From brucet@csufresno.edu Fri Mar 10 08:45:00 2000 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id IAA52704 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:44:59 -0800 Received: from shadow.csufresno.edu (relay-1.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.22]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id IAA17921 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:44:54 -0800 Received: from zimmer.csufresno.edu (zimmer.csufresno.edu [129.8.52.100]) by shadow.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28698 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:44:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.8.9.183] ([129.8.9.183]) by zimmer.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA10793 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:44:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:51:06 +0100 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: brucet@csufresno.edu (Bruce Thornton) Subject: Re: beautiful language >Steve and I have settled our differences, and I admit that I was rather >impudent in my sentiments about Joyce (below). With Bruce, I'll only >counter with sadness. I think that the greatness of Ulysses is that it >operates wonderful as mimesis: that at no time does it depart from a >realistic realm. Isn't that pretty much what I said? "In fact, what is best about Joyce is its realism (Nabokov has a good essay on Joyce in this regard), not all that quasi-medieval, pretentious showing off and creaky parallels to the Odyssey and parodies of English lit, though the latter are entertaining and clever." My point is that the "pretentious showing off" is the source of the inflated reputation for the reasons I stated. The prof who, having read Stuart Gilbert (Gilbert Stuart?), can tell his class that Poldy's cigar = the stake Odysseus rams into Polyphemus' eye is prone to inflate Ulysses' greatness because it's chock full of those sorts of peas under shells, enough to keep the critics busy for 300 years. At the same time, to see it as merely a playful exercise >shows little understanding of its multiple resonance. Did I say its was "merely a playful exercise"? It certainly isn't-- but it just as certainly is filled with "playful exercises" that most of the time add little to the story or characters and call attention to the author's cleverness. And what the hell is a "multiple resonance"? Do you mean it has a lot of variety? I know I can't >Bruce how exciting and vibrant a book Ulysses is. And that's only one level. > Something's missing here, but I know how "exciting and vibrant" Ulysses is. That's why I've read it about 3 times. But to me its "greatness" has diminished over time, particulary as we move farther from the context of its creation. Many of its assumptions (about character, language, history, etc) seem increasingly dated and reflective of a particular moment in Western culture. >I wish I could admire more (I admire them, certainly) Bruce's list (Algren, >Traven, etc.). That he dismisses Conrad and Forster and Woolf, however, >makes me skeptical about the worth of his judgment. De gustibus. But I don't dismiss Conrad-- you've misread. And I'm not really dismissing Forster and Woolf-- again, they just seem now not as lasting as Ford or Conrad, their reputations perhaps reflecting the needs and prejudices of the lit crit industry. Seems like an unexceptional (particularly in these historicizing times) point, certainly one that doesn't call for that harumphing last sentence. The fact that you don't like Traven or Algren as much as I, doesn't warrant my impugning your critical faculties. Bruce S Thornton 559-278-7037 (voice mail) 559-278-7878 (FAX) .