Ulysses.

[charliechaplinfan]

I haven't tried Joyce yet, so I might not have the best place to start. Has anyone any recommendations of which one to start with first?

[srowley75]

I haven't tried Joyce yet, so I might not have the best place to start. Has anyone any recommendations of which one to start with first?

Dubliners, his collection of short stories, is very accessible from what I can recall, and probably the best place to start. Then Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, but keep in mind not to take everything you read at face value. It's widely held that although the novel seems autobiographical and the protagonist Stephen Dedalus reflects Joyce himself to some extent (and even that has been hotly debated), Joyce undercuts his protagonist in a number of ways, even with his name (is he a pioneer or a great failure? or both?). Both works also reveal Joyce's love/hate feelings about Ireland.

But understanding all of this provides a good basis for Ulysses, which also features the character Stephen Dedalus.

[klondike]

Dear, dear, Klonny, so very passionate about Giacomo Joyce, and so very sure of exactly what he's all about.

Judy, Judy, Judy . . I am indeed very passionate about all Irish literature, but that has very little to do with knowing what authors like Joyce are "all about", if indeed he ever meant just one set of ideas, in any given passage . . I'm blue-collar to the heels of my 8-brad stompers, barely graduated high school, and when I'm not sporting my balmoral, my brain's buzzin' away under a hardhat . . all I can testify to is what Mr. Joyce gave me from Ulysses, and what I took away.
And if I believed what all my college degree chums told me, I'd never have dared go anywhere near Ulysses . . as obviously I wasn't educated enough to understand it!

If I were a resentful kind of woman, I might be just a tad resentful at your implication that I don't understand what I'm reading.

Tsk, tsk, you are SO Mediterranean! I was merely surprised at how you could understand Joyce and find such perplexion in understanding my meager postings!

Maybe what I'm not understanding is your interpretation of what you're reading. But that's your business, not mine. I'll take what I can garner from Joyce, and you take whatever it is you take. My reading of the Master is that he would not like anyone to be exactly sure about anything at all regarding his work, except that we all share the archetypical human experience, and we all filter it differently. Why on earth would you be so upset about a suggestion to use a guide for a first reading of Ulysses? When you read symoblist listerature, doesn't it help to get familiar with the symbols?

To me, terms like "interpretation", when applied to great literature, always feel artificial, or synthetic; to me, surrendering to the embrace of a Great Book, is like romancing a unique & mysterious woman; after chatting her up, and arranging a date, I'm not about to go home and phone her mom, her therapist, her clergyman and her last boyfriend and ask for explanations from all of them about her inner motivation, her philosophical outlook, and what she really means by all the things she says and/or does. Shouldn't we all attempt, subconciously, to weave a great writer's prose & expression into the Moment of where our Life is when we are in our space as the Reader? Isn't that the core of what Hemingway was addressing when he wrote about Life being a "movable feast"?

Apparently, unlike you, some of us weren't born with a compendium of world literature, myth and philology already planted in our brains. We've had to work for it.

Let's talk about "work": nothing's ever been "planted" in my brain without the effort of myself having sown it there; in my case, lacking the resources/time/leisure for a college education, I've had to do my intellectual "farming" in between soldiering, working & child-rearing . . and having always had severe limits on my leisure time in the last four decades, I've always chosen to forego examining, dissecting & analyzing the anatomy of a great work, and use that same amount of time to read one or two more books!

Joyce had such mixed feelings about his Irishness, but he did take at least some pride in it, as you obviously do. However, I don't think he wrote just for Ireland: he wrote for the world, and that's where I live and read.

Yes, those conclusions are all dead-on correct, if only by accident: if not for the deeds, fruits & labors of the Celtic Diaspora, the 20th Century world would never have existed in the way that it did. Personally, Jude, I think you'd have a more instinctive understanding of Joyce if you spent more time drinking in pubs.

And, Bryce, I think that if you get pleasure from the multi-layered Tolkein stories, you'll find pleasure in Ulysses as well. And once you've dipped your toe there, you can go on to Finnegan's Wake.

She's right, Bryce, me Boy-o, but I say: go ahead & read Joyce in any order ye like; you'll know soon enough if you're at the wrong end of the pool; and if you are, just toss it aside to the back of your nightstand, and come back around to it next year, or the year after, or whenever it is that your life brings you around to that particular Gate of Travel . . and remember this: you buy the ticket, and James Joyce sells it to you, and NO-ONE else need be involved . . cause by story's end, it was never anyone else's business to begin with, just a personal covenant between you & him, he with a Story to tell, and you with a Desire to hear it . .

[jdb1]

Klonny, no need even to mention a lack of college degree. What's that got to do with appreciating anything? Most degree holders I've come across in my life are not only a-holes, they're not very well educated, either.

However, your description of weaving great literature into our lives is pretty much what I would take to be interpretation thereof. We read it, we digest it and, if it has any effect at all on us, we make it part and parcel of our own personal gestalt. That thing about investigating some hot woman's mother and shrink sounds more like an attempt to reduce and quantify than an absorption of the essence of her charms.

And, hard as it may be for you to believe, I have no shame in not being Irish. It's not my fault that I'm something else, and I'm very happy to be that something else to boot. Your remark that I'd "have a more instictive understanding of Joyce" if I "spent more time drinking in pubs" is so condescending, specious, spurious, and off the mark that I'm embarrassed for you.

It may be necessary in some instances to share the ethnic ethos of someone else to appreciate some small thing, like enjoying some particular food you might otherwise consider unpalatable. But no, no, a thousand times no -- not for the appreciation of the works of James Joyce. No sir, no way, nohow. Nor do I believe for a minute that Joyce would think so; he was so emphatically and insistently a citizen of the world. You are demeaning the cosmic impact of that great writer if you contend otherwise. And I'll thank you to stop trying to convince me that I don't "understand" Joyce. Where there are works of literaterary genius as multi-layered as that, there is no one single "understanding" possible. Is it your contention that there's but one frame of reference, one way, and one way only to read Ulysses? Joyce himself would probably laugh at such a notion.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Wow, talk about strange. I have a copy of Ulysses on deck and waiting in the wings, so this was a very interesting conversation. It's still up in the air as to when it will get read (lots of other stuff to get through as well), but I will carving out some time in the near future!

[klondike]

Judith, my Darling I'm afraid that somehow I've mispoke myself thoroughly enough to the extent that I've given you a whole bouquet of impressions I never intended to.

However, your description of weaving great literature into our lives is pretty much what I would take to be interpretation thereof. We read it, we digest it and, if it has any effect at all on us, we make it part and parcel of our own personal gestalt.

Exactly the way I feel, I just have never seen the value to incorporating other peoples' in-depth analyses as part of that process.

That thing about investigating some hot woman's mother and shrink sounds more like an attempt to reduce and quantify than an absorption of the essence of her charms.

The reason I made that analogy was to reconnect a sense of passion, spontaneity, allure & mystery to great works of literature . . the exact stuff that I feel analytical examinations rob, shatter & drain away from such magificent reading experiences.

And, hard as it may be for you to believe, I have no shame in not being Irish. It's not my fault that I'm something else, and I'm very happy to be that something else to boot.

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I'm glad that the vast majority of people on the planet are not Irish, or even Celtic; individual nationalities are part of what make persons unique, especially here in America, and is a quality of personal distinction that no one can take credit for. I'm glad you're happy to be who & what you are, and am flattered that you care what I think.

Your remark that I'd "have a more instictive understanding of Joyce" if I "spent more time drinking in pubs" is so condescending, specious, spurious, and off the mark that I'm embarrassed for you.

Good news: if you feel any embarrassment at all, it doesn't need to be for me, because if you were any further off about the nature of my remark, or the intention behind it, you'd need an oxygen tank. Once again, I maintain that although there are indeed deeper levels on which to consider the prose & reference-structure found within Ulysses, it was written to be enjoyed by all calibers of the society that Joyce lived in & moved through, on some of many levels, and to suggest that an unprepared reader needs to approach this great work with the assitance of the research & analyses of trained academics is a concept I find ludicrous. My remark about drinking in pubs was a lighthearted & cavalier analogy to underscore my contention that the works of Joyce, including Ulysses & Finnegan, belong as naturally in boiler rooms & bus stops as they do anywhere in the lofty groves of academia.

It may be necessary in some instances to share the ethnic ethos of someone else to appreciate some small thing, like enjoying some particular food you might otherwise consider unpalatable. But no, no, a thousand times no -- not for the appreciation of the works of James Joyce. No sir, no way, nohow. Nor do I believe for a minute that Joyce would think so; he was so emphatically and insistently a citizen of the world. You are demeaning the cosmic impact of that great writer if you contend otherwise.

Oh, pooh! Don't you demean the contribution of a very great writer like James Joyce with silly phrases like "cosmic impact" . . as incredibly & profoundly talented as he undeniably was, he was also lamentably narrow of vision, and self-indulgent to a major point of fault, and so fragile in spirit that he was a depressive burden to virtually everyone he associated with.
A citizen of the world? Certainly, and we benefit greatly for it . . but not always the bright, happy postcard places of the World . . like Walt Whitman (who greatly inspired him), he had a deep & moving love affair with "the road, & the going thereon", and always sensed the movement of lives across the restless world, often observing it best through the eyes of others. In my estimation, this man's self-saving grace was when he remebered his "feet of clay" and forsook the velvet salons of his wealthy afficianados.

And I'll thank you to stop trying to convince me that I don't "understand" Joyce.

Okay, you're welcome. (That wasn't at all what I meant, but I don't want to sound spurious again.)

Where there are works of literaterary genius as multi-layered as that, there is no one single "understanding" possible.

Exactly.

Is it your contention that there's but one frame of reference, one way, and one way only to read Ulysses?

Nope! I thought that was what you were trying to say!

Joyce himself would probably laugh at such a notion.

He sure would! Betcha he'd also have a laugh over folks buying guides to help understand his books before they even read them.

Judith, my true & admired friend, I sense that we may be approaching the "agree to disagree" point here . . . I'm willing to go on battin' this one around, if you like, but I think we might need some more padding in the ol' gloves . . .
Whatchoo think, Brooklyn Gal?

[bryce]

This must be one of the most bizarrely surreal works of performance art I've ever seen.

I somehow think my enjoyment - and interpretation of - Ulysses will be forever marked by this event. In the positive, I assure you.

[jdb1]

This must be one of the most bizarrely surreal works of performance art I've ever seen.

I somehow think my enjoyment - and interpretation of - Ulysses will be forever marked by this event. In the positive, I assure you.

Hey, thanks, Bryce. That's the nicest compliment I've had in a long time! Imagine if we were living 40 or 50 years ago, and still debating whether Ulysses is obscene. I bet there'd be a lot more participants than just me and Klonny.

As for you, Mr. Klondike - please be aware that any accolades I might bestow on James Joyce refer to his literary genius, not his personality or lifestyle. Even if he, personally was "narrow of vision," I do not believe his literary output was in any way narrow -- not on its literary merits, and not in its ability to open doors of contemplation and exploration to the reader, should s/he care to make the effort.

It's most unfortunate that Joyce has now seemed to join the ranks of those authors talked about but no longer read. But I suppose in light of the current state of education generally, which prefers to emphasize job skills over the development of an ability to wonder, and the path of least resistance mindset of most people about most things these days, it was bound to happen.