Ulysses
DanS.
deem...@aol.com
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
Blech
Zaphod Beeblebrox
11/11/2009 8:36 PM???
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
Unless you're in high school and got this as an assignment, I strongly
suggest that you eschew this in favor of Hustler.
>
sam
DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
It's great, but only the second time you read it.
s
deem...@aol.com
> In article <hdfoql$q4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>
> > by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
> It's great, but only the second time you read it.
>
> s
You, sir, are a cruel, cruel man.
DanS.
the words together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
> On Nov 11, 8:49ï¿œpm, sam <nos...@nospam.spam> wrote:
>> In article <hdfoql$q4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's great, but only the second time you read it.
>>
>> s
>
> You, sir, are a cruel, cruel man.
Well, its supposed to be the perfect example of modernist English
literature. I like Hemingway and Faulkner, Steinbeck and ol'
whats-his-name (the playwrite dude). Why would this be so bad? What's
6 or 7 hundred pages?
deem...@aol.com
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> deemsb...@aol.com, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all
> the words together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
>
> >> In article <hdfoql$q4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
> >> It's great, but only the second time you read it.
>
> >> s
>
> > You, sir, are a cruel, cruel man.
>
> Well, its supposed to be the perfect example of modernist English
> literature. I like Hemingway and Faulkner, Steinbeck and ol'
> whats-his-name (the playwrite dude). Why would this be so bad? What's
> 6 or 7 hundred pages?
Steinbeck, Hemingway, and Faulkner are all good. Joyce is, uh,
different. You'll either love him or hate him......I'm betting on the
latter.
Jaybyrd
there is actually a festival for this book, I presume it's in
Ireland. NPR did a story on it and most of the people they
interviewed admitted they didn't understand the book. I recommend
watching a more understandable and concrete movie, like erasurehead.
jw
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
Why not just jump right in the deep end and read Finnegan's Wake.
Seriously, about the only Joyce books you don't have to study to read,
is Dubliners and Portrait. A professor of mine in college called
Finnegan's Wake 'intellectual masturbation.'
--
jw
Pauli G
that's top notch bathroom reading.
sam
0b6e2b...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, rio...@hotmail.com says...
Bloom is sitting on the can in one chapter.
s
sam
nota...@emailaddress.com says...
Finnegan's Wake is impossible.
s
Pauli G
> In article <cd943d97-f466-4890-98dc-
> 0b6e2bd68...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, rior...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 8:36 pm, DanS.
> > <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
> > that's top notch bathroom reading.
>
> Bloom is sitting on the can in one chapter.
>
> s
Pauli is sitting on the can for the entire book.
sam
@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, rio...@hotmail.com says...
Cool.
s
DanS.
> <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> by James Joyce. ï¿œto read or not to read? ï¿œIt's a heck of a committment.
>
> that's top notch bathroom reading.
I'm 4 pages in so far. It makes little sense, but there's a lot of
imigary and emotional ebb and flow.
If the whole book is like this, then, its romanticism on steroids. Is
that it?
Pauli G
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pauli G, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the words
> together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
>
> > <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
> > that's top notch bathroom reading.
>
> I'm 4 pages in so far. It makes little sense, but there's a lot of
> imigary and emotional ebb and flow.
>
> If the whole book is like this, then, its romanticism on steroids. Is
> that it?
it makes a lot more sense when you're about to give anal birth to a
brick.
sam
DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> Pauli G, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the words
> together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
> > <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
> >
> > that's top notch bathroom reading.
>
> I'm 4 pages in so far. It makes little sense, but there's a lot of
> imigary and emotional ebb and flow.
>
> If the whole book is like this, then, its romanticism on steroids. Is
> that it?
Yeah, that's about right.
s
stephenJ
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
NOT to read. Written in incomprehensible, atonal dialect that critics
think is manna from heaven but is just ...tripe.
--
It is easier to win over people to pacifism than socialism.
We should work first for pacifism, and only later for socialism.
- Albert Einstein
Pauli G
he's no Stephen King, that's for darn sure.
stephenJ
king sucks, too. except for a few short stories and the book that was
butchered by kubrick.
--
Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
- J. Fowles
unclejr
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
Now, I don't want this to scare ya
But my bunkmate has malaria
Do you remember Jeffrey Hardy?
They're about to organize a searching party
-Junior
DanS.
> In article <hdg18f$h7m$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net says...
>>
>> Pauli G, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the words
>> together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
>>> <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> by James Joyce. ï¿œto read or not to read? ï¿œIt's a heck of a committment.
>>>
>>> that's top notch bathroom reading.
>>
>> I'm 4 pages in so far. It makes little sense, but there's a lot of
>> imigary and emotional ebb and flow.
>>
>> If the whole book is like this, then, its romanticism on steroids. Is
>> that it?
>
> Yeah, that's about right.
>
> s
It's got a lot of levels to it. Life, death, anger, fear all in one
paragraph ... but geez is it tedious.
Dave Christian
I've already made the decision that as I go through life reading all the
books on my list, Ulysses will be the last one before I die.
Michael Press
DanS. <DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
Sure. read it. Every chapter is a new beginning,
hence a challenge to get your bearings.
Here is a crib sheet.
<http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/>
--
Michael Press
Daniel Edwards
news:hdfoql$q4m$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a
> committment.
>
>
Consider listening to it via podcast, rather than chugging through it
on your own. (Note that the podcast I'm listening to, paigerella's
podcast on iTunes, has been going along for 82 episodes over several
years and seems to be tailing off a bit this year, as she finally
apporaches the end. She seems to have Gotten a Life.) See also
Librivox, if you're looking for just-the-book without as much
commentary.
--
Daniel Edwards
Memphis, TN
Randolph M. Jones
> sam, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the words
> together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
>> In article <hdg18f$h7m$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net says...
>>>
>>> Pauli G, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the
>>> words together as I was on 11/11/2009 in saying:
>>>> <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a
>>>>> committment.
>>>>
>>>> that's top notch bathroom reading.
>>>
>>> I'm 4 pages in so far. It makes little sense, but there's a lot of
>>> imigary and emotional ebb and flow.
>>>
>>> If the whole book is like this, then, its romanticism on steroids.
>>> Is that it?
>>
>> Yeah, that's about right.
>>
>> s
>
> It's got a lot of levels to it. Life, death, anger, fear all in one
> paragraph ... but geez is it tedious.
>
>
I've never read it, but I've seen an analysis suggesting that Joyce was
attempting with this book to exhaustively enumerate all the different
types of relationships people can have with each other. Sort of a
formal analysis of humanity, but translated from analysis into prose
(and Joyce prose, at that), basically making it something that needs to
be studied rather than read to get the full effect.
sam
rjo...@soartech.com says...
Hey, you're kind of like Mianderson, who gives expert opinions of
football games without watching them.
s
The BorgMan
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
>
Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
If that statement scares you, the answer to your question is no.
--
Aaron
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
and you've summed it up.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
> Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
Not if you're smart, which might explain the "love it or hate it" thing.
--Tedward
Tom Enright
> In article <hdfoql$q4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> > by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
> I've already made the decision that as I go through life reading all the
> books on my list, Ulysses will be the last one before I die.
Hence the question: Who is buried in Ulysses' tomb?
-Tom Enright
Ben Stewart
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
Not sure if it's still available, but yesterday Amazon had a free
Kindle for the PC down load. There are about 25-30 classics that you
can download for nuthin'. I believe Ulysses was one of them.
I wouldn't want to read a whole book that way, but you could read a
chapter or two to see if you dig it.
BillyZoom
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
In my opinion, an incredible waste of time. I regret every second of
it.
DanS.
words together as I was on 11/12/2009 in saying:
> On Nov 11, 8:36ï¿œpm, DanS.
> <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> by James Joyce. ï¿œto read or not to read? ï¿œIt's a heck of a committment.
>
> In my opinion, an incredible waste of time. I regret every second of
> it.
Well, I have to read Valle-Inclï¿œn for a Spanish class, and they say
he's the Spanish equivalent of Joyce. If his stuff is anything like
what I've read of Ulysses so far, I'm either very scrood or I can just
go to class and say about anything and be right. Time will tell.
BillyZoom
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> BillyZoom, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the
> words together as I was on 11/12/2009 in saying:
>
> > <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
> > In my opinion, an incredible waste of time. I regret every second of
> > it.
>
> he's the Spanish equivalent of Joyce. If his stuff is anything like
> what I've read of Ulysses so far, I'm either very scrood or I can just
> go to class and say about anything and be right. Time will tell.
Dood! You can read spanish?
My uncle taught himself to read german. Then he read Agatha Christie
books in german. Explain that.
Michael Press
<f2249c4b-70c2-46c9...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Stewart <benjs...@msn.com> wrote:
<http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4300>
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<2100241c-a4a9-43ac...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
BillyZoom <meda...@gmail.com> wrote:
Masochist.
--
Michael Press
BillyZoom
> In article
> <2100241c-a4a9-43ac-a17f-72f8f9e08...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
That covers the Agatha Christie part, but why toss the German in
there? That's some fucked up shit.
sw...@yahoo.com
<DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>
Do you grok The Wasteland ?
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>>
>
> Do you grok The Wasteland ?
A common mistake -- It's really called "Baba O'Riley".
--Tedward
Michael Press
<c8bf605e-b372-4a9a...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
BillyZoom <meda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 4:23 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2100241c-a4a9-43ac-a17f-72f8f9e08...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BillyZoom <medav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 12, 2:34 pm, DanS.
> > > <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > BillyZoom, I've never been so impressed by your ability put all the
> > > > words together as I was on 11/12/2009 in saying:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 11, 8:36 pm, DanS.
> > > > > <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
> >
> > > > > In my opinion, an incredible waste of time. I regret every second of
> > > > > it.
> >
> > > > Well, I have to read Valle-Inclán for a Spanish class, and they say
> > > > he's the Spanish equivalent of Joyce. If his stuff is anything like
> > > > what I've read of Ulysses so far, I'm either very scrood or I can just
> > > > go to class and say about anything and be right. Time will tell.
> >
> > > Dood! You can read spanish?
> >
> > > My uncle taught himself to read german. Then he read Agatha Christie
> > > books in german. Explain that.
> >
> > Masochist.
>
> That covers the Agatha Christie part,
There was a hateful, bitter old trot.
> but why toss the German in
> there? That's some fucked up shit.
As Mickey Spillane says "It's a mystery to me."
--
Michael Press
Randolph M. Jones
I guess. I didn't mean to suggest it was *my* analysis. Sorry, I
thought I had made that clear.
The BorgMan
@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
Pynchon and Joyce are both overly verbose and obtuse.
Getting it is a matter of intelligence, enjoying it isn't.
--
Aaron
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
>>>
>>> Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
>>
>> Not if you're smart, which might explain the "love it or hate it" thing.
>
> Pynchon and Joyce are both overly verbose and obtuse.
>
> Getting it is a matter of intelligence, enjoying it isn't.
You won't enjoy it if you don't get it. People who don't
have to strain their brain enjoy it better.
--Tedward
The BorgMan
I agree... understanding is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for
enjoyment.
I understood it fine. I still hated it. I mean, it wasn't Joseph Conrad
awful - but it sucked.
--
Aaron
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>>>>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a
>>>>>> committment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
>>>>
>>>> Not if you're smart, which might explain the "love it or hate it"
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Pynchon and Joyce are both overly verbose and obtuse.
>>>
>>> Getting it is a matter of intelligence, enjoying it isn't.
>>
>> You won't enjoy it if you don't get it. People who don't
>> have to strain their brain enjoy it better.
>
> I agree... understanding is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for
> enjoyment.
Jabberwocky notwithstanding...
> I understood it fine. I still hated it. I mean, it wasn't Joseph Conrad
> awful - but it sucked.
I still think most people who hate it didn't get it.
--Tedward
The BorgMan
Eh... I don't think you could even find all that many people with a real
strong opinion either way. It just didn't do anything for me... for some
reason it sort of reminded of the ultra ego exercise that is _Look
Homeward, Angel_
--
Aaron
RaginPage
wrote:
That's a common thought for people that enjoy a certain play, movie,
piece of art, or book. However, once you can actually think outside
your own limited set of experiences and realize that different people
have different tastes, you can at least accept that there are
certainly people that "got it" that hated it, even if you refuse to
admit that it is the majority.
Brent
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> >>>>>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a
> >>>>>> committment.
>
> >>>>> Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
>
> >>>> Not if you're smart, which might explain the "love it or hate it"
> >>>> thing.
>
> >>> Pynchon and Joyce are both overly verbose and obtuse.
>
> >>> Getting it is a matter of intelligence, enjoying it isn't.
>
> >> You won't enjoy it if you don't get it. People who don't
> >> have to strain their brain enjoy it better.
>
> > I agree... understanding is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
> > for
> > enjoyment.
>
> Jabberwocky notwithstanding...
>
> > I understood it fine. I still hated it. I mean, it wasn't Joseph Conrad
> > awful - but it sucked.
>
> I still think most people who hate it didn't get it.
<
<That's a common thought for people that enjoy a certain play, movie,
<piece of art, or book.
That's not really true for all but art.
<However, once you can actually think outside
<your own limited set of experiences and realize that different people
<have different tastes, you can at least accept that there are
<certainly people that "got it" that hated it,
Got it.
<even if you refuse to admit that it is the majority.
Your average student wouldn't "get" Ulysses if it weren't
for the class discussion. Below average students still
wouldn't get it.
--Tedward
RaginPage
wrote:
> "RaginPage" <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote
Maybe, maybe not. How certain are you, that you "got" Ulysses?
There are brilliant writers that simply don't have good stories to
share. And other times simply because something resonates with you,
does not mean that was what the author intended.
Brent
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
What the author intended doesn't matter if it is there. Shakespear
is the classic example -- he has several running themes throughout
his plays that experts are pretty sure were unconcious (one was about
dogs). So even though he didn't intend them, you can still get write
your PhD thesis on it if you find a new one.
--Tedward
RaginPage
wrote:
> "RaginPage" <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote
You can write a PhD thesis on anything you want to write it on. You
can assert anything you want about any writer. It doesn't mean you
"get it". To assert that there are unconcious themes presumes that
you know someone's work better than they know it, and that is pretty
absurd.
I remember in one English class, writing a dark comedy that prompted
all kinds of discussion. They debated whether certain things
represented a messianic figure, or just what my intent was. I told
them I wrote it as entertainment. Nothing less, nothing more.
College professors in the English Department hate students like me,
but I do think they need a reality check once in a while. It's fine
to appreciate something, but don't assume that someone else who
doesn't care for it, is incapable of appreciating it.
Brent
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
meant to put any deeper meaning in his work or make social commentary.
All those English scholars who thinks it's obvious are just deluding
themselves.
--Tedward
"RaginPage" <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote
RaginPage
wrote:
> I guess you're right. Shakespeare was just an entertainer who never
> meant to put any deeper meaning in his work or make social commentary.
> All those English scholars who thinks it's obvious are just deluding
> themselves.
>
I didn't say that, and I certainly wasn't specifically commenting on
Shakespeare. The fact that you assumed that from reading my post
without it actually being there, sort of makes my point for me.
Brent
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> I guess you're right. Shakespeare was just an entertainer who never
> meant to put any deeper meaning in his work or make social commentary.
> All those English scholars who thinks it's obvious are just deluding
> themselves.
<
<I didn't say that, and I certainly wasn't specifically commenting on
<Shakespeare. The fact that you assumed that from reading my post
<without it actually being there, sort of makes my point for me.
So if you try to write a horror film and it turns out to be campy
and everyone who watches it thinks its a comedy, it isn't really
funny but is scary because that's what the writer intended.
--Tedward
RaginPage
wrote:
> "RaginPage" <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote
You are trying, way, way too hard.
I guarantee you one thing, the writer certainly wouldn't think that
you "got it". Which seemed to be the main point you were making with
Ulysses. Now you seem to be arguing that the author wouldn't even be
the best person to judge whether or not you "got it", which is absurd.
Brent
Michael Press
"The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com> wrote:
What was the name of Lady Macbeth's dog?
--
Michael Press
The BorgMan
news:hdkf1g$t42$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
> "RaginPage" <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> >>>>>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a
>> >>>>>> committment.
>>
>> >>>>> Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
>>
>> >>>> Not if you're smart, which might explain the "love it or hate
>> >>>> it" thing.
>>
>> >>> Pynchon and Joyce are both overly verbose and obtuse.
>>
>> >>> Getting it is a matter of intelligence, enjoying it isn't.
>>
>> >> You won't enjoy it if you don't get it. People who don't
>> >> have to strain their brain enjoy it better.
>>
>> > I agree... understanding is a necessary, but not sufficient
>> > condition for
>> > enjoyment.
>>
>> Jabberwocky notwithstanding...
>>
>> > I understood it fine. I still hated it. I mean, it wasn't Joseph
>> > Conrad awful - but it sucked.
>>
>> I still think most people who hate it didn't get it.
> <
> <That's a common thought for people that enjoy a certain play, movie,
> <piece of art, or book.
>
> That's not really true for all but art.
Well, considering that everything he listed there is some subset of
art...
> Your average student wouldn't "get" Ulysses if it weren't
> for the class discussion. Below average students still
> wouldn't get it.
Your average student wouldn't get Ulysses period.
--
Aaron
The BorgMan
news:hdkhct$vlm$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
> I guess you're right. Shakespeare was just an entertainer who never
> meant to put any deeper meaning in his work or make social commentary.
> All those English scholars who thinks it's obvious are just deluding
> themselves.
Some are, some aren't.
Some are seeing deeper meanings, and some are inventing them.
Sometimes a whale is just a whale, as much as English professors might hate
it.
--
Aaron
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> > I guess you're right. Shakespeare was just an entertainer who never
> > meant to put any deeper meaning in his work or make social commentary.
> > All those English scholars who thinks it's obvious are just deluding
> > themselves.
>
> <
> <I didn't say that, and I certainly wasn't specifically commenting on
> <Shakespeare. The fact that you assumed that from reading my post
> <without it actually being there, sort of makes my point for me.
>
> So if you try to write a horror film and it turns out to be campy
> and everyone who watches it thinks its a comedy, it isn't really
> funny but is scary because that's what the writer intended.
>
<
<You are trying, way, way too hard.
<
<I guarantee you one thing, the writer certainly wouldn't think that
<you "got it".
He might figure things out when he saw the whole audience
laughing, and then think 15 years later when some lone person
does react scared that the person didn't get it.
<Which seemed to be the main point you were making with
<Ulysses.
No it isn't. Intent can be relevant or not. What's written down
cannot change into something it isn't just because of what the
author intended. Though in Joyce's case its pretty clear he
intended most of it.
<Now you seem to be arguing that the author wouldn't even be
<the best person to judge whether or not you "got it", which is absurd.
It depends. It is perfectly possible to include allusions in a
story that were not conciously done. They're still there.
As to what the author *intended* to do, you are correct.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>> >>>>>> by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a
>>> >>>>>> committment.
>>>
>>> >>>>> Joyce makes Pynchon look straightforward and simple.
>>>
>>> >>>> Not if you're smart, which might explain the "love it or hate
>>> >>>> it" thing.
>>>
>>> >>> Pynchon and Joyce are both overly verbose and obtuse.
>>>
>>> >>> Getting it is a matter of intelligence, enjoying it isn't.
>>>
>>> >> You won't enjoy it if you don't get it. People who don't
>>> >> have to strain their brain enjoy it better.
>>>
>>> > I agree... understanding is a necessary, but not sufficient
>>> > condition for
>>> > enjoyment.
>>>
>>> Jabberwocky notwithstanding...
>>>
>>> > I understood it fine. I still hated it. I mean, it wasn't Joseph
>>> > Conrad awful - but it sucked.
>>>
>>> I still think most people who hate it didn't get it.
>> <
>> <That's a common thought for people that enjoy a certain play, movie,
>> <piece of art, or book.
>>
>> That's not really true for all but art.
>
> Well, considering that everything he listed there is some subset of
> art...
"Peice of art" = painting, sculture, etc. to the non-pendants.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>> I guess you're right. Shakespeare was just an entertainer who never
>> meant to put any deeper meaning in his work or make social commentary.
>> All those English scholars who thinks it's obvious are just deluding
>> themselves.
>
> Some are, some aren't.
>
> Some are seeing deeper meanings, and some are inventing them.
No doubt.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
Huck Kennedy
> On Nov 12, 12:37 am, Dave Christian <dcn...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <hdfoql$q4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> > > by James Joyce. to read or not to read? It's a heck of a committment.
> > books on my list, Ulysses will be the last one before I die.
>
> Hence the question: Who is buried in Ulysses' tomb?
And you see a girl's brown body dancing through the turquoise,
And her footprints make you follow where the sky loves the sea.
And when your fingers find her, she drowns you in her body,
Carving deep blue ripples in the tissues of your mind.
Huck
Michael Press
<0c05a1c0-85db-4534...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
RaginPage <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You do know that there are processes and nexuses in you
of which you are mostly unaware, but others are aware
of? That they see things about you that you do not see?
So that when they speak of a messianic figure in your
writing you are offered the gift of seeing yourself as
others see you?
--
Michael Press