What the fuck am I reading?

What the frick am I reading? The best I can come up with is it's a novel written entierly as someone's train of thought.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You probably aren’t ready yet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well I'm already a quarter of the way through and not stopping

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are a few sections of that, but mostly it's jumping from one literary style to another one. Point is an epic by style alone about a day of an ordinary freemason cuck with a barp fetish, who's wife is getting screwed at home.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hehehehe very clever anon
    Little does the uneducated read know that James Joyce is famous for his stream of consciousness technique

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The best I can come up with is it's a novel written entirely as someone's train of thought.
    Yup, that’s not a bad description so far, depending on how far you’ve gotten into into it. But there’s other styles he experiments with that go beyond just the stream-of-consciousness he’s renowned for, like the play format of Circe, the Q&A (or catechism) format of Ithaca, a chapter aping the style of sentimental romance novels of the day (Nausicaa), one that goes through the evolution of the English language in different styles from the ancient to culminating in modern Irish slang (Oxen of the Sun), and so on.

    It might be crude and reductive to say all Joyce was attempting to do was “art for art’s sake” (the Wildean manifesto), but there is an element of that, where he’s just reveling in the beauty and joy of language. And there is a lot of beautiful language in it. If you look at some of his early writing, as in letters and I think journals, of what he was trying to do in Dubliners, I think you can apply it to the rest of his works, as well. Joyce saw the guiding aesthetic and thematic thread of Dubliners as the creation of “epiphanies” — a secularized parallel to the religious experience of theophany, a sudden blinding revelation, except in this case psychological, domestic, the character coming to terms with something about their own character, their own life, about Dublin and the culture of Ireland itself, about timeless existential questions, about death, about love (or disappointment thereof), even about politics or religion. Moments of heightened perception, basically, sudden revelations where they come to realize something important, or are transformed in their perspective, or transform themselves and their way of life, even, or at least view on it.

    This artistic manifesto of his (about the centrality of the “epiphany” to the type of narrative he wanted to create) also showed up, I believed, in the early draft of Portrait (here proclaimed by Stephen himself), first named Stephen Hero. Even in the Portrait itself we have today, you can also find Stephen’s/Joyce’s aesthetic/literary manifesto spread throughout it and particularly concentrated in the end of the work.

    Other famous quotes of his about his artistic purpose:

    >I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city suddenly disappeared from the earth it could be reconstructed out of my book.

    With this, he also seems concerned with the classic theme of the recursion of the microcosmos and the macrocosmos, or “As above, so below”, as the Hermetic saying goes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      (Joyce loved the Renaissance thinkers and theologians associated with Renaissance esotericism like Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno, who were influenced by the study of Hermeticism and Neoplatonism in vogue in intellectual circles of that day, besides being particularly struck by their idea of the coincidence or unity of opposites — the coincidentia oppositorum — which also shows up as a running theme throughout Ulysses and particularly even moreso in Finnegans Wake, the latter of which I’ve barely scratched, though, so don’t ask me about it. Concepts as of synchronicities and of archetypes, which he seems to have come up with even apart from and prior to Jungian tonight, influenced by his studies in mysticism, Hermeticism, and theology, or of parallels between the mundane and the preternatural, sort of like the Blakean idea of seeing a “world in a grain of sand”, as well as the experiences of meaningful coincidences themselves, also run throughout the work; most obviously in the parallels to the Odyssey, but also in other ways.)

      So he’s also trying to cram as much of life, the universe, timeless themes, the different fields of human endeavor (like references to the arts, sciences, history, music, literature, politics, theology, etc.), and basically everything, as much as he can into a depiction of one day in Dublin mainly following the core trinity of characters (Stephen, Bloom, and Molly) and secondarily the characters on their periphery. It’s not just a loving portrayal of Dublin trying to fit as much of Dublin as he can into it, but also a Hermetic-like cramming of as much of the universe and of human endeavors as he can into this one day in Dublin.

      Besides this, he also wanted to make “entirely three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood characters”, as detailed and realistic as possible, more intimately portrayed than ever before in literature, and which he likened to attempting to make statues of them — so they could be viewed as if three-dimensionally, from all angles around them, instead of just being flat characters on a page or a painting. Whether he succeeds or fails is up to the reader’s judgment, but I think there is indeed something immortal and timeless about Stephen, Bloom, and Molly.

      He also wanted to make it as life-affirming a work as possible, hence the famous ending lines … they’re so famous in literature you probably already have heard them, but in the event you don’t want it spoiled, he wrote of ending it with yes as the most positive word he could think of in the English language, representing affirmation of life, and yielding to whatever life brings one.

      On the other hand, Joyce also said of it:

      >The pity is the public will demand and find a moral in my book — or worse they may take it in some more serious way, and on the honor of a gentleman, there is not one single serious line in it.

      tl;dr Bloom gets cūcked

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/xuvbmiA.gif

        >The best I can come up with is it's a novel written entirely as someone's train of thought.
        Yup, that’s not a bad description so far, depending on how far you’ve gotten into into it. But there’s other styles he experiments with that go beyond just the stream-of-consciousness he’s renowned for, like the play format of Circe, the Q&A (or catechism) format of Ithaca, a chapter aping the style of sentimental romance novels of the day (Nausicaa), one that goes through the evolution of the English language in different styles from the ancient to culminating in modern Irish slang (Oxen of the Sun), and so on.

        It might be crude and reductive to say all Joyce was attempting to do was “art for art’s sake” (the Wildean manifesto), but there is an element of that, where he’s just reveling in the beauty and joy of language. And there is a lot of beautiful language in it. If you look at some of his early writing, as in letters and I think journals, of what he was trying to do in Dubliners, I think you can apply it to the rest of his works, as well. Joyce saw the guiding aesthetic and thematic thread of Dubliners as the creation of “epiphanies” — a secularized parallel to the religious experience of theophany, a sudden blinding revelation, except in this case psychological, domestic, the character coming to terms with something about their own character, their own life, about Dublin and the culture of Ireland itself, about timeless existential questions, about death, about love (or disappointment thereof), even about politics or religion. Moments of heightened perception, basically, sudden revelations where they come to realize something important, or are transformed in their perspective, or transform themselves and their way of life, even, or at least view on it.

        This artistic manifesto of his (about the centrality of the “epiphany” to the type of narrative he wanted to create) also showed up, I believed, in the early draft of Portrait (here proclaimed by Stephen himself), first named Stephen Hero. Even in the Portrait itself we have today, you can also find Stephen’s/Joyce’s aesthetic/literary manifesto spread throughout it and particularly concentrated in the end of the work.

        Other famous quotes of his about his artistic purpose:

        >I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city suddenly disappeared from the earth it could be reconstructed out of my book.

        With this, he also seems concerned with the classic theme of the recursion of the microcosmos and the macrocosmos, or “As above, so below”, as the Hermetic saying goes.

        All these words you wrote and they all boil down to "it's just a bunch of random shit lol"

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yep, inasmuch as Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Homer, Lao Tzu, etc,, “is just a bunch of random shit.” You got me there. If you take a skeptical enough, reductionistic, skeptical and pragmatic view on anything, it’s all just “a bunch of random words in a row without any deeper meaning behind them or anything to teach me to cause me to experience,” if they don’t immediately tell you something of immediate scientific or practical worth or at least for the worth of immediate entertainment. You’re really right on that end: taken from one point of view, Joyce’s Ulysses really is “just a bunch of random shit”’, same as Hamlet is.

          It does lead one to ask WHY you are on the infamous IQfy’s IQfy — literature board if this is ultimately what you think of works of literature beyond your immediate ken, but, hey, it is a (relatively) ‘free board’, after all, with some degree of ‘free speech’, so we let you post on it, too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nooo you can't just call out my silly little novel as packed with literal nonsense
            Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Homer, Lao Tzu, etc. would all laugh at being compared to Joyce

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So they might, yet Ulysses is still a beautiful and beloved work of literature. And maybe if they were truly alive with the context and knowledge to be able to fully read and appreciate it, they would get over their initial reaction of laughing and really come to know and love it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I love the book too anon but it's packed with nonsense. You can't go a page without encountering a nonsense word/phrase. It's a useless book, hence the title.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you give an example of what book you might consider "useful" as opposed to this?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesn't like Joyce's fun little word games

            NGMI

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I appreciate the effortpost, anon.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/JLiRLdN.jpg

      (Joyce loved the Renaissance thinkers and theologians associated with Renaissance esotericism like Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno, who were influenced by the study of Hermeticism and Neoplatonism in vogue in intellectual circles of that day, besides being particularly struck by their idea of the coincidence or unity of opposites — the coincidentia oppositorum — which also shows up as a running theme throughout Ulysses and particularly even moreso in Finnegans Wake, the latter of which I’ve barely scratched, though, so don’t ask me about it. Concepts as of synchronicities and of archetypes, which he seems to have come up with even apart from and prior to Jungian tonight, influenced by his studies in mysticism, Hermeticism, and theology, or of parallels between the mundane and the preternatural, sort of like the Blakean idea of seeing a “world in a grain of sand”, as well as the experiences of meaningful coincidences themselves, also run throughout the work; most obviously in the parallels to the Odyssey, but also in other ways.)

      So he’s also trying to cram as much of life, the universe, timeless themes, the different fields of human endeavor (like references to the arts, sciences, history, music, literature, politics, theology, etc.), and basically everything, as much as he can into a depiction of one day in Dublin mainly following the core trinity of characters (Stephen, Bloom, and Molly) and secondarily the characters on their periphery. It’s not just a loving portrayal of Dublin trying to fit as much of Dublin as he can into it, but also a Hermetic-like cramming of as much of the universe and of human endeavors as he can into this one day in Dublin.

      Besides this, he also wanted to make “entirely three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood characters”, as detailed and realistic as possible, more intimately portrayed than ever before in literature, and which he likened to attempting to make statues of them — so they could be viewed as if three-dimensionally, from all angles around them, instead of just being flat characters on a page or a painting. Whether he succeeds or fails is up to the reader’s judgment, but I think there is indeed something immortal and timeless about Stephen, Bloom, and Molly.

      He also wanted to make it as life-affirming a work as possible, hence the famous ending lines … they’re so famous in literature you probably already have heard them, but in the event you don’t want it spoiled, he wrote of ending it with yes as the most positive word he could think of in the English language, representing affirmation of life, and yielding to whatever life brings one.

      On the other hand, Joyce also said of it:

      >The pity is the public will demand and find a moral in my book — or worse they may take it in some more serious way, and on the honor of a gentleman, there is not one single serious line in it.

      tl;dr Bloom gets cūcked

      Great posts.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You are a brainlet.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    many classic novels are written in a way that explores different themes and literary styles while tying things back to a central hook. ulysses does this as well but it is so radical in it's exploration that it fails to maintain suspension of disbelief. what I can't tell is if the people don't like ulysses are reading it wrong or if the people that like it are reading every other book wrong.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As someone who hated the book upon his first reading aside for a couple of chapters, and who then come around to it and now reads it once a year, I was definitely reading it wrong that first time around

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        As someone who's about to tackle it in a couple weeks, any advice on reading it "right"?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Take your time with it.
          No need to understand all of the (countless and mostly contemporary) references but you need to put some effort onto reading it.
          Towards the second half of the book the structure becomes increasingly complex to the point of being untraversable without a proper guide.
          Best way to go about it, as Joyce famously suggested, is not to take even a single line seriously and have your fun with it.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just wait for the final chapter. And yes a lot of it is stream of consciousness, but theres a lot to dig into character and event wise from that thought. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just finished Gravity's Rainbow yesterday. I had some trouble getting through it but I understood most of it (with a little help from Weisenburger's book). How does it compare to Ulysses? Are they comparable at all? How hard is it compared to GR?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      More difficult IMO. Lots of chapters are different types of experimental literature. If I had to rank the meme trilogy by difficulty, with 5 being an average book, IJ is 6, GR is 8, Ulysses 10+

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        GR is harder than Ulysses I feel
        Most of Ulysses is actually a pretty fluid read once you get used to Stream of Consciousness. Bloom's thoughts are super easy to sink up with and understand and Molly isn't that much harder, and there aren't that many Stephen segments
        If we we're just ranking Oxen I'd agree, but jesus christ does Pynchon try your patience. It's Pinecones biggest weakness I feel. He can write good characters and relationships but his post modern urge compels him to toss entire narratives to the wayside to show how clever he is. And those stream of consciousness sections got fricking ghastly

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it is the worst book ever written
    don't fall for irish shilling

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's just an exercise in form over substance, it's not supposed to be a good novel.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why did the stream of consciousness technique never really go anywhere after Joyce? Why did it fail to take root unlike, say, the sonnet?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why did it fail to take root
      Probably because it's shit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Black person stream of consciousness became one of the most used techniques in literature after Ulysses to the point it became kitsch
      And it can't really be compared to a rhyme scheme

Comments are closed.