I, too, have found myself less interested in difficult-because-it-aspires-to-be art as well, but to me there's a distinction between that which arrives at difficulty organically (like Cecil, Ulysses-era-Joyce, or Messiaen) and the I'm-so-clever kind. As a phase of development, Kenner was important to me. I'm glad I did all that, not from what I took from it in terms of substance, but that it gave me confidence in sharpening my critical apparatus enough to understand the difference between complexities that proceed from expressive neccessity and those which are deliberate -and maybe pointless- displays of mental agility (kind of how I feel about FW, even though it makes me laugh).
― steve ketchup, Thursday, 10 November 2005 17:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Sunday, 12 March 2006 01:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Sunday, 12 March 2006 01:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― paralecces, Sunday, 12 March 2006 06:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 12 March 2006 11:16 (eighteen years ago) link
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1091216,00.html
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 12 March 2006 16:54 (eighteen years ago) link
does anyone know anything about a japanese film from a couple years ago: ulysses relocated to the red light district in tokyo except with an underpinning of japanese paganism replacing the classical references? i remember reading about this but people keep saying "that sounds like something you'd make up"
― tom west (thomp), Sunday, 12 March 2006 17:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Sunday, 12 March 2006 21:59 (eighteen years ago) link
now, how would you film chapter sixteen?
― tom west (thomp), Sunday, 12 March 2006 22:25 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost: like a 70s home movie with skronky film, jumpy edits and a final "flick flick flick flick" as it comes off the projector. Chapter 14 would be super duper fun.
Has anybody else seen the 1969 (?) version? All I can say is - it stays faithful to the story.
― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 01:21 (eighteen years ago) link
honestly, it'd be a great miniseries.
i remember 'bloom' being called 'bl.,m' on the website. or was that another one? regardless it's a useless title, guy gets to be called like twelve names, yo. VOICEOVERS. eahrrh.
i want someone to make a case for chapter sixteen as not being alarmingly uncharitable! please!
― tom west (thomp), Monday, 13 March 2006 01:50 (eighteen years ago) link
(I have just reread it, coincidentally.)
I am happy to agree quite strongly with the people who think Ulysses should be on TV, in a series. I remember saying so, enthusiastically, to a bloke at a bus stop, about 10 years ago, maybe more, and he unleashed his spleen against me. I did not use the word 'miniseries', though. Maybe that would have helped.
― the finefox, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:37 (eighteen years ago) link
how would you televise it?
― tom west (thomp), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― Josh (Josh), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 20:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― the finefox, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 22:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Thursday, 16 March 2006 16:51 (eighteen years ago) link
we also discussed whether "miniseries" would be the correct term.
― tom west (thomp), Thursday, 16 March 2006 16:53 (eighteen years ago) link
Yes, I've seen it. It's, um, bad.
― remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 17 March 2006 01:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 17 March 2006 18:40 (eighteen years ago) link
Reading Ulysses, enjoying it immensely and not having a terrible time with it, and then I got to the Scylla (Shakespeare) chapter. Good lord. Not only did I have a terrible time following it (I'm not using any notes this first time through), but I found it incredibly dull.
Is this usually regarded as one of the difficult chapters? I always hear about Oxen of the Sun, but I haven't gotten there then. Does anyone else find this chapter dull? It gets better again, right?
― Lee is Free (Lee is Free), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 02:09 (eighteen years ago) link
oxen of the sun is hi-larious.
― Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 06:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Why does the birds always shitting on me? (noodle vague), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 16:50 (eighteen years ago) link
So Gabler's edition is pants? I should just go back to the Random House edition?
― Super Smize (Leee), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 04:13 (fourteen years ago) link
who says that? I found the Gabler edition to be quite good. although some editions are missing a crucial punctuation mark on the last page.
― baout.com (dyao), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 05:24 (fourteen years ago) link
I'd take the Random House over the Gabler, which might've been rooted in good intentions but seems to be mainly fucking with the text for the sake of it.
― Halt! Fergiezeit (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 06:43 (fourteen years ago) link
strangely upset i can no longer remember the publishing history of ulysses :(
― thomp, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:49 (fourteen years ago) link
i prefer the wikipedia summarisation version.
― What are the benefits of dating a younger guy, better erections? (darraghmac), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:49 (fourteen years ago) link
i say that, i mean i never actually managed to finish it.
― What are the benefits of dating a younger guy, better erections? (darraghmac), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:50 (fourteen years ago) link
dyao, <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28novel%29#Publication_history'>Wikipedia sez</a>. (Third paragraph in that section.) Also, <a href=http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/#editions>Robot Wisdom</a> sez Gabler is a pompous German with a tin ear, but seems to have backed off criticism since I last looked.
I'll say this: RH edition is easier to read in bed.
― Super Smize (Leee), Wednesday, 23 September 2009 04:59 (fourteen years ago) link
Url, ups. And double ups, guy who writes RW is apparently a wingnut crank.
― Super Smize (Leee), Wednesday, 23 September 2009 05:02 (fourteen years ago) link
Just read joseph collins' og 1922 review of ulysses on a whim. He makes a big deal of bloom being vile and depraved and having no moral compass. This was strange to me because one of the main points of the book, for me, is that despite the vagaries and trials of ordinary human existence, in a world that is at all turns hostile to the flowering of individual personality, Bloom manages to be a decent man. I wonder if early reviewers actually couldn't recognize that bloom is a remarkably generous and kind spirit or if they were afraid that noting these qualities would "excuse" his sexual irregularities, which reviewers wanted desperately to distance themselves from. Or is Bloom maybe not that admirable and I am misreading him. Despite his numerous anxieties, the frantic and confused quality of his interior life at times, there is something very open about his orientation toward others that -- to me at least -- seems extremely spiritual. I think he was intended as a model for a way to live without belief, god as a "shout in the street" and all that. I don't think he is in any way an "everyman"
― très hip (Treeship), Saturday, 5 April 2014 20:58 (ten years ago) link
i never noticed anything being wrong with him, except his being an ad salesman
― j., Sunday, 6 April 2014 16:13 (ten years ago) link
also on a whim, on a few train rides this weekend i re-read the telemachiad. the stuff with mr deasy is wrenching. i love how stephen is already not impressed with his own pseudo-profundity but can't bear to view himself on an equal level with the people around him. also what other author can just make up words and make it seem like the most natural thing? is there a better novel?
― très hip (Treeship), Sunday, 6 April 2014 22:49 (ten years ago) link
Try 2666 sometime, that's better.
― xyzzzz__, Sunday, 6 April 2014 22:50 (ten years ago) link
oof no
― poopsites attract (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 6 April 2014 22:53 (ten years ago) link
Coincidentally two weeks ago I was telling a friend (who has tried to read this five times now, and has not finished) to start with the last chapter (which is what the 'reading difficult novels' link above tells you to do). I did the 'sequential, only got 10% thing' about 5+ years ago, but looking back the important thing was getting to Molly.
Although I nearly also said that Thomas Bernhard has taken the one para thing on and improved on it and you should read Old Masters instead but actually hearing about her struggles and work (she is reading bits of the Odyssey plus a guide too) I found myself quite interested in re-reading Ulysses. Might do it over the World Cup acually, starting with the last chapter.
― xyzzzz__, Monday, 7 April 2014 09:05 (ten years ago) link
Of course Old Masters' content is a whole different thing to Molly. Nastier, misanthropic, more my thing.
― xyzzzz__, Monday, 7 April 2014 09:07 (ten years ago) link
Treeship, I am sure you are correct - Mr Bloom is good, unusually for a complex fictional character. Collins was basically wrong. Your thought that reviewers avoided stating the goodness because they were scared of the kinks is a nice one. Though I feel that the truth was, they just couldn't yet see the goodness. And even today, in a way, there is a 'banality of goodness' that can make one swerve away from it.
― the pinefox, Friday, 11 April 2014 13:00 (ten years ago) link
never had any interest in reading this
― waterbabies (waterface), Friday, 11 April 2014 13:33 (ten years ago) link
kudos
― waterflow ductile laser beam (Noodle Vague), Friday, 11 April 2014 13:35 (ten years ago) link
keep us updated
― j., Friday, 11 April 2014 14:16 (ten years ago) link
Still don't care
― waterbabies (waterface), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:18 (ten years ago) link
He had no use for ulysses, but posted here anyway.
― tl;dr5-49 (James Redd and the Blecchs), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:20 (ten years ago) link
Hey I just checked--still don't care about this
― waterbabies (waterface), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:35 (ten years ago) link
I read it once front-to-back with very minimal support about 15 years ago and tackled it again last year in conjunction with a (somewhat corny and condescending) guide and honestly I still got a lot more out of the second experience. The guide was useful for keeping track of the mythical and theological elements but even without it I appreciated the human (and comic) dimension so much more the second time round. It's the difference between reading it as an adult and reading it as a gauche and overconfident student I suppose. It's still possible to get a lot out of Ulysses even if you're only following two-thirds of it.
I still dislike the underworld section though.
― Matt DC, Friday, 11 April 2014 14:42 (ten years ago) link
I like that one but dislike Oxen of the Sun
― très hip (Treeship), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:46 (ten years ago) link
it's funny that someone isolated the history of english prose he was using for oxen
man ilb is ~controversial~ today
― ♛ LIL UNIT ♛ (thomp), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:47 (ten years ago) link
waterface, why don't you care about this
It just seems not my thing. I respect what he did--he tore the novel wide open with this. But it's not my thing. Too wordy. Too complicated?
― waterbabies (waterface), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:49 (ten years ago) link
Matt DC otm
― tl;dr5-49 (James Redd and the Blecchs), Friday, 11 April 2014 14:53 (ten years ago) link