Happy birthday, Molly Bloom
Jorn Barger
Marion Tweedy (aka Molly Bloom) was born in either 1870 or 1871. (My
theory is that she gets her age right, and Poldy gets it wrong, contrary
to the patriarchal reading.)
In 1907, James announced his decision to completely rewrite "Stephen
Hero" as what would become "A Portrait". (My theory is that after
leaving Ireland at the end of 1904, he embarked on a self-study course
in the modern novel, especially Flaubert, quickly realising that SH was
not nearly as avant-garde as he'd thought.)
In 1909, James was in Dublin, hanging with JF Byrne (aka Cranly). He
skipped the wedding of his possibly-old-flame Mary Sheehy to Thomas
Kettle, and later that night returning to Byrne's flat at 7 Eccles,
watched Byrne drop into the 'area', since he'd forgotten the key.
j
--
I EDIT THE NET: <URL:http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/html/weblogs/weblog.html>
"One of the best collections of news and musings culled from the Web --
and updated daily." -- Austin Bunn in the Village Voice, 8 Sept 1998
Finn MacCool
jo...@mcs.com (Jorn Barger) wrote:
>In 1907, James announced his decision to completely rewrite
>"Stephen Hero" as what would become "A Portrait". (My theory
>is that after leaving Ireland at the end of 1904, he embarked
>on a self-study course in the modern novel, especially
>Flaubert, quickly realising that SH was not nearly as
>avant-garde as he'd thought.)
I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
revolutionary at the time?
Walter Schmid
>
>
>
> I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
> revolutionary at the time?
Read "Madame Bovary", one of the 5 best books of all times,
says the German critic pope Marcel Reich-Ranicki.
Walter Schmid
Jorn Barger
> > revolutionary at the time?
I don't claim to know much about pre-WW2 lit, but the way I hear it, he
took prose to a new level of poetic realism.
Finn MacCool
Walter Schmid <schm...@datacomm.ch> wrote:
>Finn MacCool schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
>> revolutionary at the time?
>
>Read "Madame Bovary", one of the 5 best books of all times,
>says the German critic pope Marcel Reich-Ranicki.
>
Sorry, I don't have time right now. Could you tell me why
Herr Reich-Ranicki thinks it's so revolutionary (i.e., answer
my original question)?
Francis Muir
>
> Some idiot:
> >
> > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
> > > revolutionary at the time?
>
> took prose to a new level of poetic realism.
>
who has not. Give us a fucking break, Jorn.
Francis
Francis Muir
>
> Jorn Barger:
>
> > Someone:
> > >
> : > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
> : > > revolutionary at the time?
>
> : I don't claim to know much about pre-WW2 lit, but the way I hear it,
>: he took prose to a new level of poetic realism.
>
> obscenity trial...
>
Our English readers might consider reading Enid Starkie's *Flaubert*
(1967) which should still be available in university libraries. It is, in
English, the definitive biography and bibliography.
Francis
JEFFREY T. RUUD
>
> This is a rather red-letter day for Joyceana:
>
> Marion Tweedy (aka Molly Bloom) was born in either 1870 or 1871. (My
> theory is that she gets her age right, and Poldy gets it wrong, contrary
> to the patriarchal reading.)
>
> Hero" as what would become "A Portrait". (My theory is that after
> leaving Ireland at the end of 1904, he embarked on a self-study course
> in the modern novel, especially Flaubert, quickly realising that SH was
> not nearly as avant-garde as he'd thought.)
>
> skipped the wedding of his possibly-old-flame Mary Sheehy to Thomas
> Kettle, and later that night returning to Byrne's flat at 7 Eccles,
> watched Byrne drop into the 'area', since he'd forgotten the key.
And don't forget his moving into the Martello Tower with Oliver Gogarty.
> j
> --
> I EDIT THE NET: <URL:http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/html/weblogs/weblog.html>
> "One of the best collections of news and musings culled from the Web --
> and updated daily." -- Austin Bunn in the Village Voice, 8 Sept 1998
--
Jordan Ruud |"The episode closes in the manner of a
jruudat...@sprintmail.com |dithyrambic American superhot-gospeller
Flames, spam and stupidity |canvassing conversion with a punch in it...
will be ignored. |Thus, after long labour, from precedent to
------------------------------ precedent, the mountains have brought forth-
a grinning golliwog, enfant terrible, the language of the future. Hoopsa,
boyaboy, hoopsa!" -Stuart Gilbert, "James Joyce's Ulysses".
MT
<<I don't claim to know much about pre-WW2 lit, but the way I hear it,
he took prose to a new level of poetic realism.>>
He started a new profession, which some Spanish wag or other called
"literalatoso" (literally, litera-bore). The requirements to be met in
order to gain admission into the profession are strict:
1) Your storytelling ability must be negligible.
2) You must write every day, and keep everything.
3) If at any point in the course of writing a book you find yourself
acquiring said ability to some discernible degree, you must write "The
End", consider that volume finished and start a new volume.
4) Iterate the above.
It's a tough profession, but it's comforting to know that, through
diligent study and incessant practice, many novelists today have managed
not only to master literalatosis but even to perfect, extend, and
re-energize this noblest of activities. The professional literary bore
is alive and well.
Short pass to Harter.
Mo'Fun,
MrT
not-Francis Muir
Francis Muir <fra...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Some idiot:
>> >
>> > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
>> > > revolutionary at the time?
>>
>Our English readers might consider reading Enid Starkie's
>*Flaubert* (1967) which should still be available in
>university libraries. It is, in English, the definitive
>biography and bibliography.
>Francis
Why is this person an idiot? For admitting that he
hasn't read Flaubert?
Why don't you provide some useful personal perspectives
on Flaubert's work (if you have any), instead of
resorting to contempt -- and then only referring
people to another critical work?
Are you an idiot? Please answer the questions or
please go away in your own cloud of intellectual
flatulence.
Thanks.
Francis Muir
>
> Francis Muir:
> >>
> >> Some idiot:
> >> >
> >> > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
> >> > > revolutionary at the time?
> >>
>
> > Our English readers might consider reading Enid Starkie's
> > *Flaubert* (1967) which should still be available in
> > university libraries. It is, in English, the definitive
> > biography and bibliography.
> >
> hasn't read Flaubert?
>
Flaubert.
F
don_...@kvo.com
jo...@mcs.com (Jorn Barger) wrote:
> > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
> > > revolutionary at the time?
>
> took prose to a new level of poetic realism.
Or did he take poetry to a new level of prosaic fantasy?
Don (smiley implied)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Richard Harter
>Jorn:
><<I don't claim to know much about pre-WW2 lit, but the way I hear it,
>he took prose to a new level of poetic realism.>>
>He started a new profession, which some Spanish wag or other called
>"literalatoso" (literally, litera-bore). The requirements to be met in
>order to gain admission into the profession are strict:
>1) Your storytelling ability must be negligible.
>2) You must write every day, and keep everything.
>3) If at any point in the course of writing a book you find yourself
>acquiring said ability to some discernible degree, you must write "The
>End", consider that volume finished and start a new volume.
>4) Iterate the above.
>It's a tough profession, but it's comforting to know that, through
>diligent study and incessant practice, many novelists today have managed
>not only to master literalatosis but even to perfect, extend, and
>re-energize this noblest of activities. The professional literary bore
>is alive and well.
>Short pass to Harter.
I dunno, it seems to me that you've already made the slam dunk.
ObNotabooks: _Word Carving With An Axe_, _Writing Literary Classics For
Dummies_
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
With friends like these who needs enemies.
Tess Anderson
> > Why is this person an idiot? For admitting that he
> > hasn't read Flaubert?
> >
> No, for stating in a later post that he had no intention of reading
> Flaubert.
>
This makes a person an idiot? I have read Flaubert and got a lot of sleep
in the process, though not as much as I got reading Proust. Frankly, I
don't see what the fuss is about, and I have no intention of wasting any
more life re-reading him.
David Heath
Susan Rankin
: Jorn Barger (jo...@mcs.com) wrote:
: : > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
: : > > revolutionary at the time?
: : took prose to a new level of poetic realism.
: obscenity trial...
I thought it was his approach to sexual politics...
Susan R.
Walter Schmid
>
>
> >
> >Read "Madame Bovary", one of the 5 best books of all times,
> >says the German critic pope Marcel Reich-Ranicki.
> >
>
> Sorry, I don't have time right now. Could you tell me why
> Herr Reich-Ranicki thinks it's so revolutionary (i.e., answer
> my original question)?
o.k. you are lazy and I shall be busy 4 u ;-)
But I have no quotation of Reich-Ranicki. I'll give some
quotations of Nabokov (retranslated from German):
"In the stylistic view it's prose achieves what one expects from
poetry" --> Ulysses
"it is obscene"
"it was prosecuted"
"I, (Nabokov) have not the opinion that James Joyce, despite
superficial novelties, reached farther than Flaubert."
(but this is *not* my opinion!)
You must read it, or stop asking questions about literature,
sorry. ;-)
Regards
Walter Schmid
Jorn Barger
> And don't forget his moving into the Martello Tower with Oliver Gogarty.
I have that as 9 Sept...
David E Latane
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Francis Muir wrote:
> Jorn Barger:
> >
> > Some idiot:
> > >
> > > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
> > > > revolutionary at the time?
> >
> > I don't claim to know much about pre-WW2 lit, but the way I hear it, he
> > took prose to a new level of poetic realism.
> >
> Advice on Flaubert to one who will not read him from another
> who has not. Give us a fucking break, Jorn.
>
> Francis
Reminds me of Blackadder "Queen of Spain's Beard" and the stone of
Galviston.
Personally, I think the cult of Flaubert's "revolutionary" prose was
started by H. James and then the Modernists as a way of whacking at the
great Victorian novelists so that they could make some room for
themselves. Besides, it was cooler to ape a frog, so to speak. M. Arnold
told 'em so. Not that Flaubert ain't a good read.
D. Latane
Jorn Barger
> Advice on Flaubert to one who will not read him from another
> who has not. Give us a fucking break, Jorn.
Some subtle points of net.discourse, for someone I expected better of:
- Just changing the subjectline should have been recognised as a
sufficient positive contribution, because it invited better-informed
readers to join the thread
- Plainly stating one's weaknesses (as I did) should also be welcomed
generously, for healthy communication, but this unfortunately seems to
be taken instead, here, as an opportunity for attack
- The topic was how his discovery of Flaubert affected Joyce. No other
Joycean has even noted the evidence that Joyce's fabled mastery of
literature, during his university years, was a sham. (Anticipating the
question: the strongest evidence comes from collating his literary
allusions during that period.)
- I greatly admire Madame Bovary *in translation* and have made modest
efforts to compare various translations with the original, using my high
school French. I've also read Sentimental Education, and attempted
several others, and several critical works. While many rabbists might
posture grandiosely from such a foundation, I consider it extremely
flimsy. (Lit crit is 99% bunk.)
- Most importantly, to comment on an author's _historical influence_
requires vastly more expertise than just reading that author-- one also
has to know in enormous detail what the state of literature was when the
author arrived on the scene. It was this factor I was acknowledging
near-perfect ignorance of.
grrr...
j
Finn MacCool
Francis Muir <fra...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>not-Francis Muir:
>>
>> Francis Muir:
>> >>
>> >> Some idiot:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I don't know much about Flaubert. Why was he so
>> >> > > revolutionary at the time?
>> >>
>>
>> >Our English readers might consider reading Enid Starkie's
>> >*Flaubert* (1967) which should still be available in
>> >university libraries. It is, in English, the definitive
>> >biography and bibliography.
>> >
>> Why is this person an idiot? For admitting that he
>> hasn't read Flaubert?
>>
>No, for stating in a later post that he had no intention of
>reading Flaubert.
I guess I must resemble the idiot in question. All I said was
that I don't have the time right now to read him. You still
haven't explained why he was (or is) so revolutionary.
In the meantime would you give us a detailed exegesis on the
influences of Flaubert in FINNEGANS WAKE?
You still haven't answered the question about whether you're
an idiot. Please give examples.
Jorn Barger
> In the meantime would you give us a detailed exegesis on the
> influences of Flaubert in FINNEGANS WAKE?
If you compare "Stephen Hero" (before Flaubert) with "A Portrait"
(after), you should see a much more careful arrangement of words, each
contributing to the vividness of the scene. In SH (which I admire
enormously) there are still many conventional literary formulae, and
obvious phrases used where a greater effort would have found brilliant
ones.
Following this trend thru Ulysses to FW, I think we see Joyce mastering
the underlying laws of this craft, creating effects in FW that simply
defy analysis by any published theory of language.
SubGenius
Jorn Barger (jo...@mcs.com) wrote:
: If you compare "Stephen Hero" (before Flaubert) with "A Portrait"
: (after), you should see a much more careful arrangement of words, each
: contributing to the vividness of the scene. In SH (which I admire
: enormously) there are still many conventional literary formulae, and
: obvious phrases used where a greater effort would have found brilliant
: ones.
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
Explain why `(before Flaubert)' and `(after)' should be preferred to,
say, `(earlier draft)' and `(later)'.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNfco30OoGXQKy1gNAQGLfgQAmBFOkvkIehrhkRM7cWEWVOXG7YlDhyHd
Q6eU6fsgxoZdNq5EoHud/jBrKEBLKNgAdWi1r8TcorDxYoYbxvYCbWkSitCKcJkA
39iULiT2dI6dzXINr/N+/4nOBu1jY4RZ0w/2VxuBhKDhIZNFmLQaaEcRXZgstkMb
TN25Cipqr6g=
=T1NU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jorn Barger
> : (after), you should see a much more careful arrangement of words, each
> say, `(earlier draft)' and `(later)'.
You have to look at Joyce's life in detail.
1) the references he makes to lit suggest very limited reading pre-exile
2) thru 1904, he was writing SH at a comparatively rapid rate.
3) in exile, he started reading modern novels very intensely-- flaubert,
james, etc.
4) work on SH slowed and stopped
5) in 1907, after more than a year of no work on SH, he declares he'll
rewrite it
where's that anecdote of the young writer very proud of his first novel,
and the cynical publisher tells him the plot without reading it
(sensitive young boy suffers thru sadistic school-life, discovers self
in art, etc etc etc), and the writer just tosses it?
SubGenius
Jorn Barger (jo...@mcs.com) wrote:
: > : If you compare "Stephen Hero" (before Flaubert) with "A Portrait"
: > : (after), you should see a much more careful arrangement of words, each
: > Explain why `(before Flaubert)' and `(after)' should be preferred to,
: > say, `(earlier draft)' and `(later)'.
: You have to look at Joyce's life in detail.
: 1) the references he makes to lit suggest very limited reading pre-exile
: 2) thru 1904, he was writing SH at a comparatively rapid rate.
: 3) in exile, he started reading modern novels very intensely-- flaubert,
: james, etc.
: 4) work on SH slowed and stopped
: 5) in 1907, after more than a year of no work on SH, he declares he'll
: rewrite it
: where's that anecdote of the young writer very proud of his first novel,
: and the cynical publisher tells him the plot without reading it
: (sensitive young boy suffers thru sadistic school-life, discovers self
: in art, etc etc etc), and the writer just tosses it?
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
This appears to be an answer to my question only by virtue of
typographical proximity and placement.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNftZJEOoGXQKy1gNAQEg3wQAm7OdfUq7ERfGjFhsiSZFTc1sKhOLyVC5
4M7FKfGSiKs2h5Fbhyfo/4sHxBfCewqj2dpHyPFiwfBK43LFdtN4pUyMSxRdh1Tw
dot9xLINOPIygdoc4A5l6iF6in5L5LWWyselv7oC0yVmdoSqgS2ukt/IYmyiqCPV
IEdXcF3QmKI=
=19Ae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
t24h...@my-dejanews.com
MT <matr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>literary bore
>is alive and well.
I'd ate that Joist book, d'ye hear me, I'D FUCKIN ATE that Joist book before
I'd read it.
mamalujo