[HN Gopher] Bloomsday: The library's one-of-a-kind copy of "Ulys...
___________________________________________________________________
Bloomsday: The library's one-of-a-kind copy of "Ulysses"
Author : pepys
Score : 108 points
Date : 2023-06-26 04:51 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blogs.loc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (blogs.loc.gov)
| fjfaase wrote:
| Interesting story.
|
| Last year, I found Volume 2 of the 1932 edition from The Odyssey
| Press in a charity shop for just EUR0.50 [1]. At home I
| discovered a round paper sticker with the words 'Buning' and
| 'Djokja'. It seems it either was sold in Yogyakarta are belonged
| to someone who lived there [2].
|
| [1] https://www.iwriteiam.nl/D2201.html#26
|
| [2] https://www.iwriteiam.nl/D2201.html#27
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I always feel so uncharitable when I find something special in
| a charity shop.
|
| The best find yet was from oxfam in Winchester - Arabian
| Nights, numbered and signed by Dulac, 1914 edition - PS2, as
| the spine was (had it restored) damaged.
|
| Oh, and a rather nice Moxon Idylls of the King, same shop a few
| months later, which I think was PS25.
|
| Both are worth a fair bit, but I've no intention of parting
| with them.
|
| Non-literary works... a tiny watercolour by Nolde, gallery
| stamped and all, for PS5. That, I sold at auction as I'm not
| much of a fan of his, and it paid for the renovation of a
| cottage.
|
| I think these days they've largely wised up, but I still can't
| resist a delve whenever I go by a charity shop.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| Those all seem like shockingly rare finds - do you spend a
| great deal of time investigating different charity shops?
| Most I find are full of utterly mundane second hand mass-
| market paperbacks.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| I had no idea Joyce was banned in America for a while.
|
| Thanks, the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| It's got graphic descriptions of not only sex but bodily
| functions like menstruation.
| imdsm wrote:
| Not the worst things to write about. Kinda normal things
| really. Everyday things.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Apt the time it was unprecedented
| lapetitejort wrote:
| Everyday things, required to propagate ourselves as a
| species, and yet bizarrely squeamish to certain
| populations. My father, a normal person born in New
| England, still can't believe that people use the word
| "pregnant" in public. He expressed this to me as recently
| as a few weeks ago.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Tangential, but one of my favorite uses so far for ChatGPT has
| been to help me finally penetrate Ulysses. It's an almost
| unassailable work on its' own. Sheer genius, but hard to
| appreciate beyond the surface level without assistance.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| hey cool idea. I've always wanted to read Finnegans Wake, and
| am trying some paragraphs now with chatgpt. I don't think it's
| quite what Joyce intended, nor do I know if it makes any more
| sense, but it is easier to read :P
|
| For example: Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by
| arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome
| on the aquaface.
|
| becomes: There was no sign of Jhem or Shen brewing a measure of
| their father's malt using artificial light, and the end of the
| ridge was not visible in the water's reflection.
| mackrevinack wrote:
| theres something like 20+ different languages used in the
| wake and a lot of times its only half a word from one
| language mixed with another word so i cant see chatgpt being
| able to parse out all that
| avemuri wrote:
| I'm curious. How do you prompt it?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Mostly page by page, with text copied from Gutenberg.
| Generally I'll give it a paragraph (which in Ulysses can be
| multiple pages...) and start by saying "rewrite this in plain
| simple english" for the summary. Then I'll have it start
| rewriting in different forms, i.e. "rewrite this as a haiku"
| or "rewrite this as a poem in iambic pentameter with a modern
| setting using contemporary vernacular". Then once I
| understand the central themes, I can dig deeper and ask how
| it relates to the story as a whole, or how it ties back to
| events from The Odyssey.
| throwawayixnay wrote:
| [dead]
| aaroninsf wrote:
| I'd say about 70% of it is entirely enjoyable in a fashion akin
| to other Modernist literature. By the standards of contemporary
| YA and book-club lit fic, it's challenging, but by the
| standards of its own day, it is in many places written to be
| enjoyed. While it is true that there are aspects of it that are
| deeply overdetermined and a wealth of intentional allusion and
| linguistic play, that is for the most part frosting not
| presumed to be enjoyed by most readers--at least not in full.
| It is definitely true that Joyce assumed a classical education
| and a familiarity with e.g. the Odyssey (but also, the English
| canon itself such as it was in that day) that would be
| sufficient to allow many readers to appreciate his sardonic
| riffing.
|
| For anyone who hasn't read it, it's worth saying, the first
| three chapters are considerably more abstruse and intimidating
| than the next half dozen or more, because they follow the
| consciousness of an anxious and precocious intellectual young
| man, preoccupied with Ideas, wandering through some awkward
| social moments and having overly intellectual reactions to
| them.
|
| But then you switch to following a middle class businessman
| with a lot "earthier" of interests, and things clear up a lot.
|
| The language can still be "challenging" in a way modern readers
| are not used to, but, it's meant to be enjoyed.
|
| Much of it is actually best heard, as a lot of the "play" is in
| the sound of the language--there is a lot of pun and allusion
| in the way words sound like other words.
|
| Later in the book the two principle characters meet up and go
| drinking in the sketchy part of town and things can
| intentionally surreal as they get inebriated, but, a couple of
| those later chapters are actually among the most
| straightforward to read.
|
| All said it is however true that we're now well over 100 years
| distant from the world presented, so we increasingly need notes
| on things that were in no way meant to be obscure.
|
| There are some excellent books around that serve as guidebooks,
| which can illuminate both those details and the allusions--and
| give you frank advice on which chapters you can skip through.
|
| As to why one would read this, that is just one version of, why
| get a broad liberal arts education at all? The default answer
| remains as true or false as it ever was, it's because that is
| how you become familiar with the assumed fabric of our
| civilization, and become able to understand and participate in
| the discourse of today. There is no end of "issues" with the
| historic canon, but it remains the lingua franca of "serious
| high culture." If you don't have any familiarity with it does
| not mean you aren't living a full life; but it does mean that
| there is a sizable territory of shared public life that is
| closed to you, which might provide a rich set of tools for
| understanding issues that appear permanently part of the human
| condition.
|
| Whatever else is true, the canons we have represent the
| collective curated coursework we have produced which
| recapitulates the intellectual underpinnings of contemporary
| society in most of its aspects, and provide historical
| perspective on the hows and whys of where we are. It is from
| this stuff that contemporary politics, science, religion, art,
| and moral reasoning emerged, for example. We are a lot more
| savvy now but all the deep serious mistakes and flaws of the
| classical canon--but it remains even in this, a common
| territory and a common point of reference.
|
| Anyway, if you want to read just one bit? The "Sirens" chapter
| read aloud is amaze-balls.
| [deleted]
| c_crank wrote:
| I don't agree that contemporary literature in Joyce's time
| was as challenging to read as Ulysses. Many of the typical
| selections presented with Joyce are much easier reads - even
| stuff like Catch 22. The construction of Ulysses and
| Finnegan's Wake especially make it seem that this style of
| writing was deliberate. I can say it makes these books
| unique, as few other authors try and capture the style of the
| mind of a drunk man wandering down the street and then taking
| a piss. But taking that and trying to add it into the serious
| culture of literature makes me skeptical of the curators, who
| seem to have an undue fondness for drunk pissing.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Many of the typical selections presented with Joyce are
| much easier reads - even stuff like Catch 22
|
| Catch 22 is a foundational (practically definitional)
| _postmodern_ work, 40 years separated from Ulysses. I 'm
| not sure what you mean here.
| c_crank wrote:
| I was just thinking of contemporaries in time, not genre.
| Catch 22 stuck in my mind as one of the harder ones to
| read. Kafka is listed as a modernist, but he's dead
| simple.
| ironSkillet wrote:
| Website is rendering without the content for me - anyone else?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Just before the pandemic, I was taking a Stanford Extension class
| on Ulysses. A few students _were_ taking it for credit, but most
| of us were there purely because we wanted to be. I 'd always
| wanted to read it.
|
| The teacher had been teaching that book since the early 70s. We
| had a guidebook to help us through it. We all had a particular
| edition, so the teacher could say "on page 341" and we all could
| go there. Whatever else you can say, this was about as ideal an
| environment as you could wish for.
|
| Meh. I can see it was groundbreaking in its time, but now?
| Outlived its shelf life. Stream-of-consciousness was
| revolutionary, I give him credit, but now it's routine.
|
| Even at the time, Einstein, Freud, and Darwin were
| revolutionizing modern thought, and Joyce was resolutely ignorant
| of them.
|
| People say, "What about all the symbolism? What about all the
| word play?" Again, I say, meh.
|
| _Anna Karenina_ -- now _that 's_ a great novel.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| "one man gathers what another man spills"
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| Out of curiosity: have you read the book?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I did read some Joyce but not much.. I was not hooked on it
| or a fan, myself. The experience of a mature adult reader,
| "seeing the shortcomings of this work" is not particularly
| praise-worthy even if completely true, in my opinion.
| Different personalities and intellects may experience that
| literature at different stages of life, in character
| development themselves, in retrospect... A work of "art"
| let's say.. literature.. is not only the words or the
| story, it is an experience for the reader, and product of
| the author and their team of teams, the printers and
| publishers themselves. It is a toe into "cancel culture" to
| dismiss as trivial or wanting, a work that has in the
| large, affected many people. Maybe every word of that
| review is real, to that person, but it does not much good,
| or show any respect, to spoil it that way.. hence my
| comment
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Your comment seems directed at other people. My comment
| was in no way, shape, or form "cancel culture." I read
| the book with good will and much effort; you did not.
|
| Debates about the continuing worth of a piece of art are
| always relevant and worthwhile. Other people responded
| honestly to the comment. Sorry you can't.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| wait, which part of my comment was not honest?
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| [dead]
| s_dev wrote:
| Why would a English literature expert be expected to be on top
| of the cutting edge of science?
|
| Why is Anna Karenina a great novel?
| gochi wrote:
| [flagged]
| AlbertCory wrote:
| [flagged]
| gochi wrote:
| [flagged]
| mkehrt wrote:
| Interesting. I just finished reading Ulysses with a group of
| friends, and I thought it was a work of absolute fucking
| genius. One of the best things I've ever read--possibly the
| best thing I've ever read--hands down.
|
| It's not just stream of consciousness; it's the way each
| chapter is structured differently, has different themes and
| different form. The stream of consciousness comes and goes--
| some sections are easy, and some are incomprehensible. One
| chapter is a play; one chapter is a series of pastiches of
| different English styles throughout the past millennium; one
| chapter is an absurdly over-erudite lecture on Shakespeare; one
| chapter is an orgasm. I learned a lot about Irish history.
|
| The language is absolutely exquisite with endless onomatopoeia.
| I kept switch back and forth between listening to and reading
| it, or doing both simultaneously.
|
| It was incredibly hard to get through and absolutely amazing.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Yeah, I've heard all that. Also struggled through the part
| where he says the same thing in 14 different styles (if
| that's the number).
|
| Impressive and I'm sure it was difficult as hell to write,
| but what do you, the reader, get out of it? Some deeper
| understanding of the human condition? Please.
| viscanti wrote:
| > but what do you, the reader, get out of it? Some deeper
| understanding of the human condition? Please.
|
| Certainly there are some chapters/styles where he's playing
| for the critics. But I thought it did a brilliant job of
| creating a modernist hero (e.g Bloom snuggling his wife's
| butt and her farting in his face). For me, the most
| impactful part was showing Bloom from so many different
| perspectives. Seeing him in less heroic settings (like what
| he does on the beach) or from his wife's perspective gives
| him depth you rarely see in literature. It's ultimately a
| story about nothing, so if you're not into a hyper-stylized
| prose based exploration of Bloom, then it won't be for you.
| I think the challenging aspects can work to force a reader
| to think more critically about some parts (just so they can
| make it through and understand what they're reading) and
| connect with things in a way most books won't ever engage a
| reader. Lots of readers do find some deeper understanding
| of the human condition, but it won't be for everyone,
| especially someone who cares more for a plot than an
| experiment in narrative structure exploring a flawed
| modernist hero.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| OK, good answer, thanks.
|
| For me, I don't think characters have to be "likable" or
| even "hate-able" but I do like to find them interesting.
| I found I wasn't interested in any of the three main
| characters.
| viscanti wrote:
| Yeah, it sounds like you prefer plot or character
| development. I don't know that Bloom is supposed to be
| super interesting (not much interesting happens because
| it's a relatively mundane regular day). My take was that
| it was more of a philosophical exploration of an everyman
| and what makes him tick, with a lot of experimental prose
| styles. Some of the novelty has faded over the years as
| it's pretty common to see flawed characters (we had a
| whole modernist and then post-modernist movement after -
| and arguably highly influenced by - Ulysses). The things
| that would have shocked readers when the book came out
| would no longer shock readers today, but for some, the
| psychological exploration of Bloom and his relationships
| still holds up.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > it sounds like you prefer plot or character development
|
| hmm. I don't know if I'd call _Anna_ a plot or character
| novel, but certainly the characters do exemplify moral
| and /or religious themes, against the backdrop of Russian
| society. And there certainly IS a plot :)
|
| A writer I particularly admire is Dickens, who could give
| you two pages on some minor character and make him or her
| absolutely unforgettable. Although I can't name one, but
| maybe not so unforgettable /s
| c_crank wrote:
| What's the benefit of writing any story in this format,
| instead of just making a story that is just a really good
| Shakespearean play, or a really good pastiche of some era,
| or...?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > What's the benefit of writing any story...
|
| My point exactly. It was difficult, it was an impressive
| feat, it was ground-breaking, but in the end what do you
| get out of reading it?
| pjungwir wrote:
| In that case you might enjoy _On Moral Fiction_ by John
| Gardner. _Anna Karenina_ is his favorite example of a good
| novel, and he disparages the things you are meh about in
| _Ulysses_.
|
| I general I agree with you, but to me _Anna Karenina_ was sooo
| boring. Maybe I just wasn 't ready for it. _David Copperfield_
| or anything by Dostoevsky are more for me.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| _Anna_ was boring for you? OK.
|
| I have a different book by John Gardner.
| throwawayixnay wrote:
| [dead]
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Joyce never intended for the book to only be read by university
| professors - he was a man of the people and intended for the book
| to be read by ordinary people. Still a guide is kinda necessary
| when tackling it.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Joyce never intended for the book to only be read by
| university professors - he was a man of the people and intended
| for the book to be read by ordinary people.
|
| Honestly, he intended the work to be read aloud publicly, in
| the same vein of epic storytelling as The Odyssey. There's even
| a recording of him reading a few pages, it's absolutely
| mesmerizing: https://youtu.be/ZhW0TrzWGmI
| c_crank wrote:
| He horribly misjudged what ordinary people enjoy, then.
| twoodfin wrote:
| The RTE radio production is essentially word-for-word complete,
| fully cast & wonderfully performed. It's my recommended on ramp
| to the novel for anyone intimidated by the prose style.
|
| Ironically (intentionally?), Joyce simultaneously wrote
| wonderfully for the spoken word form, but insisted on
| typography that makes who's saying what often obscure.
|
| https://www.rte.ie/culture/2022/0610/1146705-listen-ulysses-...
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| [dead]
| mackrevinack wrote:
| i must check that out when i get home.
|
| frank delaney did short podcasts every week where he went
| through a few lines at a time. he never got to finish the
| full book unfortunately but its what i usually recommend to
| people because its very casual and easy to listen to
| icepat wrote:
| > Still a guide is kinda necessary when tackling it
|
| I've always disagreed with this idea that you need a "guide" to
| read some books. Guided reading inspires a _specific_ reading
| of the book, which may not always be the reading that speaks
| most to the reader. To me it 's equivalent to taking a walk
| with a geologist, or a biologist, through a natural park. While
| you will certainly see aspects you would not have picked up
| without them, you may expend so much absorbing these specifics
| that you neglect the aspects that speak most to you.
|
| In university, I remember many professors dismissing some of my
| favorite books as "requiring guidance" to read. The thinly
| veiled implication was that they were lost on me. Which is
| rather silly. Instead of looking for the specific academic
| aspects of the books (which were indeed lost on me, and still
| are), the aspects of the books which I took the most away from
| were non-academic.
| lotophage wrote:
| I only recently discovered his letter to Nora Barnacle professing
| his fondness of her farts. Quite possibly the funniest thing that
| I have ever read, although I did feel a tinge of guilt since it
| was never intended for the public.
| bambax wrote:
| > _The final twist: Benoist-Mechin grew into a prominence of his
| own as a historian and journalist who enthusiastically
| collaborated with Nazi Germany's takeover of France in World War
| II. He was condemned to death as a traitor after the war and
| eventually had his sentence commuted after seven years in
| prison._
|
| In total, Benoist-Mechin was interned for 10 years: arrested in
| Sept. 44, sentenced in June 47 and released in Nov. 54. He went
| on to write well-respected history books; I have read a couple of
| them. I knew about his conduct during WWII but never knew he was
| friends with Joyce.
| DC-3 wrote:
| > including Joyce's notation that the book was based on "The
| Odyssey," without which the world might never have noticed the
| connection
|
| Given that 'Ulysses' is the Roman name for Odysseus, I think we
| might've worked it out :p
| [deleted]
| twoodfin wrote:
| I'm guessing this was a bit of dry humor.
|
| It's interesting to speculate on the most efficient argument
| that _Ulysses_ takes "The Odyssey" as its primary source
| material purely founded on the text minus the title.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-27 23:02 UTC)