It seems like it would be doomed. There would be at least one anon who would also read one of the guides as well so he can act smart at turn it into reference autism causing the read along to just be reference autism and miss what is important.
Joyce's two big books are meant to be more personal in their reading.
We could try, at least. It's been quite a while since the last one.
I could be convinced to do it over the summer. I've never read it, but I was in the thread where this idea was brought up, so I'm keen to give it a go since I'll be reading it regardless. No idea how active I'd be in the threads as they occur however.
We could make the thread in a set day, say it friday, then try to leave it up on the weekend for further discussions.
You can try but like I said, it is meant to be more personal in its reading, you are supposed to miss a great deal so you have plenty to get on subsequent readings and contexts and understanding can grow and change with you as you learn and forget through life. Ulysses and FW are works which grow with the reader if you let them and they do it in a way no other books do.
Come on, it would do no harm. We could at least help each other to not drop it midway and not miss at least some of the references. But yeah, we should always reiterate against reference autism.
Should start it on June 16th(?)
Sure. We'll follow this plan that was posted in the other active Ulysses thread.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I am not going to stop you and if it happens I may even chime in on occasion assuming you do it on the board and not on discord or some other platform. I just think it is better suited to solo reading and there are better books to do a group read of. I will however make the case for a book other than Ulysses or FW.
You don't actually need to get any of the references, context provides enough clues to understand theme, to understand it as the modernist novel it ultimately is. The references serve to keep the novel alive since our understanding of them will change our relation to the characters and even an "incorrect" second hand and removed source for a reference will work to that end, any book which uses or builds off of a reference or its source is applicable and part of the individuals understanding of the reference. This is how Joyce makes the novel live, the references are actually a reference to every instance of that reference in all of literature including works which have yet to be written or even works which just remind you of it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
buying meself a copy, lesdoit
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Cool idea, when do we start?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/Sf71mEr.png
Come on, it would do no harm. We could at least help each other to not drop it midway and not miss at least some of the references. But yeah, we should always reiterate against reference autism.
[...]
Sure. We'll follow this plan that was posted in the other active Ulysses thread.
I am not going to stop you and if it happens I may even chime in on occasion assuming you do it on the board and not on discord or some other platform. I just think it is better suited to solo reading and there are better books to do a group read of. I will however make the case for a book other than Ulysses or FW.
You don't actually need to get any of the references, context provides enough clues to understand theme, to understand it as the modernist novel it ultimately is. The references serve to keep the novel alive since our understanding of them will change our relation to the characters and even an "incorrect" second hand and removed source for a reference will work to that end, any book which uses or builds off of a reference or its source is applicable and part of the individuals understanding of the reference. This is how Joyce makes the novel live, the references are actually a reference to every instance of that reference in all of literature including works which have yet to be written or even works which just remind you of it.
but to elaborate; the references are are actually references to the reader themselves, your relation to them and not to their sources. If you completely miss them then their context for you is simple, Ulysses, then one day while reading something else you stumble onto the same reference which you may see as a reference to Ulysses or realize it is a reference to something else, or perhaps it is a reference to both the source any Ulysses or not a reference at all and just coincidence. You don't know but your relation to that reference has grown and changed and on a reread you will understand that context differently, it has grown with you and so has the character the reference relates to.
Part of Joyce's two big books is not knowing. Beyond that guides make some sections like Proteus needlessly difficult when it actually is one of the simplest chapters, all we need to understand it is to empathize with Stephen and we will know all we need to know about the references he makes, it is a modernist work after all.
Guides are antithetical to reading Ulysses and FW, fine for studying them but terrible for reading then. The references are first and foremost to your personal knowledge. These two works are intimate conversations with the reader, would you interrupt your best friend as they were pouring their heart out to you just because they said they feel like a character in some novel you never read? You probably would barely register the reference, just realize the character went through something similar to what they are going through and realize that is what is important. Then years later your stumble onto that character and suddenly you understand both the character and your friend better and they become intimately tied. Joyce is pour his heart and soul out to you, don't ruin it by being autistic.
is pynchon like this too? been putting off reading him because of reference fatigue as well, but what you said probably seems applicable to his work.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
NTA, but I am reading The Crying of Lot 49 and he overwhelm you with such stuff, but as he says in the third chapter, you are focusing on the wrong stuff if you are caught up on it too much. Besides, his whole notion is to examine the underlying paranoia that is a byproduct of the post-modern era and post-WW2 America.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pynchon always gives enough context to understand without external sources and this is true of most authors from the mid 19th century on with the exception of those authors like Borges who exploit intertextuality. AtD is Pynchon's only work which really benefits from knowledge external to the book but even there you don't need that knowledge to understand or enjoy it, there is just this whole layer of subtext which you will miss without it.
gay. FW at the very least needs a guide, dude. Only then is it clear it's the best book ever written, but it's hard to read. You gotta read it with the guide, then again without the guide.
>There would be at least one anon who would also read one of the guides as well so he can act smart at turn it into reference autism causing the read along to just be reference autism and miss what is important.
That would be a step up.
I could be convinced to do it over the summer. I've never read it, but I was in the thread where this idea was brought up, so I'm keen to give it a go since I'll be reading it regardless. No idea how active I'd be in the threads as they occur however.
This thread is reminding me that I need to shut up, knuckle down, and make the final edits to my master's thesis, which is about Ulysses. Thanks for the inspiration, OP.
what exactly is so hard about ulysses, i know its hard and has references but i want some kind of example of why its hard also I have started reading it isn't too bad but i know it will get harder, does the beginning have references and subtext as well?
I'm looking forward to reading this book. Is it really as hard as they say it is? English is my second language, though I speak it pretty comprehensibly. How should one prepare himself for reading this book?
I read about a certain "guides" for this book. Where can I find them?
Ok, but >the words "gunrest" and "parapet" used multiple times in the first page (of my edition)
How would you know wtf those are without a guide though?
what exactly is so hard about ulysses, i know its hard and has references but i want some kind of example of why its hard also I have started reading it isn't too bad but i know it will get harder, does the beginning have references and subtext as well?
I'm looking forward to reading this book. Is it really as hard as they say it is? English is my second language, though I speak it pretty comprehensibly. How should one prepare himself for reading this book?
I read about a certain "guides" for this book. Where can I find them?
>The sea, the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea.
>Thought is the thought of thought.
>He kissed the plump mellow yellow smellow melons of her rump, on each plump melonous hemisphere, in their mellow yellow furrow, with obscure prolonged provocative melonsmellonous osculation.
But there already was a months long IQfyreadalong of Ulysses last year.
Are you so bored to only read the same handfull of novels over and over again?
Maybe those readalongs would be more successful if it wasnt always the same stale Western Canon anglo authors that everyone already has read in school.
While I understand this, the fact that people want to do it is a big plus in 2024, as far as IQfy goes. Besides, people here are slaves to the canon and rarely venture outside it, so getting a reading group together on some author almost nobody on IQfy has heard is going to be even more difficult than rounding them all up to read Joyce's Ulysses.
It seems like it would be doomed. There would be at least one anon who would also read one of the guides as well so he can act smart at turn it into reference autism causing the read along to just be reference autism and miss what is important.
Joyce's two big books are meant to be more personal in their reading.
>that big of an editing error in such a short post
Sorry.
We could try, at least. It's been quite a while since the last one.
We could make the thread in a set day, say it friday, then try to leave it up on the weekend for further discussions.
You can try but like I said, it is meant to be more personal in its reading, you are supposed to miss a great deal so you have plenty to get on subsequent readings and contexts and understanding can grow and change with you as you learn and forget through life. Ulysses and FW are works which grow with the reader if you let them and they do it in a way no other books do.
Come on, it would do no harm. We could at least help each other to not drop it midway and not miss at least some of the references. But yeah, we should always reiterate against reference autism.
Sure. We'll follow this plan that was posted in the other active Ulysses thread.
I am not going to stop you and if it happens I may even chime in on occasion assuming you do it on the board and not on discord or some other platform. I just think it is better suited to solo reading and there are better books to do a group read of. I will however make the case for a book other than Ulysses or FW.
You don't actually need to get any of the references, context provides enough clues to understand theme, to understand it as the modernist novel it ultimately is. The references serve to keep the novel alive since our understanding of them will change our relation to the characters and even an "incorrect" second hand and removed source for a reference will work to that end, any book which uses or builds off of a reference or its source is applicable and part of the individuals understanding of the reference. This is how Joyce makes the novel live, the references are actually a reference to every instance of that reference in all of literature including works which have yet to be written or even works which just remind you of it.
buying meself a copy, lesdoit
thank you
I am in!
Is reading a guide really such a bad thing for a first reading?
I explained it more in the second paragraph of
but to elaborate; the references are are actually references to the reader themselves, your relation to them and not to their sources. If you completely miss them then their context for you is simple, Ulysses, then one day while reading something else you stumble onto the same reference which you may see as a reference to Ulysses or realize it is a reference to something else, or perhaps it is a reference to both the source any Ulysses or not a reference at all and just coincidence. You don't know but your relation to that reference has grown and changed and on a reread you will understand that context differently, it has grown with you and so has the character the reference relates to.
Part of Joyce's two big books is not knowing. Beyond that guides make some sections like Proteus needlessly difficult when it actually is one of the simplest chapters, all we need to understand it is to empathize with Stephen and we will know all we need to know about the references he makes, it is a modernist work after all.
Guides are antithetical to reading Ulysses and FW, fine for studying them but terrible for reading then. The references are first and foremost to your personal knowledge. These two works are intimate conversations with the reader, would you interrupt your best friend as they were pouring their heart out to you just because they said they feel like a character in some novel you never read? You probably would barely register the reference, just realize the character went through something similar to what they are going through and realize that is what is important. Then years later your stumble onto that character and suddenly you understand both the character and your friend better and they become intimately tied. Joyce is pour his heart and soul out to you, don't ruin it by being autistic.
is pynchon like this too? been putting off reading him because of reference fatigue as well, but what you said probably seems applicable to his work.
NTA, but I am reading The Crying of Lot 49 and he overwhelm you with such stuff, but as he says in the third chapter, you are focusing on the wrong stuff if you are caught up on it too much. Besides, his whole notion is to examine the underlying paranoia that is a byproduct of the post-modern era and post-WW2 America.
Pynchon always gives enough context to understand without external sources and this is true of most authors from the mid 19th century on with the exception of those authors like Borges who exploit intertextuality. AtD is Pynchon's only work which really benefits from knowledge external to the book but even there you don't need that knowledge to understand or enjoy it, there is just this whole layer of subtext which you will miss without it.
gay. FW at the very least needs a guide, dude. Only then is it clear it's the best book ever written, but it's hard to read. You gotta read it with the guide, then again without the guide.
>There would be at least one anon who would also read one of the guides as well so he can act smart at turn it into reference autism causing the read along to just be reference autism and miss what is important.
That would be a step up.
I could be convinced to do it over the summer. I've never read it, but I was in the thread where this idea was brought up, so I'm keen to give it a go since I'll be reading it regardless. No idea how active I'd be in the threads as they occur however.
lets read this instead
Nazis lost
I read Dubliners and now I have no desire to read more Joyce.
Should start it on June 16th(?)
I'm reading Dubliners now and will read more joyce afterwards
This thread is reminding me that I need to shut up, knuckle down, and make the final edits to my master's thesis, which is about Ulysses. Thanks for the inspiration, OP.
hop on the thread in june homie write us some effort posts
Hey IQfy quick question
what the frick
It's that book
Come May the 5th, I am in!
Will someone new to literature be able to understand this book at all?
Just get in you wusses
Ok, but
>the words "gunrest" and "parapet" used multiple times in the first page (of my edition)
How would you know wtf those are without a guide though?
Look them up, anon.
A guide is the shit way to go about it because inbetween clearing dumb stuff up you also get told what the book "means".
I did and the first link was to the website "The Joyce Project : Ulysses"
Really? Put dictionary at the end.
what exactly is so hard about ulysses, i know its hard and has references but i want some kind of example of why its hard also I have started reading it isn't too bad but i know it will get harder, does the beginning have references and subtext as well?
I'm looking forward to reading this book. Is it really as hard as they say it is? English is my second language, though I speak it pretty comprehensibly. How should one prepare himself for reading this book?
I read about a certain "guides" for this book. Where can I find them?
Cool idea, when do we start?
>Florry whispers to her. Whispering lovewords murmur liplapping loudly, poppysmic plopslop.
>Love loves to love love.
>The sea, the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea.
>Thought is the thought of thought.
>He kissed the plump mellow yellow smellow melons of her rump, on each plump melonous hemisphere, in their mellow yellow furrow, with obscure prolonged provocative melonsmellonous osculation.
But there already was a months long IQfyreadalong of Ulysses last year.
Are you so bored to only read the same handfull of novels over and over again?
Maybe those readalongs would be more successful if it wasnt always the same stale Western Canon anglo authors that everyone already has read in school.
While I understand this, the fact that people want to do it is a big plus in 2024, as far as IQfy goes. Besides, people here are slaves to the canon and rarely venture outside it, so getting a reading group together on some author almost nobody on IQfy has heard is going to be even more difficult than rounding them all up to read Joyce's Ulysses.
On a scale from 1/10, how degenerate and perverse is this book? Serious question.
11/10
>made-up gibberish by some random schizophrenic or IQfy mongoloid
>:(
>made-up gibberish by Joyce and other approved post-modernist authors™
>:O
>Joyce
>Pomo
moron who got filtered and does not even know his theory.
ive read it once, years ago
at least 95% of it went over my head, i know that much