Most over-rated writer of the 20th century
Arindam Banerjee
Milan
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:K9Qse.21361$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> James Joyce.
>
>
Beckett
unglued
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> James Joyce.
How would you define over-rated in this context ?
Sam Culotta
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:K9Qse.21361$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> James Joyce.
>
Sam
>
Walker
> James Joyce.
Must argument be a defining factor? What about the German Director, Leni
Riefenstahl? The aesthetics of fascism were never better represented than
in Triumph of the Will (Hitler's inauguration film) and Olympia. The films
may have a brutal purpose, but you can't deny their artistic sophistry.
--
Walker
Walker
Erm, this was intended for the "most controversial artist" thread.
--
Walker, Tip-toeing out of the room, and closing the door quietly.
Arindam Banerjee
Neil Coward
Yes I agree, the first few chapters of Ulysses are unfathomable, or at least
require mucho help and studying BUT, after that the book settles down and
Joyce even starts taking the piss by being over elaborate and extra precise
in what he writes - I'm thinking of the 'Cathechism' part of Ulysses.
Joyce is not overrated, he was a pioneer with a incredible original and
experimental way of writing, and far that at least he must be honoured.
So lets have less of your imperthnthn inthnthn
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1119219083.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
JimC
"Sam Culotta" <culot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rPZse.19108$lb5.2936@trnddc04...
You know "Ulysses" is quite comprehensible almost without a reading guide if
you've read the Odyssey (and the Iliad while we're at it) and have some
knowledge of historic Dublin. But I could not give my life over to a critical
interpretation of it even as a side activity.
An Odysseus set in turn-of-the-century (i.e., the last century) San Francisco
would make sense. Ambrose Bierce has already been done to death,
literally by Carlos Fuentes, and in vivo, so to speak, by Oakley Hall
and others who have him in mind. Hmm. I wonder if John Updike
accepts crackpot e-mail from readers. Or is he too old for the
project?
Arindam Banerjee
Sam Culotta
"JimC" <ji...@nospam.pls> wrote in message
news:GPmte.174$N22...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sam Culotta" <culot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:rPZse.19108$lb5.2936@trnddc04...
>>
>> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:K9Qse.21361$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> James Joyce.
>>>
>> Them's fightin' words pardner.
>
> You know "Ulysses" is quite comprehensible almost without a reading guide
> if
> you've read the Odyssey (and the Iliad while we're at it) and have some
> knowledge of historic Dublin.
It's true, some work makes it much more comprehensible, but comprehensible
or not, the claim was that he was over rated.
Hardly. There is so much going on in Ulysses alone, not to mention
Finnegan's Wake, that I can understand his being off-putting, but Joyces's
writing in these two books can keep a reader entertained for life. And The
Dubliners contains enough great short stories to keep English teachers in
business for a century or more. I suspect that great short story writers
like Updike would admit that Joyce's " The Dead" is to die for.
This is writing that was so avant garde when it was written that it took
years for his native country to accept it as suitable for reading, let alone
publishing. Joyce not only created a level of English literature never
before imagined, he also exposed the small-mindedness of his "priest ridden"
Ireland.
But that's only my humble opinion.
Sam
Neil Coward
I was just defending Joyce from a charge of being overrated, I'm not willing
to write a long critique of Ulysses in reply to a smart ass one liner. If
you don't like Joyce, then bully for you, its no great loss.
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1119235303....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
unglued
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> So what did you fathom from the Ulysses?
It's not unfathomable at all, you just have to relax and experience it
as it is presented, a flow of thought and associations coming from a
number of different people. Once you get the hang of it it stands out a
a monumental achievment of human imagination. Your claim of it being
over-rated is as incomprehensible as if you were to say the Egyptian
pyramids or the wall of China were over-rated.
Bill Tuthill
Agreed. Over the years, I have remembered aspects of Ulysses as they
relate to my own life, perhaps more than any other work of literature.
That's what's called resonance. In enjoy reading snippets.
Most 20th century British (as opposed to Irish or Polish) writers
are overrated, especially Ford Maddox Ford. DH Lawrence, EM Forster,
and Kingsley Amis are the only exceptions I can think of, unless
you think murder mysteries are literature. Maybe also Virginia Woolf.
British literature used to be superior to American, until the 1900s.
Maybe all the good writers were killed in WW1 trenches, or went into
scriptwriting for the BBC. If it were not for the Irish, modern
"English" literature would be fairly insipid. Too bad they persecuted
Oscar Wilde when he was at the zenith of his creative powers.
Modern French and German writers seem to have reputations in-line with
how good they are. For instance, Sartre was an excellent playwright,
as was Brecht. Latin American writers may be underrated.
Arindam Banerjee
that to you he is too deep to be fathomed. For others, such as myself,
the effort of fathoming does not seem worthwhile. I was expecting you
to make some point as to why it should be worthwhile, but you chose to
be insulting instead.
Arindam Banerjee
constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
constructions.
So name the top ten things you got from Joyce. Or five. Or one.
If you cannot, then I can only conclude that Joyce can only impress the
pretentious humbug.
Arindam Banerjee
Neil Coward
If you look two posts back at my original reply you'll see my first line
says
"Actually Joyce isn't all that unfathomable."
don't like anything that requires any effort
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1119311646.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
unglued
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> The Egyptian pyramids and the Chinese walls are not literary
> constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
> their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
> but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
> theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
> constructions.
No, Joyce has created a whole world, with all the neccessary structure
to keep it from collapsing, worthy of an engineer, all by himself. No
mean feat.
Both demand imagination, vision, planning and discipline and possibly
the will of a tyrant to complete.
I am certain his purpose was the same as all good writers.
>
> So name the top ten things you got from Joyce. Or five. Or one.
In no particular order:
A verbal fireworks that "pushes the envelope" of the English language.
The wonderful Irish vernacular.
The tongue in cheek intellectual discourse.
A sureal sense of humour pre-dating the Goon Show and Monty Python.
Deeply felt emotions as the main protagonists thoughts touch on their
family relations. Very powerful stuff for anyone with experience of
lifes ups and downs.
A snapshot of a world that no longer exists.
A cornucopia of literary and philosophical associations that tug on
your sleeve for attention and can be investigated.
A text so rich that it resonates differently to every individual who
can assimilate it.
Sam Culotta
"unglued" <drago...@spray.se> wrote in message
news:1119365543....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
And I might add that Ulysses alone is the literary equivalent of the Taj
Mahal: a remarkable structure dedicated to the love of his life, his wife,
no less.
Imagine that.
Sam
Arindam Banerjee
there is never any dearth of small minds.
Arindam Banerjee
unglued wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > The Egyptian pyramids and the Chinese walls are not literary
> > constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
> > their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
> > but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
> > theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
> > constructions.
>
> No, Joyce has created a whole world, with all the neccessary structure
> to keep it from collapsing, worthy of an engineer, all by himself.
What world is that? Does it exist anywhere, like the Pyramids or the
Great Wall of China? Children of three also make up their own worlds,
their own languages, their own philosophies and "constructions".
Growing up means deconstruction of same.
> No
> mean feat.
I believe the worlds of P G Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, Ms Rowling,
Conan Doyle, Saki, Enid Blyton, Goscinny & Uderzo, Lee Falk (The
Phantom), Walt Disney etc. are much better known and far better
appreciated. If Joyce's is no mean feat, these are truly stupendous
efforts.
> Both demand imagination, vision, planning and discipline and possibly
> the will of a tyrant to complete.
> I am certain his purpose was the same as all good writers.
He was okay, when making sense, like in Dubliners. A good second-rate
writer. In Ulysses, he was the Father of Inspired Gibberish as
Literature. I suppose this was the the natural literary correlation
from the current and ridiculous ideas in physics, that made no sense to
any, yet tried to explain the world in peculiarly wrong ways.
> > So name the top ten things you got from Joyce. Or five. Or one.
>
> In no particular order:
> A verbal fireworks that "pushes the envelope" of the English language.
> The wonderful Irish vernacular.
> The tongue in cheek intellectual discourse.
> A sureal sense of humour pre-dating the Goon Show and Monty Python.
> Deeply felt emotions as the main protagonists thoughts touch on their
> family relations. Very powerful stuff for anyone with experience of
> lifes ups and downs.
> A snapshot of a world that no longer exists.
> A cornucopia of literary and philosophical associations that tug on
> your sleeve for attention and can be investigated.
> A text so rich that it resonates differently to every individual who
> can assimilate it.
Thanks for your effort. Evidently this book has made a great impact
upon you. I am sorry if my remarks have offended you in any way. I am
after all from an entirely different culture and civilisation. It has
been my great misfortune - as a result of colonisation - to have been
forced to learn the English language; and so, come to my own very late
in my life.
unglued
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> unglued wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > The Egyptian pyramids and the Chinese walls are not literary
> > > constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
> > > their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
> > > but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
> > > theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
> > > constructions.
> >
> > No, Joyce has created a whole world, with all the neccessary structure
> > to keep it from collapsing, worthy of an engineer, all by himself.
>
> What world is that? Does it exist anywhere, like the Pyramids or the
> Great Wall of China?
For example, it exists in the minds of the thousands of people who come
to Dublin every year from around the world, for the sole purpose of
trying to materialise their experience of "Ulysses" with sect like
devotion.
>Children of three also make up their own worlds,
> their own languages, their own philosophies and "constructions".
> Growing up means deconstruction of same.
Deconstruction maybe but not neccesarily destruction.
>
> > No
> > mean feat.
>
> I believe the worlds of P G Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, Ms Rowling,
> Conan Doyle, Saki, Enid Blyton, Goscinny & Uderzo, Lee Falk (The
> Phantom), Walt Disney etc. are much better known and far better
> appreciated. If Joyce's is no mean feat, these are truly stupendous
> efforts.
I maintain the old elitist position that the quality of a work of art
can not directly be measured by the absolute numbers of the unwashed
masses that appreciate it.
In other words, if I like it it's a great work of art, if I don't it's
rubbish :)
>
> > Both demand imagination, vision, planning and discipline and possibly
> > the will of a tyrant to complete.
> > I am certain his purpose was the same as all good writers.
>
> He was okay, when making sense, like in Dubliners. A good second-rate
> writer. In Ulysses, he was the Father of Inspired Gibberish as
> Literature.
"Inspired Gibberish" has founded all the great religions of mankind and
seems to fill a need in many people.
>I suppose this was the the natural literary correlation
> from the current and ridiculous ideas in physics, that made no sense to
> any, yet tried to explain the world in peculiarly wrong ways.
I can't recall Joyce trying to explain anything, but I may have
overlooked it.
>
> > > So name the top ten things you got from Joyce. Or five. Or one.
> >
> > In no particular order:
> > A verbal fireworks that "pushes the envelope" of the English language.
> > The wonderful Irish vernacular.
> > The tongue in cheek intellectual discourse.
> > A sureal sense of humour pre-dating the Goon Show and Monty Python.
> > Deeply felt emotions as the main protagonists thoughts touch on their
> > family relations. Very powerful stuff for anyone with experience of
> > lifes ups and downs.
> > A snapshot of a world that no longer exists.
> > A cornucopia of literary and philosophical associations that tug on
> > your sleeve for attention and can be investigated.
> > A text so rich that it resonates differently to every individual who
> > can assimilate it.
>
> Thanks for your effort. Evidently this book has made a great impact
> upon you. I am sorry if my remarks have offended you in any way. I am
> after all from an entirely different culture and civilisation. It has
> been my great misfortune - as a result of colonisation - to have been
> forced to learn the English language; and so, come to my own very late
> in my life.
Most people I've met who have been coerced into learning the language
of a colonizer seem to try and distance themselves it but I think you
have taken the commendable strategy of making the best of it and trying
to pick the raisins from the cake ;)
Arindam Banerjee
unglued wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > unglued wrote:
> > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > The Egyptian pyramids and the Chinese walls are not literary
> > > > constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
> > > > their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
> > > > but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
> > > > theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
> > > > constructions.
> > >
> > > No, Joyce has created a whole world, with all the neccessary structure
> > > to keep it from collapsing, worthy of an engineer, all by himself.
> >
> > What world is that? Does it exist anywhere, like the Pyramids or the
> > Great Wall of China?
>
> For example, it exists in the minds of the thousands of people who come
> to Dublin every year from around the world, for the sole purpose of
> trying to materialise their experience of "Ulysses" with sect like
> devotion.
Are they all Irish?
> >Children of three also make up their own worlds,
> > their own languages, their own philosophies and "constructions".
> > Growing up means deconstruction of same.
>
> Deconstruction maybe but not neccesarily destruction.
Then I suppose Joyce may be touching what remains of their childhoods,
with his Inspired Gibberish. Well I suppose Joyce is to the Irish what
most Indian writers are to Indians.
> > > No
> > > mean feat.
> >
> > I believe the worlds of P G Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, Ms Rowling,
> > Conan Doyle, Saki, Enid Blyton, Goscinny & Uderzo, Lee Falk (The
> > Phantom), Walt Disney etc. are much better known and far better
> > appreciated. If Joyce's is no mean feat, these are truly stupendous
> > efforts.
>
> I maintain the old elitist position that the quality of a work of art
> can not directly be measured by the absolute numbers of the unwashed
> masses that appreciate it.
What is so washed about thousands of doting Irishmen, and what is so
unwashed about millions of spending public all over the world?
> In other words, if I like it it's a great work of art, if I don't it's
> rubbish :)
Now here the world will completely agree with you. Have you seen the
videos of Ms. whatsername Paris Hilton? Does not pornography beat all
the other arts hollow? Going by email spam, this seems to be
resoundingly the case.
In my thinking, great art is what totally, directly *repels* you, by
confronting and challenging you, by shaking your essence; and in a way
that over time makes you a better and greater person.
So, great art is not for brats. It cannot sell.
> > > Both demand imagination, vision, planning and discipline and possibly
> > > the will of a tyrant to complete.
> > > I am certain his purpose was the same as all good writers.
> >
> > He was okay, when making sense, like in Dubliners. A good second-rate
> > writer. In Ulysses, he was the Father of Inspired Gibberish as
> > Literature.
>
> "Inspired Gibberish" has founded all the great religions of mankind and
> seems to fill a need in many people.
Indeed. However, the dharma (very loosely translated to the English
word religion) I subscribe to, Sanatana Dharma that is, is by
definition beyond the scope of time and has no founders. While
Inspired Gibberish appears to exist in Sanatana Dharma - detractors
will say it nothing but! - the original and untranslated Sanskrit words
are actually full of the deepest meaning, which is also without
ambiguity to the truly learned, who must also be Divinely Blessed for
their comprehension ability.
> >I suppose this was the the natural literary correlation
> > from the current and ridiculous ideas in physics, that made no sense to
> > any, yet tried to explain the world in peculiarly wrong ways.
>
> I can't recall Joyce trying to explain anything, but I may have
> overlooked it.
His style seems influenced by certain explanations.
> > > > So name the top ten things you got from Joyce. Or five. Or one.
> > >
> > > In no particular order:
> > > A verbal fireworks that "pushes the envelope" of the English language.
> > > The wonderful Irish vernacular.
> > > The tongue in cheek intellectual discourse.
> > > A sureal sense of humour pre-dating the Goon Show and Monty Python.
> > > Deeply felt emotions as the main protagonists thoughts touch on their
> > > family relations. Very powerful stuff for anyone with experience of
> > > lifes ups and downs.
> > > A snapshot of a world that no longer exists.
> > > A cornucopia of literary and philosophical associations that tug on
> > > your sleeve for attention and can be investigated.
> > > A text so rich that it resonates differently to every individual who
> > > can assimilate it.
> >
> > Thanks for your effort. Evidently this book has made a great impact
> > upon you. I am sorry if my remarks have offended you in any way. I am
> > after all from an entirely different culture and civilisation. It has
> > been my great misfortune - as a result of colonisation - to have been
> > forced to learn the English language; and so, come to my own very late
> > in my life.
>
> Most people I've met who have been coerced into learning the language
> of a colonizer seem to try and distance themselves it
I had no choice. My medium of instruction has been English. My
workplace environment here is English, too.
> but I think you
> have taken the commendable strategy of making the best of it and trying
> to pick the raisins from the cake ;)
True.
unglued
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> unglued wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > unglued wrote:
> > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > The Egyptian pyramids and the Chinese walls are not literary
> > > > > constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
> > > > > their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
> > > > > but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
> > > > > theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
> > > > > constructions.
> > > >
> > > > No, Joyce has created a whole world, with all the neccessary structure
> > > > to keep it from collapsing, worthy of an engineer, all by himself.
> > >
> > > What world is that? Does it exist anywhere, like the Pyramids or the
> > > Great Wall of China?
> >
> > For example, it exists in the minds of the thousands of people who come
> > to Dublin every year from around the world, for the sole purpose of
> > trying to materialise their experience of "Ulysses" with sect like
> > devotion.
>
> Are they all Irish?
Good Lord, no.
>
> > >Children of three also make up their own worlds,
> > > their own languages, their own philosophies and "constructions".
> > > Growing up means deconstruction of same.
> >
> > Deconstruction maybe but not neccesarily destruction.
>
> Then I suppose Joyce may be touching what remains of their childhoods,
> with his Inspired Gibberish. Well I suppose Joyce is to the Irish what
> most Indian writers are to Indians.
>
> > > > No
> > > > mean feat.
> > >
> > > I believe the worlds of P G Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, Ms Rowling,
> > > Conan Doyle, Saki, Enid Blyton, Goscinny & Uderzo, Lee Falk (The
> > > Phantom), Walt Disney etc. are much better known and far better
> > > appreciated. If Joyce's is no mean feat, these are truly stupendous
> > > efforts.
> >
> > I maintain the old elitist position that the quality of a work of art
> > can not directly be measured by the absolute numbers of the unwashed
> > masses that appreciate it.
>
> What is so washed about thousands of doting Irishmen, and what is so
> unwashed about millions of spending public all over the world?
Doting Irishmen and the unwashed masses are not mutualy exclusive sets.
It was a figure of speach.
>
> > In other words, if I like it it's a great work of art, if I don't it's
> > rubbish :)
>
> Now here the world will completely agree with you. Have you seen the
> videos of Ms. whatsername Paris Hilton?
No
>Does not pornography beat all
> the other arts hollow? Going by email spam, this seems to be
> resoundingly the case.
I avoid opening spam so I don't know whether or not it's touted as art
but I certainly do not equate commercial success with art.
>
> In my thinking, great art is what totally, directly *repels* you, by
> confronting and challenging you, by shaking your essence; and in a way
> that over time makes you a better and greater person.
True
>
> So, great art is not for brats. It cannot sell.
The Mona Lisa is undeniably "Great Art" and massive numbers of people
spend a lot of time and money to see it in real life, so the 2 are not
mutually exclusive.
>
> > > > Both demand imagination, vision, planning and discipline and possibly
> > > > the will of a tyrant to complete.
> > > > I am certain his purpose was the same as all good writers.
> > >
> > > He was okay, when making sense, like in Dubliners. A good second-rate
> > > writer. In Ulysses, he was the Father of Inspired Gibberish as
> > > Literature.
> >
> > "Inspired Gibberish" has founded all the great religions of mankind and
> > seems to fill a need in many people.
>
> Indeed. However, the dharma (very loosely translated to the English
> word religion) I subscribe to, Sanatana Dharma that is, is by
> definition beyond the scope of time and has no founders. While
> Inspired Gibberish appears to exist in Sanatana Dharma - detractors
> will say it nothing but! - the original and untranslated Sanskrit words
> are actually full of the deepest meaning,
"Inspired Gibberish" gives birth to the deepest meaning in anyone
sensitive to it.
> which is also without
> ambiguity to the truly learned, who must also be Divinely Blessed for
> their comprehension ability.
Or not have anything better to do with their spare time.
>
> > >I suppose this was the the natural literary correlation
> > > from the current and ridiculous ideas in physics, that made no sense to
> > > any, yet tried to explain the world in peculiarly wrong ways.
> >
> > I can't recall Joyce trying to explain anything, but I may have
> > overlooked it.
>
> His style seems influenced by certain explanations.
His characters try to make sense of the world around them, each to the
best of their abilities.
<snip>
Arindam Banerjee
unglued wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > unglued wrote:
> > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > unglued wrote:
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > The Egyptian pyramids and the Chinese walls are not literary
> > > > > > constructions. They were made for particular purposes. They served
> > > > > > their purpose. I could find not much purpose in the writings of Joyce,
> > > > > > but he seems to be one of the greats! I wonder why. Literary and
> > > > > > theoretical constructions are very different from engineering
> > > > > > constructions.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, Joyce has created a whole world, with all the neccessary structure
> > > > > to keep it from collapsing, worthy of an engineer, all by himself.
> > > >
> > > > What world is that? Does it exist anywhere, like the Pyramids or the
> > > > Great Wall of China?
> > >
> > > For example, it exists in the minds of the thousands of people who come
> > > to Dublin every year from around the world, for the sole purpose of
> > > trying to materialise their experience of "Ulysses" with sect like
> > > devotion.
> >
> > Are they all Irish?
>
> Good Lord, no.
Well, I suppose devotion cuts across nationalistic lines.
> > > >Children of three also make up their own worlds,
> > > > their own languages, their own philosophies and "constructions".
> > > > Growing up means deconstruction of same.
> > >
> > > Deconstruction maybe but not neccesarily destruction.
> >
> > Then I suppose Joyce may be touching what remains of their childhoods,
> > with his Inspired Gibberish. Well I suppose Joyce is to the Irish what
> > most Indian writers are to Indians.
> >
> > > > > No
> > > > > mean feat.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the worlds of P G Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, Ms Rowling,
> > > > Conan Doyle, Saki, Enid Blyton, Goscinny & Uderzo, Lee Falk (The
> > > > Phantom), Walt Disney etc. are much better known and far better
> > > > appreciated. If Joyce's is no mean feat, these are truly stupendous
> > > > efforts.
> > >
> > > I maintain the old elitist position that the quality of a work of art
> > > can not directly be measured by the absolute numbers of the unwashed
> > > masses that appreciate it.
> >
> > What is so washed about thousands of doting Irishmen, and what is so
> > unwashed about millions of spending public all over the world?
>
> Doting Irishmen and the unwashed masses are not mutualy exclusive sets.
> It was a figure of speach.
So one may say that Joyce-doting masses are the unwashed stupefied
grasping at straws from the elusive stream of consciousness, or
Inspired Gibberish, while the "unwashed masses" are those who are
pretty clear about what they like and want?
> > > In other words, if I like it it's a great work of art, if I don't it's
> > > rubbish :)
> >
> > Now here the world will completely agree with you. Have you seen the
> > videos of Ms. whatsername Paris Hilton?
>
> No
Neither have I. But that is what the world will pay a great deal to
see.
> >Does not pornography beat all
> > the other arts hollow? Going by email spam, this seems to be
> > resoundingly the case.
>
> I avoid opening spam so I don't know whether or not it's touted as art
> but I certainly do not equate commercial success with art.
I don't have a spam filter, so I get a better picture of the commercial
world, and so, what matters to most.
> > In my thinking, great art is what totally, directly *repels* you, by
> > confronting and challenging you, by shaking your essence; and in a way
> > that over time makes you a better and greater person.
>
> True
>
> >
> > So, great art is not for brats. It cannot sell.
>
> The Mona Lisa is undeniably "Great Art" and massive numbers of people
> spend a lot of time and money to see it in real life, so the 2 are not
> mutually exclusive.
Yes, but how much did da Vinci get for it? As far as I know, he could
not give it away, kept it, and then gave it to his friend Francis who
hung it in his bathroom.
> > > > > Both demand imagination, vision, planning and discipline and possibly
> > > > > the will of a tyrant to complete.
> > > > > I am certain his purpose was the same as all good writers.
> > > >
> > > > He was okay, when making sense, like in Dubliners. A good second-rate
> > > > writer. In Ulysses, he was the Father of Inspired Gibberish as
> > > > Literature.
> > >
> > > "Inspired Gibberish" has founded all the great religions of mankind and
> > > seems to fill a need in many people.
> >
> > Indeed. However, the dharma (very loosely translated to the English
> > word religion) I subscribe to, Sanatana Dharma that is, is by
> > definition beyond the scope of time and has no founders. While
> > Inspired Gibberish appears to exist in Sanatana Dharma - detractors
> > will say it nothing but! - the original and untranslated Sanskrit words
> > are actually full of the deepest meaning,
>
> "Inspired Gibberish" gives birth to the deepest meaning in anyone
> sensitive to it.
I suppose, that way, it takes you back to your childhood.
> > which is also without
> > ambiguity to the truly learned, who must also be Divinely Blessed for
> > their comprehension ability.
>
> Or not have anything better to do with their spare time.
It is certainly an alternative to Inspired Baby Talk.
> > > >I suppose this was the the natural literary correlation
> > > > from the current and ridiculous ideas in physics, that made no sense to
> > > > any, yet tried to explain the world in peculiarly wrong ways.
> > >
> > > I can't recall Joyce trying to explain anything, but I may have
> > > overlooked it.
> >
> > His style seems influenced by certain explanations.
>
> His characters try to make sense of the world around them, each to the
> best of their abilities.
In their gibbering doltish way, no doubt. That is exactly the sort of
thing which explains the Bushling, the one true great leader of modern
Western civ.
>
> <snip>