James Joyce and Ulysses

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone here say they've picked up Ulysses, read it, and was like "yeah, I get at least 50% of the literary allusions and know wtf is going on in this book?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Half the people who say they finished it are lying, the other half don't have a clue what anything means beyond what they are told by others (this includes university professors).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read Ulysses, but this type of attitude always strikes me as more elitist than those who claim to understand Ulysses. It's basically saying, "If I don't understand it, no one else possibly can!"

Try Portrait... which I enjoyed a great deal.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol, try reading this:


and then gratefully relapse to the pure readability that is Ulysses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't read it. It's dangerous. Some of my friends in college would read it and make fun of it, but before long they were all babbling idiots.

[Spanaway Vin]

I'm in the second section of the book and it's gotten a little easier to follow.

I'm kind of thinking about getting the Cliff's Notes for Ulysses, reading a chapter of Ulysses, reading the accompanying chapters in the Notes, ruminating on that for a bit, and then moving on.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't read it. It's dangerous. Some of my friends in college would read it and make fun of it, but before long they were all babbling idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too late, I already have. Except I started as a babbling idiot and ended a drooling one.

[gumpzilla]

I didn't particularly enjoy Portrait, so I've never bothered moving on to the heavy stuff.

EDIT:

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Ulysses, but this type of attitude always strikes me as more elitist than those who claim to understand Ulysses. It's basically saying, "If I don't understand it, no one else possibly can!"

[/ QUOTE ]

While there's something to this, a Sklanskyesque Bayesian approach tends to lead me to think that the balance of pretentiousness tips the conventional way.

[gusmahler]

The book is in the public domain. Full HTML version is at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/ulyss11h.htm

[WhoIam]

You don't need to understand every single reference and subtle allusion to enjoy Ulysses, but there are plenty of books explaining these if you're interested. If a section gives you trouble, try smoking some pot and re-reading it.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Ulysses, but this type of attitude always strikes me as more elitist than those who claim to understand Ulysses. It's basically saying, "If I don't understand it, no one else possibly can!"

[/ QUOTE ]

While there's something to this, a Sklanskyesque Bayesian approach tends to lead me to think that the balance of pretentiousness tips the conventional way.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, like poring over Joyce, I read this sentence 3 times and it makes no sense. I mean, I think you're saying that people who read and understand Ulysses are more pretentious and elitist.

[KilgoreTrout]

"Mr. Leopold Bloom consumed with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowl."

I read Ulysses in college. Without the guide and guidance of a prof, I would have missed much of the allusions. It's more of a virtuoso work than a readable one, IMO. The stories in Dubliners are more accessible and contain many of the elements hidden in Ulysses. Dubliners + portrait is enough Joyce for me.

Skip Sein und Zeit. L'Etre et le Neant is an easier read. Then plow through Warheit und Methode for a gentle brain [censored].

[Peter Harris]

[ QUOTE ]
So what, I'm pretty sure James Joyce doesn't have 30,000+ posts. Ulysses by a mile.

[/ QUOTE ]

*whoosh* over the heads of the newbie OOTiots.

This needs more love.