn't mean nothing happens... nearly the entire experience of being human is covered I'd argue, it just happens to be filtered through one man's consciousness on a single day.

another funny thing is that Joyce wanted to book to be read by the ordinary person, and although the book has the reputation of being 'high-brow' or 'snobby' its full of colloquial language and Dublin humor... I'd suggest seeing some of it performed or acted out because you can really get a sense of the humor Joyce was trying to create.

Also, if you sit down with it and attempt to plough through the whole thing from start to finish, you will find it boring and diffilcult, it's not the most easy book to engage with it, I admit. I'd suggest getting buying a guide to reading it before you try to tackle it.

I shared some of your views myself before I read it but I'm glad I gave it a chance because it is really enjoyable once you get into it.

mikhail

Kai wrote: »

Also as someone else pointed out, if the book is only accessible to the relatively small group of people who are prepared to invest that amount of effort then surely that is failure in some respect.

As Bukowski said "An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way. "

Richard Feynman wrote some of the most accessible popular science books I've ever read - he said a difficult thing in a simple way. But something was lost in that translation. The true physics behind what he was writing about (physics he understood and contributed to in a big way - Nobel Prize big) are too difficult to express without mathematics inaccessible to most readers. It's only where I read Feynman on my own area of expertise that I really understood that. So you can quote me on this: that Bukowski quote is full of ****.

Eliot Rosewater

mikhail wrote: »

It's only where I read Feynman on my own area of expertise that I really understood that. So you can quote me on this: that Bukowski quote is full of ****.

Indeed. Dismissing Ulysess on the basis of its complexity would be similar to dismissing the science that went into the Mars landings just because the average Leaving Cert maths student couldn't understand it. The point is that the further you go into your field of study the less likely it is that the common man, bereft of your learning and experience, will understand.

Kai

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed. Dismissing Ulysess on the basis of its complexity would be similar to dismissing the science that went into the Mars landings just because the average Leaving Cert maths student couldn't understand it. The point is that the further you go into your field of study the less likely it is that the common man, bereft of your learning and experience, will understand.

I dont dismiss Ulysses on the basis of complexity, I dont dismiss the book at all i was merely trying to point out that the amount of effort and research required just to understand it surely counts as a negative against it. It reduces the pleasure of reading it.

Kai

mikhail wrote: »

Richard Feynman wrote some of the most accessible popular science books I've ever read - he said a difficult thing in a simple way. But something was lost in that translation. The true physics behind what he was writing about (physics he understood and contributed to in a big way - Nobel Prize big) are too difficult to express without mathematics inaccessible to most readers. It's only where I read Feynman on my own area of expertise that I really understood that. So you can quote me on this: that Bukowski quote is full of ****.

I have studied some of Richard Feynmans work, mostly his documentaries and lectures and found he brought fantastic insight into how physics can explain why things are the way they are. Comparing Feynman and Ulysses is ridiculous. Feynman was seeking to understand the workings of the universe and was trying to explain the complexity in the the things he studied to everyday people. The complexity in Ulysses was created by the author and he didn't seek to make it easy for the everyday reader to understand.

I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with that or that one is better than the other. I'm saying your comparison of the two does not stand up to scrutiny.

mikhail

I'm not the one suggesting that there's no value in something complex.

Kai

mikhail wrote: »

I'm not the one suggesting that there's no value in something complex.

Neither am I

Cant we all just get along?

bluefinger

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

Mostly, I am proud that this is one book that I managed to get through, that my Dad didn't (and he reads, A LOT)

Thats gas, considering one of the main themes is father/son rivalry.
I realise you're probably not a son but still.

Have read it a few times and i love it. Try opening it at a random page and just read the words like poetry. I had never re-read a novel until I read Ulysses.

It's not a bad thing either if it's difficult, in my opinion, there's something to be said for undertaking a challenging read.