― steve ketchup, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:13 (eighteen years ago) link
i like steve's remark about unknowing.
― Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 03:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 03:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 08:50 (eighteen years ago) link
I can empathise with this, having felt similar things around the same age when I started to get interested in "literature" (not having been interested in much except girls, beer and playing in bands in my late teens). Ulysses was definitely part of that: I was quite dazzled and slightly obsessed by Joyce for a time and read everything about Ulysses I could get my hands on - although there were other infatuations that hit me just as hard or harder (Rilke, Wordsworth, Lawrence). I think at bottom though there was the idea that if only I could grasp this stuff properly there would be an almost spiritual enlightenment at the end of it (I was fascinated by neoplatonism and similar rubbish). Joyce, more a aesthete and less of a would-be sage than the others, probably looks like a slightly awkward fit here, but he was pressed into service all the same.
― frankiemachine, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― literary critic, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:48 (eighteen years ago) link
Also, 'You will', and 'I will'?
― the finefox, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:07 (eighteen years ago) link
Ulysses isn't that mysterious to me anymore, but it retains a place of significance in my life because it forever changed my relationship to my own ignorance and confusions. Since then I have tended to embrace things I don't get (but feel vague attractions to), rather than feeling defensive about them. Sometimes a massive waste of time (the economics/politics of Ezra Pound fr'instance), but often rewarding. It's not limited to works of art either (I learned how to fix cars mostly because it was so out of my aesthete-type character).
Substituing pot, etc. for beer my experience was like frankiemachine's.
― steve ketchup, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:46 (eighteen years ago) link
oh yes, so OTM and well put.
except that now i'm filled with unknowing again since, for some reason, i can barely follow the plot of a TV show. novels are much easier though.
― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jaq (Jaq), Thursday, 3 November 2005 05:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 3 November 2005 07:20 (eighteen years ago) link
Well done with your reading, Jaq.
― the finefox, Thursday, 3 November 2005 14:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jaq (Jaq), Thursday, 3 November 2005 15:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 3 November 2005 17:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 3 November 2005 18:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jaq (Jaq), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:00 (eighteen years ago) link
I can extend the similarity a bit, Steve - I could easily have written the following sentence after ploughing through Kenner and and the rest:
Sometimes a massive waste of time (the economics/politics of Ezra Pound fr'instance),
Maybe the difference is that I'm much, much less likely nowadays to be interested in self-consciously "difficult" art (although define-yer-terms may be a fair riposte to that because, for example, Cecil Taylor's Conquistador is on constant rotation on my cd player as I speak). The enthusiasm of Jaq, Pinefox and others, and the thread on favourite sentences, has even got me semi-interested in re-reading Ulysses, although perhaps not.
― frankiemachine, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:39 (eighteen years ago) link
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