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

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.

jackthelad321

I never read it, like most i tried to get into it. My friedn studied it in college and said it's surprisingly straight forward once you are walked through it in lectures. I remember Bob Dylan ,in Chronicles, saying that he found a copy of Ulysses in a friends house and, feeling like he should read it, flipped through it and quickly decided that Joyce must have been 'the most arrogant man who ever lived.' Joyce certainly excites opinion in people.

However, (and I may be wrong here, this is what i think due to some hazy fragments of memory from college) both Anthony Burgess and Vladimir Nabokov thought it was the finest book of the 20th century. Now, i'm not saying it is any good, but those two guys were actually real literary genuises, both novelists and critics. I would assume it is a work of, if not genius, at least expert conception and, i also think, bravery. Nevertheless, many people will detest it and they may well be right too. The comments here about the accessibility of the book and the lay-person are spot on i think.

Eliot Rosewater

jackthelad321 wrote: »

I remember Bob Dylan ,in Chronicles, saying ... Joyce must have been 'the most arrogant man who ever lived.'

Irony.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MonkeySocks24

Kai wrote: »

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.

I read Ulysses about three times now, first time when I was a teenager. I don't think it's hard to understand at all. I think what is pretentious it when people try to get deeper meanings from literature. It is what it is, I know it has loads of themes but I think anyone can understand it and get it's meaning. I loved it on the other hand I cannot get into war and peace by leo tolstoy, I think it's a mental block, it feels complicated.

MarchDub

MonkeySocks24 wrote: »

I read Ulysses about three times now, first time when I was a teenager. I don't think it's hard to understand at all. I think what is pretentious it when people try to get deeper meanings from literature. It is what it is, I know it has loads of themes but I think anyone can understand it and get it's meaning. I loved it on the other hand I cannot get into war and peace by leo tolstoy, I think it's a mental block, it feels complicated.

I think you are right. I've taught it a number of times and always encourage students to read it fairly lightly the first time. It's actually quite a funny and witty book. Of course there are many themes being explored, the father/son relationship, Joyce's relationship to the Celtic Renaissance, Christianity/Catholicism etc etc. but it is a modernist work with the central emphasis on Bloom and his "everyday".

Thefixer2

youcancallme>al wrote: »

Tried reading once before and I got about as far as Oxen of the Sun.

that's near the end!

Thefixer2

Kai wrote: »

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.

Ultimately though it could prove more rewarding than any book you've ever read or imagined. It is after all designed to be enlightening and enlightening in many ways and forms.

youcancallmeal

Thefixer2 wrote: »

that's near the end!

Yeah but it really starts to become indecipherable towards the end of that chapter and then the entire next chapter written is written as a play!? Just couldn't get my head around it, I understood the words but together they didnt make sense!?

I read Ulysses a few years ago. Personally, found it easier to read if you break it up into a the different sections and don't try an read it straight through.

Found the 'Nighttown' episode to be funny and disturbing. I wouldn't say I thought it was the best book Ive ever read but I still enjoyed it.

Didn't find it as difficult or as a enjoyable as 'Gravitys Rainbow'.

SuperInfinity

Thefixer2 wrote: »

that's near the end!

I love how it took nearly half a year and a lot of posts before someone noticed this!!!! :P