[HN Gopher] James Joyce's Ulysses reviewed (1922)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       James Joyce's Ulysses reviewed (1922)
        
       Author : see-also
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2022-02-04 21:08 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
        
       | bambax wrote:
       | > _If I understand him aright be sets out to depict not merely
       | the fair show of things but the inner truth_
       | 
       | I can't parse this. It reads like an OCR error; should it read
       | "If I understand him alright, he sets out..."?
        
         | radiowave wrote:
         | "Aright" is probably correct, if a bit archaic from our
         | perspective, but "be" is almost certainly OCR error (plus lack
         | of proof reading), and not the only one.
         | 
         | Long live the Grauniad. (That being a nickname given to The
         | Guardian due to its tendency for typos.)
        
           | KineticLensman wrote:
           | Not just typos - from [0], we have
           | 
           |  _"The absence of corrections yesterday was due to a
           | technical hitch rather than any sudden onset of accuracy."_
           | 
           | [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/guardian-20
           | 0-t...
        
         | jwilk wrote:
         | "James Joyce: The Critical Heritage"
         | <https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120428> includes
         | a copy of this review (pages 213-216). It says:
         | 
         | > _If I understand him aright he sets out_ ...
        
       | geden wrote:
       | Much to learn here for modern music journalists. Instead of
       | inserting their own desires, shallow beliefs and ego into the
       | review, the book is reviewed for what it is, with the artists
       | intention considered and respected.
       | 
       | Compare and contrast with this tiresome Guardian review, which
       | leaves you very unclear about the performance but all too sure
       | about what the reviewer likes and wants
       | 
       | https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jan/30/the-smile-revi...
        
         | mhh__ wrote:
         | I don't get that impression. Art exists in real life and can be
         | contextualized as a result of that. The performance is
         | described, too.
         | 
         | I won't put words in your mouth but striving for some notion of
         | apolitical art is folly. Especially if it's art by Thom Yorke,
         | surely?
        
           | powersnail wrote:
           | It's hard to put my finger on what exactly is wrong with the
           | Guardian's article on Radiohead, but it feels like the author
           | was meandering a lot in this short piece. It reads like a
           | bullet-point list of things he noticed during the
           | performance, and all of those things are in pieces and
           | unconnected. It's not cohesive.
           | 
           | You could write this entire article by listening to half a
           | dozen 5-second clips of the performance, giving the
           | impression of a student who writes an essay about a book
           | based entirely on spark notes.
        
       | mark_l_watson wrote:
       | I have a suggestion: I read Ulysses about ten years ago and liked
       | it but really didn't get that much out of it. About five years
       | ago, I tried Ulysses again, listening to it as an Audible audio
       | book with several skilled actors speaking the roles. That was
       | great! I then also listened to Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as
       | a Young Man in audiobook form and enjoyed it much more than
       | reading it in school 50 years ago.
        
       | prisout64 wrote:
       | It is unreal to me that someone like Joyce was a real human, he
       | seems like some otherworldly figure. Someone like Joyce will
       | never exist again.
        
         | powersnail wrote:
         | Just to help pulling his figure back to humanity a little bit,
         | here's some letters that he wrote, about his fetish for dirty
         | farts. Not that there's anything wrong with it, just that Joyce
         | was a real human with humanly desires after all.
         | 
         | https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/02/02/james-joyces-...
        
       | arkj wrote:
       | >You may like or you may dislike Ulysses, and you are entitled to
       | express your opinion of its merits or demerits, but you are not
       | entitled to demand that it should be other than it is;
       | 
       | This is profound. Replace "Ulysses" with "X" and it holds true
       | for much of the hate spreading today.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | Lamad123 wrote:
       | I tried reading it in late 2015 and it was just hard! The only
       | thing I remember and find really funny is the dog on the beach
       | peeing on an unsmelt rock!
        
         | jyriand wrote:
         | You can try listening to podcasts by Frank Delaney called
         | Re:Joyce. He goes through the book sentence by sentence. Sadly,
         | Frank Delaney died before he could complete the podcast series.
        
           | pauldavis wrote:
           | We can learn from him, and learn from his fate.
        
         | bell-cot wrote:
         | Talking about James Joyce, vs. _really_ reading his works...it
         | 's kinda like the difference between talking about Einstein,
         | vs. really reading (including understanding the math) his major
         | works (in high-level physics). Except reading Joyce brings far
         | more old-school more social cachet.
        
       | cormullion wrote:
       | I liked the apt reference to the "blue pencil", "used
       | specifically because it will not show in some lithographic or
       | photographic reproduction processes." (wikipedia)
        
       | I-M-S wrote:
       | One of my professors said (or quoted) that Ulysses is "a good
       | write rather than a good read", which I still think is the best
       | description of the book
        
       | dasloop wrote:
       | Ulysses is like a very funny joke that you don't understand.
       | Well, a lot of jokes actually.
        
       | caminmccluskey wrote:
       | It's a very tricky book to get a handle on, I must confess I've
       | only made it halfway. I made a sort of "reader's companion" app
       | to try to make sense of some of the esoteric language and
       | references - https://camin.xyz/ulysses-companion/ (not at all
       | mobile friendly)
       | 
       | Full credit goes to John Hunt, The Joyce Project at
       | joyceproject.com for the annotations, I just found that site very
       | tricky to use as I read.
        
       | throwdante wrote:
       | For anyone struggling with Joyce, I recommend Finnegan's Wake.
       | You are guaranteed to find Ulysses easier to read after this.
        
         | jhedwards wrote:
         | On the contrary, I find Finnegan's Wake easier because it's
         | more "fun". It's filled with silly word-play and funny sounds,
         | and I don't feel compelled to try to make any particular
         | meaning out of it or find a coherent story inside it, though if
         | I do find one it's a nice surprise.
         | 
         | Reading Ulysses, on the other hand, I know there is a story
         | there, so when I lose the thread I get a bit frustrated. It's
         | an absolutely gorgeous experience, of course, but one riddled
         | with such frustration. I'm not sure if maybe reading an outline
         | of the story first would help, so that I have the general idea
         | in my head before going into it?
        
         | billfruit wrote:
         | Seriously though, I would recommend Dubliners.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-02-06 23:02 UTC)