Dublin is obscure, in a sense, possibly, the first time you go there. Especially, perhaps, if you don't take any guide books or maps. But less so if you live there, I imagine.
Maybe something somewhat parallel can be said of the book.
― the finefox, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 14:01 (eighteen years ago) link
Some people, for example steve, find that not understanding large chunks of a novel are not a barrier to enjoyment: others, myself included, generally do. This is surely obvious enough. What interests me more particularly is that people will tend to assume that if steve likes the novel better than I did he must have understood it better. That obviously doesn't necessarily follow: but as I say the assumption is frequently made.
My point is a general one and not specific to Ulysses, a book I incidentally feel very ambivalent about.
― frankiemachine, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:02 (eighteen years ago) link
As I recall the story, Joyce was in a social situation and another guest complained to him about the convolution and opacity of Finnegans Wake, asking, (I paraphrase) "Do you really expect me to spend my whole life puzzling this out?"
Joyce answered, "Yes."
― Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:04 (eighteen years ago) link
A better-educated friend of mine read Ulysses around the same time as I did and understood much more of it. He said he thought it was basically garbage (which is what I think of Gravity's Rainbow).
Joyce was so deeply involved in his own work that he honestly thought WWII occured because not enough people read his book (FW).
― steve ketchup, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― 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