Wednesday, July 25, 2012

ULYSSES by James Joyce

That's right, folks. I have defeated James Joyce's magnum opus (we're totally ignoring the existence of Finnegan's Wake here), Ulysses. And while my brain was necessarily numb for ABOUT a week afterwards, I think I've regained the power of type enough here to tell you what I'm thinking.

General Impression
Ok, did you guys see the Oscars a million years ago, when Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson and...that other girl who was in that movie...did a musical medley? And Jennifer Hudson was all I COULD BE SINGING AND ALSO DOING A PUZZLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I AM A VOCAL GOD and Beyonce was all I AM SHRIEKING AND OUT OF BREATH TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH YOUR BAD-ASSITUDE AND IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT I AM NOT A SINGER IF YOU ARE WHAT A SINGER ACTUALLY IS? Let me remind you: (ignore the weird numbers/letters in the video, don't know what those are about)-


See what I mean? See how effortlessly Jennifer Hudson is a total genius and how effortFUL Beyonce is, while still failing to be even slightly as kick-ass as J. Hud? THAT IS ULYSSES, if Ulysses is Hudson and ALL THE REST OF LITERATURE is Beyonce. Like, yes, Beyonce's voice is nice, and yes, there are some very good books out there, but THEY ARE NOT ULYSSES/JENNIFER HUDSON and are therefore inherently inferior. 

Basically, Ulysses is a work of complete and total, oftentimes indecipherable genius that makes even OTHER COMMONLY RECOGNIZABLE GENIUSES seem just sort of meh? That is not to say it's an easy or even pleasant reading experience, because it is very much not. It is hard and confusing and truly, really, very frustrating. But WORTH it, if only to be able to stand in awe at all that is Joyce's word vomit.

It's Gross
It's so funny (when you understand what's happening, which isn't all the time) and also VERY obscene. Like, would you like to read several hundred pages about masturbation and also pee? Because here you go. The obscenity waffles between being harmless and punny to being totally disgusting and really disturbing (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, CIRCE EPISODE).

Photobucket

Meaning and Intent
So there is one camp of Joycean reader who eschews all reference material and who HONESTLY BELIEVES that Joyce wrote Ulysses for the common reader. So, he either suspected that the "common reader" spoke Italian and Latin, was totally familiar with the details of every part of Dublin, was well-versed in all of Shakespeare, the classics, and various works of theological and philosophical importance, was unconcerned with narrative and plot, and was totally cool with every single character being an asshole OR OR OR that's totally untrue. Because if Joyce seriously wrote this for the "common reader," he was delusional.

But I'd accept that? I would accept that he was totally delusional about the accessibility of his own work. Ulysses will take your expectations about plot line and format and structure and pacing and spit on them and then sit on their heads and tell them fart jokes and then quote Hamlet. Most readers are not fans of this, at least not ones that I know.

What about meaning? I struggled a lot with the reference material I had- while they did help me figure out where I was in Homer's Odyssey, I felt so bogged down in all the random references Joyce crams in there that I felt like I was missing something. So I eventually only used the references to find out the Homeric episode I was in, and then I just...read. I found that to be more "enjoyable," if such a word can be applied to this book.

Photobucket

But the thing is, without the references, you miss most of the meaning. Joyce's references and erudition are buried in sentence fragments and several-page-long-paragraphs. He gives no context. So here is my ultimate question: can a book that is so wrapped up in its own smarty-pants-ness that it mostly fails to communicate successfully to the reader be considered a success? 


I don't know. I don't have an answer. Ulysses is modernist masterpiece, but I'm not always convinced that modernism is all it's cracked up to be by academics. It's a work of genius, to be sure, and some parts are beautiful and heartbreaking and breathtaking, when you can understand them. You can read Ulysses with reference books cracked open so you can elucidate Joyce's UNDENIABLE genius, or you can just dive in, let it sort of wash over you, and understand what you can. Either way, you'll end up in awe of Joyce's "talent" (again, he has so much of it that it almost seems belittling to even use the term to describe him), even if you REALLY DO NOT enjoy the process.

Five stars out of your mom, mostly given for being really fucking impressive.


29 comments:

  1. Reading Ulysses always sounds a little like climbing Everest, or heck, even running a marathon. I want to give it a try, but it truly daunts me. And I wonder if it's worth it. But, you know, if I spend less time playing video games and more time reading Joyce, will it make me smarter? Or just crankier? We'll see, I guess.

    Out of curiosity, I wonder if you've read Midnight's Children, and if you would compare the two at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've not read any Rushdie (that's Rushdie, right?) and WHILE THIS IS TOTALLY SILLY, I used to follow him on Twitter and he's kind of a jerk? So I'm a bit put-off from his stuff.

      Delete
    2. I totally believe he's a jerk. But, since Midnight's Children was voted the best of the Booker Prize winners, I gave it a shot. I don't think it's as intellectually obscure as Joyce, but it's quite a beast to get through, and kind of like Moby-Dick, it covers a ton of territory from a ton of angles, and it can be hard work to keep up with it. Maybe Moby-Dick is my next question - how does Ulysses compare with that?

      Delete
  2. Hey! You did it!

    What a good and smart and funny review.

    While I don't think he wrote it for the common reader, I think a number of people in similar social circles would have understood more than we realize, before the guides were out -- they would have missed a ton, like we all do, but I think would have caught a lot still.

    I also think that "the common reader" had a very different meaning in 1920 -- a lot of working class people, especially in industrial cities, couldn't read, and at that time in Europe, I think almost anyone who went through secondary education would have HAD to take four or five years of Latin, would have had to read and memorize chunks of major Aristotle and Homer and Virgil and Thomas Aquinas. It's just fewer people made it that far, and today in secondary education those things aren't compulsory like they were then.

    I also stand by the fact that while it abstracts and moves around so many narrative conventions, it ultimately still tells a simple story, and still has the elements of a classic and compelling story still in there, arranged with great care (not at random or in a pointless spew). Like a Picasso portrait still holding up in many ways to the essentials of portraiture, if trying to learn what all actually isn't essential.

    I also think he's one of the first people to teach us that the smallest stories can truly be epic, and I think lots of mainstream art pulls from that now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, man :)

      I agree, I don't think anything about it is random or "spewed," though I do get the impression that he sort of FLOODED the page with his brain-knowings. I've read a bit of criticism (not like academic criticism, but like THIS SUCKS sort of criticism) about how it just "deifies" the common guy or makes a hero out of normal people. Which. Why is that bad? I don't comprehend.

      Have you listened to it ever? I think it would make a wickedly epic audiobook experience.

      Delete
  3. You are my hero!! I finished Ulysses earlier this year and you have written in this review what I couldn't sum up for myself. All I could really say in my review (as if you can "review" Ulysses) was "he is either an absolute genius or just a total nutcase" - probably both. It truly is an amazing book, but you're right it is NOT enjoyable. That Circe mess almost made me give up. But I trudged on and I really am glad that I read it.

    I was also puzzled by reference books I read saying that Joyce wrote it for the common man. Huh? I mean, I get the point, but??? My husband laughed at me when I was reading it along with several other reference books, saying "Now you're reading 3 other books to try to explain to you what the first book means??" I highly doubt the common man would have a clue what he was talking about, nor would he have the time to reference multiple other works to find out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UGH THE CIRCE EPISODE. What the holy house cat. You know what it reminded me of? NAKED LUNCH. Which is my least favorite book, so. Being reminded of that didn't help me get through it.

      Delete
  4. Oh also...I found it very enjoyable. Just to throw that out there and encourage potential readers of it. I think there are people who find it pleasurable to read.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ulysses is all worth it for Molly Bloom's soliloquy. Best thing ever written. EVER.

    Fantastic review. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YEESSS. It's so great. I heard Joyce's wife read it and told him that he didn't understand women, but I think he got it pretttttyyyy correct. It's so great. Have you seen this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTlDesrY3w

      It's great.

      Delete
  6. To answer your question Amanda, the audio version is amazing. Joyce is so lyrical, especially when it doesn't seem to flow with the eye alone, lend your voice to it and there's kind of an, "aaaah, that's what he meant", moment.
    In Finnegan's Wake ever more so--Joyce had even proclaimed the Wake was one to be read aloud. If I may go one step further, reading Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake aloud, with a bit of intoxication, is absolutely revelatory!
    I loved your review... you have won yourself a new reader in me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm proud of you. I'm still working on it, but I'm also reading (or have read) a million other books in between, so... I'm nt really giving my undivided attention to it. From what I've read so far, you've nailed it in your review. Nice job. Congrats on finishing it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Woah, super congrats. You should throw a party in celebration! Seriously, major kudos - I've tried to read this bad boy three times and have failed every time.

    Now celebrate with something nice and easy.

    Cheers,
    Alyson

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh well done you! I've started Ulysses twice and given up - it was just such hard work (I've read The Odyssey and The Illiad and found them both more enjoyable). I vaguely remember from my time studying Portrait of the Artist... that Joyce said something about having written something to keep the literary professors going for years with all the quotes and puzzles in Ulysses - so don't think there's much chance of me making head or tail of it! I'm with you on Modernism - think a lot of it is a case of 'the emperor's new clothes'... although I did love The Waves, which is actually more like poetry than a novel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've made two attempts on Ulysses, on the paper-book and audio-book, respectively. Gave it up. I found the book boring.

    Cold As Heaven

    ReplyDelete
  11. *applauds your finishing Ulysses* *still cowers away from it in fear* *applauds again and runs away*

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've got to say, I've dug into Ulysses a few times now, and never made it past the third episode. It's great, excellent, outstanding writing, but such an effort that I worry I've missed too much cool stuff, and decide to come back to it when I have more time. Your review, I feel, is spot on. It's not a perfect book, but it is an overwhelmingly outstanding book. I'll finish it one day.

    You ever read any Flann O'Brien? (I found him by living down the block from a pub named in his honor, which I think would make him proud.) His At Swim-Two-Birds is right on the edge of the end of modernism, and has like a 3-frame deep narrative. If you're ever in the mood for some somewhat lighter Irish reading, I'd give him a try.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My first instinct was to say 'an unintelligible book that isn't enjoyable to read- how the hell does that earn 5 stars?'. However it isn't so long since I read 'Foucault's Pendulum', a book that I completely did not understand (despite having degrees in the two major subjects that it covers) but kinda was in awe of. So I guess I dig it. Muchos kudos for finishing that behemoth too!

    ReplyDelete
  14. APPROPRIATE MARY POPPINS GIF BONUS POINTS

    I don't know if I'll ever even look at Ulysses. But I'm glad it isn't terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well done you! I have yet to tackle this one, but I love your review. I think a book can be genius without it really hitting home with the majority of readers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Congrats!

    And I love the Beyonce / J-Hud metaphor. Luv. It.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Loved your review. Ulysses is on my to-read list but I'm a little bit scared of starting it. Well done for getting through it - your review is my encouragement to give it a go!

    I think that SOME one-off books are worth the effort, and can be brilliant despite being difficult and unaccessible to some readers, but overall... I do just prefer a good read! Probably why I haven't got round to this yet...

    ReplyDelete
  18. This made me laugh in a great, Sunday morning kind of way. Usually my eyes close when I laugh, but I forced them to stay open so I could keep reading, because I didn't want to miss any part of this. I can't wait to read ULYSSES. I think that, when I actually do, I'll just dive in, and then go back. That's the plan. If I actually read and finish it, we'll see how I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Impressive! I've read Dubliners but haven't yet had the guts to take on Ulysses. If (when?) I do, I like your point about using the reference materials only to a certain extent and then letting the rest just wash over as much as possible... I could see myself getting TOTALLY bogged down in the dozens of supporting books, otherwise. And then I'd never finish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Addendum: Likelihood of my not finishing even if I do approach the reference materials carefully = very high.

      Delete
  20. I'm so glad you took this on, Amanda. And I'm even more glad that you liked it (respected it?) enough to give it its due at five stars. The Jennifer Hudson/Beyonce analogy is fantastic and right on. I'm struggling through Finnegans Wake right now (care to join me???), and I told my wife yesterday that it's like good reggaie - it has a great beat and it just sounds cool, so you like it, but every once in a while, you pick up the meaning and realize that it has some serious soul in addition to all the rest. Joyce is the man, and that's that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To answer your ultimate question: personally, I say a thousand times no. James Joyce is far too wrapped up is his own "genius" for me to consider him anything but an insufferable ass who thought he was better than everyone around him just because he could write things that no one else understood. I've only ever read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, but that was horribly angsty enough to make me think he is one of the most overrated authors in history.

    I guess I don't personally understand how a book that basically no one finds enjoyable can also be said to be "worth it" by those same people who don't even enjoy reading it. I feel like every word ever written by Joyce just screams "Look how much smarter I am than you!!!" and I don't understand why his utter indecipherable-ness is interpreted as genius. Yes, JJ, I am impressed that you all this stuff about Latin and the classics and Shakespeare and whatever, but I personally don't want to read a thousand pages about how you're better than me.

    Sorry, James Joyce makes me ragey. Nothing against you at all. :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sooo if I couldn't finish Tristram Shandy, I should probably stay away from this, right?

    ReplyDelete