Anais and Ulysses, slightly changed

0 views
Skip to first unread message

paigerella

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 4:03:46 AM7/13/07
to Ulysse...@googlegroups.com

I slightly changed this... :)


Nin, Ulysses, and the Plastic Arts



Question:

What does this quote mean in relation to Molly, and why did Nin use it?

Original Quote:

"Fowlie says of Ulysses: 'In the last episode of Joyce's Ulysses the long soliloquy of Molly Bloom the character has ceased being real in any usual sense. She is lying down in bed and the words which pass through her in her half dream, half conscious state convert her into the mythical figure of woman, into the figure of the earth itself."

-from Anais Nin, in The Novel of the Future

Response:

Dear HCEFW,

First, I want to thank you for your letter. It was like a beautiful stone in my dull, dull day. Today, at work, I photocopied documents for almost an hour and did several other mindless, trivial (to me) things. Then I read your letter, with your question about Molly Bloom, Fowlie, and Nin, and you gave me a glint of crimson  (thought) and something to look forward to: answering your question.

However, I do not know if I can answer it accurately at all. It is a quote that Nin used to... to illustrate the depth that a writer must delve to cross from the conscious to the subconscious (or vice versa). It is also a symbol of the subconscious in the works of the conscious. For some reason, I am thinking of Nietzsche and Bacchus, and the plastic arts.

Nin says that Fowlie discusses Freud, who said that "man is primarily a sleeper," (15). While Molly is sleeping, she loses herself and the prose moves from Molly the physical to the world of her dreams- symbols and symbolism. This dissipation of Molly and the symbols of her dreams transform her from the physical to the mythical. Molly represents fertility in Ulysses and here Fowlie is saying that, through her dreams, we reach her subconscious where the very essence of Molly resides. In Ulysses, she is Mother Nature, or, the Earth itself.

Because of your question, I have re-read the first part of Nin's book, The Novel of the Future, where she discusses how to write and how literary artists must write. She begins with dreams which ultimately, she claims, aside from being thought without rules, are symbols from the subconscious.

Symbols are important because they express different layers of meaning at once. They have presence. She says, "The unconscious cannot express itself directly because it is a composite of past, present, future, a timeless alchemy of many dimensions. A direct statement, as for an act, would deprive it of its effectiveness. It is an image which bypasses the censor of the mind, affects our emotions and our sense. An act has to be interpreted on two levels-- one as action, the other as meaning," (11).

In The Novel of the Future, Nin says that there are several levels/ layers of consciousness, and artists / poets are the ones who do and must build bridges across them to have full access to all realms. This, in itself, is like Ulysses. While reading about Bloom, the narrative takes us (the readers) into his head, outside of his head and onto the street, into his memories, and then outside of his head again, yet within his memories or imagination (as if he is imagining himself in a room, and we are in the room watching his imaginary self- therefore we're "out" of his mind, yet within by reason of standing in the room of his imagination). We have all of these various levels happening almost simultaneously. And, as you know, there are the different layers of meaning in theme: Bloom and his day/ Ulysses and his epic voyage, different colors and parts of the body, layers of sound, etc. Joyce's work reminds me of this other quote by Nin: "Dream, waking dream, reverie, fantasy, all interlock and interrelate simultaneously but on different levels" (9).

Nin says that separating the conscious from the subconscious creates neurosis and that dreaming is indispensable to humanity because it provides an escape and perspective from history as it is lived in. This perspective reinforces personality/ individuality, and personal choice. It also provides the ability to choose actions within a situation and to keep from being swept up in history itself (here she briefly mentions the Nazis).

But why is this important? Well, for personal reasons- people must be in touch with their subconscious to keep neurosis at bay. They must also have a realm from which they can strengthen their spirits and gain perspective on their positions within history. And, by accessing our innermost symbols and translating them into the plastic arts, we add to history. This is why she admonishes drugs-- drugs reveal images and the subconscious, but they do not create activity.

We need to create, then, and to translate the symbols of our subconscious into the arts. "The young," she says, "would have no need of drugs if they had been educated in the life of the senses and emotions through art. Art has through the ages given people their heightened sense of life and given them the key to its meaning," (16). (As an aside, check out this quote-- I took the word "drug" out and replaced it with "television": "We downgraded and denigrated the artist who would have expanded their imagination and consciousness without side effects. Consequently, the young, trained in passivity and acceptance, have become, through television, voyeurs to the world of images--not creators." )

For some reason, I'm thinking of the poem that you put in your blog, "The Morning of Eternal Separation," by Kenji Miyazawa. He did what Nin was talking about. He created symbols in his poem, about the snow and the death of his sister, and the transformation of the snow into the food of Tushita Heaven. It became more than it was. It was translated into dreaming and layers and symbols and the universal language of understanding/ consciousness. All Nin does or did is try to explain what it is that poets do, and what those who would be poets must do in order to succeed. Things that we already know intuitively-- she just provides the language. Symbols have more power than words, and they are stronger because our subconscious recognizes them on several layers. Thus Molly is an important, powerful figure in Ulysses because she isn't just Bloom's wife; she is the Mother of all creation, the Earth, the mythical woman figure, and fertility.

Good night,

Paigerella

Granola Poet

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 6:55:38 PM7/13/07
to Ulysse...@googlegroups.com

Paigerella,
Thanks again for the always delicious food for thought.
I hadn't read Penelope for about five years when I gave you my spontaneous spiel on the father-quest. Finally got to it last week (finished re-reading the book at last... Penelope limericks coming soon...)
It's so interesting how women get such short shrift throughout the novel, giving the impression that Joyce is either ignoring, denigrating or just forgetting about the feminine side altogether. And then, shazam, he really lays it out for all to see. If you consider the book as an overall Affirmation Of Life (and, yes, I really do, yes) then it's only natural that the Woman would be raised to these great heights. But why the 750 pages of anticipation? Just to convey their downgraded stature in contemporary society?
It's not like Joyce was any great advocate of woman's lib., but it's clearly the woman who runs the house: no Home Rule for Poldy. That must be what they mean by Petticoat government.

In classic (and native) mythology, little attention is ever given to the woman's coming of age. The idea is that women physically come of age under no uncertain terms.... the signs are hard to miss, and when the time comes, that's it. And soon enough she's pregnant (at least in olden times.) For the male, he must actively, consciously break away from his mother, and undertake the hero's journey, in the search for his "father."
That was Hamlet's problem, he knew what he had to do to achieve manhood, but he couldn't bring himself to do it. The consequences of failure are not pretty - death for the prince, neurosis more likely for the ordinary individual.

Which returns us to the importance of symbols. And I agree, that that's exactly (at least partly) what has led to such widespread drug use. At least in terms of religion, the symbol or metaphor has been lost. The church teaches that it's really a man, a historical man, nailed to 2 pieces of wood, and he personally died for you. With that understanding, there's no hope (not even a prayer) that you could undergo a spiritual transformation for yourself. Had we considered the Gospel as a powerful metaphor, then we too could find the kingdom of god within ourselves and reach some state of salvation or enlightenment or astral projection. (Here I go again.) Because religion can't provide that spiritual experience, we connect with the universal consciousness by smoking pot and listening to Bob Marley, and for real ego obliteration we drop acid and listen to Pink Floyd.

Oh yeah, Ulysses...
But even as Molly dissolves into the universal mythic goddess mother, she becomes as much or more of an authentic woman as you'll ever find in literature. True words spoken in jest, as our returning hero somewhere mentions. As for the woman's quest for a father, or struggle for purpose, that topic so seldom seen in mythology, I'd like to hear how others feel about it. How does or doesn't that gap contribute to female neurosis? And what of this Elektra Complex business?
It reminds me of how when I was younger, my brother took piano lessons, but I was too young when he started. So I never got lessons. And he went on to become something of an amateur virtuoso. Suffice to say that I now suffer from acute pianist envy.

Thanks for letting me bend your metaphorical ear,
Granola Poet

The Granola Poet, always mincing words with a rare blend of whole grains


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages