Ulysses by James Joyce

[BookJumper]

Not that that was my whole philosophy of art, or even something I'm 100% consciously aware of when I write. I do try to be a little conscious of it while I edit. If that makes me a cowardly non-artist, then so be it.

[Smay]

This may be a sensible journalistic maxim, but as a philosophy of art, it lacks courage.

 

And unlike you, I am not even advocating complexity or simplicity. On the contrary, I am saying that these are, or should be, incidental considerations.

 

I think it's considerate, not a lack of courage. You want to write something that speaks to a lot of people. And while writing, even though it's something natural, you still think about how people view what you've written. If you have a message you want to put out and no one gets it because your prose is so complicated, I doubt you did a good job writing.

[Paul]

And back to the original question, yes, I have. And enjoyed it.

As for string theory. Strings is strings. Right?

[Ben Mines]

Not that that was my whole philosophy of art, or even something I'm 100% consciously aware of when I write. I do try to be a little conscious of it while I edit. If that makes me a cowardly non-artist, then so be it.

 

I guess I should explain myself.

 

You are in favour of lucid prose, and it would be completely absurd to argue against that. But my point is, I think, a little more subtle.

 

Creative writing is a paradoxical process because it requires the artist to coordinate gut-level inspiration with the cerebral act of writing. To succeed, I think the relationship between the two should be unmediated, hermetic. This is not to champion literary automatism and other such gobbledegook. An artist should be lucid, insofar as he seeks to communicate. But this lucidity should come from a free transaction between inspiration and a mastery of the craft and not as a result of preconditions that the artist brings to the creative process.

 

And, while I hate to complicate matters further, there is a paradoxical corollary to the above: At times it is lucid to be obscure and obscure to be lucid.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

This might be me being incredibly thick so pardon me if this is so. How can a work tell a good story, create convincing characters, entertain and enchant if it is not easy to read? Again, by easy I do not mean simplistic. I love words, especially odd and unusual ones, convoluted and imaginific sentences, metaphors, you name it - but not to the point of alienating readers, so I try to find a middle ground between remaning literary and not getting too high and mighty about it. It would be nice to be taught in classrooms, but I don't want it to be at the price of the students of tomorrow cursing my name forevermore.

 

The simple answer is that all of the above requisites are also possible in books which are difficult to read, as well as ones which are easy to read-I was not stating that difficult books are x and easy ones y, I was merely stating that as long as a novel has the aforementioned magic formula, it is a matter of indifference to myself how 'difficult' or 'easy' a book is to read. I think the difficulty of Ulysses is, incidentally, hyped up, it is certainly nowhere near as difficult as, for example, Finnegans Wake or (argh!) Gravity's Rainbow.

 

I think it is important, for myself, for novelists to let their readers imagine, as Robbe Grillet said of Dickens etc. sometimes novelists want to explain all of the aspects of their characters, of a plot, of a scene, without leaving it open to interpretation, without allowing readers to use their imagination-Chekhov, whilst writing in a simple style, does this very well, his novels are full of beautiful ambiguites, Nabokov is the ultimate master of this, his novels are kind of like convoluted detective novels, but I am going off on a tangent.

 

I would much rather discuss Ulysses itself. Anybody care to mention their favourite passage? Mine has to be the scene in which Dedalus is paid his wage by the headmaster.

[Freewheeling Andy]

So. To first follow Ben's theorem - no, I've not read Ullyses. And I've never much been tempted to, either.

 

And that's odd, in a lot of ways, because I love modernism and post-modernism, and layered books and interesting structures. All that stuff. I also have a tendency to read the high-brow and highly praised. I have a genuine belief that the "canon" is, almost inevitably, of very high quality.

 

So what's the problem? Well, firstly I will admit to only reading Dubliners of Joyce, which is harmless enough; and trying to read the first two pages of Finnegan's Wake and giving up in despair, which could put me off. But also the suggestion that the subject matter is the day examined in minute detail is something I feel would make it more of a challenge than a pleasure to read. And the links to Greek mythology are also a problem - because I assume part of the pleasure of Ulysses is already knowing the original story of Ulysses, and I just don't in enough detail. Which is something that readers in the first half of the last century would be assumed to have known, so the context would make far more sense.

[Paul]

I would offer the heretical thought that it needn't be an all-or-nothing proposition. One doesn't have to understand everthing in it. There are still some magnificent scenes and episodes that make the reading (or the skimming) well worth the effort. One can at least give it a try and delve into it here and there. Who knows what might appeal?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Paul

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration-or myth-to claim that you need to read, or know a lot about The Odyssey to appreciate 'Ulysses', although Joyce was obviously influenced by the epic, it is not integral to appreciating the book.

[Ben Mines]

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration-or myth-to claim that you need to read, or know a lot about The Odyssey to appreciate 'Ulysses', although Joyce was obviously influenced by the epic, it is not integral to appreciating the book.

 

I agree, to a certain extent.

 

Few people seem to ask why Bloom's movements are carefully superimposed upon the adventures of Odysseus. But there is a good reason.

 

In his study of Ulysses (authorized by Joyce) Gilbert explains that two of the book's important themes are metempsychosis and parallax: "History repeating, with a difference." This does not mean, of course, that Bloom is Odysseus redivivus. The method subtly implies the universality, or eternal recurrence, of certain elements of the human predicament.

 

However, I do agree that it is not absolutely necessary to know Homer to enjoy Ulysses. The book can also be read simply, but still rewardingly, for its central narrative: the actions, thoughts, fears and hopes of Bloom, Molly and Steven on June 16.

[BookJumper]

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration-or myth-to claim that you need to read, or know a lot about The Odyssey to appreciate 'Ulysses', although Joyce was obviously influenced by the epic, it is not integral to appreciating the book.

 

It's odd. I know (or used to, when I attempted "Ulysses", it's been a long time) The Odyssey like the back of my hand - where I come from Epic Poetry is a subject unto itself, separated from "normal" literature, so it becomes embedded into your consciousness after a while - and textbooks made me aware of the parallels I should have been finding between the two.

 

It didn't help, alas.

 

It's like when people say that a good knowledge of Latin is vital to the study of German - I failed Latin for five years straight, yet never failed German.

 

Ergo: just because things happen to be intimately related, they will not necessarily elucidate one another.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Hmm. I wasn't trying to justify the fact I hadn't read Ulysses, exactly; just trying to explain the multitude of reasons I've managed to create in my head that have stopped me. I was trying to answer Ben's initial question about why it is such an unread book for something so famous.

 

I think the combination of things - the famed difficulty (even if that's unjustified); the links to classical mythology that people are less familiar with today than when Joyce wrote; and the apparent focus on minutiae that such a long book dealing with just one day would be expected to have. I think any one of them wouldn't bother a reader, but the combination of the three may well be what puts people off. I think it's what's always put me off.

[Pablo]

So anyway this guy walks into a bar...

[Ben Mines]

Ouch. ....

[Pablo]

[sirinrob]

Interesting someone mentioned Gravity's Rainbow - which I have read and intend rereading. I found it very rewarding, despite its convolutions. I suspect when I get to Ulysses the same will apply. I enjoy books with multiple layers like 'Gravity's Rainbow', 'The Gift' etc.

[Ben Mines]

Interesting someone mentioned Gravity's Rainbow - which I have read and intend rereading. I found it very rewarding, despite its convolutions. I suspect when I get to Ulysses the same will apply. I enjoy books with multiple layers like 'Gravity's Rainbow', 'The Gift' etc.

 

The Gift by Vladimir Nabokov?

[sirinrob]

yes - sorry didnt make that clear and as an extension the short story 'The Circle' which V N Nabokov wrote as corollary to 'The Gift'.

[sirinrob]

Right people im currently reading Ulysses and enjoying it.

[sirinrob]

and for those still following the details matter....

[Snowball Pig]

I know this book is very highly acclaimed and that critics rave on about it but after many attempts I've just given up. Has anyone else had this problem? Or are there people who have genuinely enjoyed it? I suppose it just goes way over my head.

 

Cheers

[BookJumper]

If you look back through the thread at the somewhat heated discussion therein, you'll see that you're not alone. I didn't make it either !

[Snowball Pig]

Ok so I decided to have a go again at this today and I have read 100 pages. I respect Joyce's exquisite language, it is clear to anyone who reads his work. However, a novel is meant to tell a story and whilst his stream of consciousness style is groundbreaking and deserves a tremendous amount of respect, shouldnt a storyteller be equipped to tell an interesting story? Of the 100 pages I have been mesmerised by his stunning vocabulary yet I cannot but be left unsatisfied by the ACTUAL story. Please don't feel as if I am mocking Ulysses. I'm not. I haven't read the full book so I am hardly a reliable judge. But as a judgement thus far I can say that it seems a book to be read for its class regarding its superlative words, but as a narrative.....

[sirinrob]

After a false start last year, decided to have another attempt at reading this. It's not an easy read, but the alleged difficulty is in my opinion overrated. The bulk of the novel relates to the downtrodden nature of Bloom's life. The final episode 'Penelope' is given over to Molly's thoughts. That episode is an attempt by Joyce to look at the situation from the female point of view.

 

I understood many of the points Joyce was making, and will at some point reread.

[vinay87]

If you look back through the thread at the somewhat heated discussion therein, you'll see that you're not alone. I didn't make it either !

 

Lol, this is one of the finish if you dare books, isn't it? Along with War And Peace.

[Ben Mines]

War and Peace is light reading. The only minor difficulties a reader faces is that it is long and that the English-speaker has to get used to Russian naming conventions.