Ulysses.

[bryce]

James Joyce has been staring me in the face for the past two months. The concept intrigues me but the execution does even more-so. Its history, the drama it produced and the meticulous reconstruction it has undergone all also pull me towards it.

The question, though, is this: Is it worth reading? Is it an enjoyable novel - aesthetically and academically? Even if there's the slightest chance that I might not enjoy it as much as I should, is it one of those important novels that still deserves at least one go round?

Thanks for the thoughts.

Bryce

[MikeBSG]

I've only read James Joyce in a college setting. If there weren't the pressure of keeping up with the class and doing exams and papers, I don't think I would have read "Ulysses."

I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" as part of the same class, as a "warm-up" for the main event of "Ulysses." "Portrait" was interesting and enjoyable. I would suggest reading that, and if you wanted to press on with "Ulysses," then try it. (The character of Stephen Dedalus connects the two books.)

[moira finnie]

I'd give Ulysses a go, Bryce, though I'd recommend Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man as warm-ups to that sometimes overwhelming book. The earlier works give one a feel for James Joyce's style and point of view and his poems, which you can see here have a similar musical stream-of-consciousness and some startlingly beautiful language.

Enjoy.

[srowley75]

At the urging of a friend, I took a Joyce seminar and read all of his major works except for Finnegans Wake. In one semester we whipped through Dubliners, Portrait, some of Joyce's poetry and Ulysses. [And made an ass of myself in front of some unbearably arrogant grad students trying to participate in the Ulysses class discussions, but those stories are for another time.]

But all that to say - Ulysses was laborious, frustrating reading (at least under those circumstances), but what understanding I was able to glean stemmed from having read Dubliners and Portrait first. (In some ways I felt Ulysses was as autobiographical as people claim Portrait to be.) And despite my negative experience, I'm glad I read all these works but especially Ulysses. Perhaps I'd have enjoyed it more and gotten more out of it if (1) I'd have had more time to examine it and think it through and (2) if I'd been grouped with other types besides the plank-up-their-ass set.

[klondike]

The question, though, is this: Is it worth reading?

Yes.

Is it an enjoyable novel - aesthetically and academically?

Yes.

Even if there's the slightest chance that I might not enjoy it as much as I should, is it one of those important novels that still deserves at least one go round?

Yes, absolutely, in the same way a man should never hesitate to approach, and talk to, an attractive or intriguing woman whom he spots in a bar . . even though she may be secretly crazier than an outhouse rat, or may be an interstate fugitive, or may be on sabbatical from a convent, or may be an undercover US marshal (been there, done that), or may have a huge, bad-tempered ex waiting in the parking lot, or may just have only 2 months to live. Life's an adventure, right?

I took a deliberate year to read Ulysses, at leisure, and instinctively paced myself, and never lost interest, but I did have the good fortune to have been cautioned to not hurry myself, nor to hurry the tale . . which is the same advice I'll pass along to you, my Friend.

Thanks for the thoughts.

You're welcome; enjoy the ride.

[ChiO]

What Klondike said.

Or, what Joyce wrote: yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

[jdb1]

I don't know that Bryce's question is so easily answered, fellas. I'd say this:

It's a prima facie good read; Joyce wrote very fluidly, and I enjoy the way he put words together to tell a story. It's all so . . . . . . Irish.

If you are into classical literature, psychology, myths, the arts, history, languages, and just about every other human creative experience, it's a great read. But on that level not such an easy read, and the deeper you dig, the more you will find. What looks like one sentence can lead you to years of investigative scholarship. If you like investigative scholarship you'll enjoy yourself. If you don't, you may not have such a good time.

There are several guides to reading Joyce, and the Annotated Ulysses by Prof. Don Gifford is especially good. There's a newer one available, by someone called, I think, Blamire or Blamires (I suppose not the writer/director/star of The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra).

Joyce himself said that he invested a lifetime of scholarship and literary effort in his works and he expected his readers to do the same. It's your call, Bryce.

[charliechaplinfan]

I tried it years ago and ended up putting it down. I was a teen and I still have the book. I've read lots of other classics but never went back to it. Let me know what you think of it, you might persuade me to give it another go. In my teens I tried Anna Karenina and ended up putting it down, I picked it up again when I was pregnant with Libby and I loved it, it's now one of my favorite books.

[klondike]

I don't know that Bryce's question is so easily answered, fellas.

If you considered my answers easy ones, than you clearly understand Joyce either 100%, or not at all.

It's a prima facie good read; Joyce wrote very fluidly, and I enjoy the way he put words together to tell a story. It's all so . . . . . . Irish.

How sweet of you to use a Latin designator for Ulysses; it's so . . . . Catholic.

If you are into classical literature, psychology, myths, the arts, history, languages, and just about every other human creative experience, it's a great read.

It's also a boon to be of 50-75% Celtic descent . . for if you possess even the faintest ghost of primeval Gaelic in your frontal lobe's backyard, the words & phrases of Joyce's prose will move your soul to weep as though being baptized.

But on that level not such an easy read, and the deeper you dig, the more you will find. What looks like one sentence can lead you to years of investigative scholarship.

Aye, and if you let go the current of the tale's flow to go hunting those dragonflies when you first encounter them, you will find yourself pushed outside the story's rollicking, haunting embrace . . which might account for a given percentage of all those readers who find themselves suddenly wandering lost in the margins of Ulysses, off-put & benighted. Want to play Sherlock or Vidocq, chasing those waggish, bibliophiliac clues? Wait til you're done the Book!

If you like investigative scholarship you'll enjoy yourself. If you don't, you may not have such a good time.

Shame on you if that's your waterloo! Getting stopped by that obstacle would be like not enjoying the food on your plate because you can't appreciate the centerpiece on the table.

There are several guides to reading Joyce, and the Annotated Ulysses by Prof. Don Gifford is especially good. There's a newer one available, by someone called, I think, Blamire or Blamires (I suppose not the writer/director/star of The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra).

I'd no sooner make that suggestion than I'd recommend watching back-to-back VD training films before going out on a hot date . . or given Ulysses depth & length, better to say, a romantic weekend getaway.
Ulysses is about passion, and regret, and the courage of blindness, and soul-shattering disappointment, and Life's mystery twisting joy into the bizarre & then back again, and the way Time germinates sea-changes in people who are least prepared for it. It's every one of the Canterbury tales all braided together, and turned to a savory glow on the sooty spit of Industrial Dublin.

Joyce himself said that he invested a lifetime of scholarship and literary effort in his works and he expected his readers to do the same.

He also said that among his greatest epiphanies was his discovery that often the more modestly educated working-class among his readership were those who derived the greatest satisfaction from, and clearest insight into, most of his published works.
So, how do ye like them shamrocks, ehh?

It's your call, Bryce.

That is indeed true, Bryce; I'd just make sure it's your heart you're listening too!

[MikeBSG]

Klondike, I love your Redwall avatar. I haven't read all the novels, but I think Brian Jacques is a terrific fantasy writer.

Sorry for diverting the thread from high literature.

[bryce]

I couldn't have asked for a better response, as to me there is no greater warning siren than an indifferent response or, much worse, uniform agreement. The very fact that all of you have something to say - and that said something wildly differs from person to person - is about as close to championing a work of art as it gets.

It might take me a year (or more) to properly digest it, but digest it I will. (I am in luck, considering I am a huge Bret Easton Ellis fan I've no doubt that I'll take instantly to Joyce's particularly style of prose. Thankfully, I'm also a huge Tolkien fan, and as any devotee of Middle-earth knows, it's an exercise in doctoral level research to fully integrate Christopher's volumes of notes and numerous addendum into the "mother work".)

Thanks to each and every one of you.

[jdb1]

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

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. 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? 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.

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.

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.

[charliechaplinfan]

One of the things I don't see eye to eye on with my husband is the merit of literature as a subject. He thinks it's pointless as a subject, I think it's important. It's important because we gain knowledge of how to use language in different ways, we can also see how beautiful language can be. As for the interpretation, what I loved about literature class is that different people get different things out of the same piece of literature.

My husband has a very logical mind, something is either right or wrong. Whereas I like the layers of interpretation.

[srowley75]

I do think taking your time with this particular novel is key to deriving both pleasure and significance from it. Since it's one of the "great novels," it's studied in university courses, most of which are under some sort of time constraint. And I'm sure that speed reading through it (as I was compelled to do) for class discussions with the snotty literati interferes with the experience. I think it'd probably have been much more rewarding if I'd been able to read it at my own pace the first time through, and discussed it with people who, like myself, were Ulysses virgins.

But however you decide to ingest the novel, let me also second Judith's recommendation about using a guide, even if you're a literary type who takes pride in being able to digest difficult literature. Instead of consulting Blamires (which was endorsed by my friend, who was also the professor) or another reliable source, I tried to read the novel independent of any sort of guide or help, save Joyce's earlier stories and novels that I'd already read. And that's what led me to make a fool of myself in class - while I think his earlier works do (and did) lend some insight, I don't think that alone is all you need. I don't think it's any stretch to say that many would rank it as one of the more inaccessible novels in world literature, though Joyce himself might've disagreed.

[jdb1]

I think Finnegan's Wake is far more ambitious, denser and a far tougher literary nut to crack.

At least with Ulysses, you have the same basic framework as that of The Odyssey, and if you are familiar with that epic, you have a basis to begin to understand the structure and implications of the events of Bloomsday. Finnegan's Wake is more like a literary embodiment of the Unified Field Theory.

And now it's clear that I will have to revisit these works, since I've been away from them for far too long. Hail, Old Artificer!