James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922) | Hacker News Reader

James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)

theguardian.com

45 pointssee-also25 comments

Much to learn here for modern music journalists. Instead of inserting their own desires, shallow beliefs and ego into the review, the book is reviewed for what it is, with the artists intention considered and respected.

Compare and contrast with this tiresome Guardian review, which leaves you very unclear about the performance but all too sure about what the reviewer likes and wants

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jan/30/the-smile-revi...

I don't get that impression. Art exists in real life and can be contextualized as a result of that. The performance is described, too.

I won't put words in your mouth but striving for some notion of apolitical art is folly. Especially if it's art by Thom Yorke, surely?

It's hard to put my finger on what exactly is wrong with the Guardian's article on Radiohead, but it feels like the author was meandering a lot in this short piece. It reads like a bullet-point list of things he noticed during the performance, and all of those things are in pieces and unconnected. It's not cohesive.

You could write this entire article by listening to half a dozen 5-second clips of the performance, giving the impression of a student who writes an essay about a book based entirely on spark notes.

It's a very tricky book to get a handle on, I must confess I've only made it halfway. I made a sort of "reader's companion" app to try to make sense of some of the esoteric language and references - https://camin.xyz/ulysses-companion/ (not at all mobile friendly)

Full credit goes to John Hunt, The Joyce Project at joyceproject.com for the annotations, I just found that site very tricky to use as I read.

>You may like or you may dislike Ulysses, and you are entitled to express your opinion of its merits or demerits, but you are not entitled to demand that it should be other than it is;

This is profound. Replace “Ulysses” with “X” and it holds true for much of the hate spreading today.

One of my professors said (or quoted) that Ulysses is "a good write rather than a good read", which I still think is the best description of the book

> If I understand him aright be sets out to depict not merely the fair show of things but the inner truth

I can't parse this. It reads like an OCR error; should it read "If I understand him alright, he sets out..."?

"Aright" is probably correct, if a bit archaic from our perspective, but "be" is almost certainly OCR error (plus lack of proof reading), and not the only one.

Long live the Grauniad. (That being a nickname given to The Guardian due to its tendency for typos.)

Not just typos - from [0], we have

“The absence of corrections yesterday was due to a technical hitch rather than any sudden onset of accuracy.”

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/guardian-200-t...

"James Joyce: The Critical Heritage" <https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120428> includes a copy of this review (pages 213–216). It says:

> If I understand him aright he sets out…

I have a suggestion: I read Ulysses about ten years ago and liked it but really didn’t get that much out of it. About five years ago, I tried Ulysses again, listening to it as an Audible audio book with several skilled actors speaking the roles. That was great! I then also listened to Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in audiobook form and enjoyed it much more than reading it in school 50 years ago.

If you get a chance, listen to Dubliners, Joyce's collection of short stories, too, the last story is probably one of the best of 20th century English if not of all time.

I tried reading it in late 2015 and it was just hard! The only thing I remember and find really funny is the dog on the beach peeing on an unsmelt rock!

Talking about James Joyce, vs. really reading his works...it's kinda like the difference between talking about Einstein, vs. really reading (including understanding the math) his major works (in high-level physics). Except reading Joyce brings far more old-school more social cachet.

You can try listening to podcasts by Frank Delaney called Re:Joyce. He goes through the book sentence by sentence. Sadly, Frank Delaney died before he could complete the podcast series.

We can learn from him, and learn from his fate.

How much of it did he cover?

For anyone struggling with Joyce, I recommend Finnegan's Wake. You are guaranteed to find Ulysses easier to read after this.

On the contrary, I find Finnegan's Wake easier because it's more "fun". It's filled with silly word-play and funny sounds, and I don't feel compelled to try to make any particular meaning out of it or find a coherent story inside it, though if I do find one it's a nice surprise.

Reading Ulysses, on the other hand, I know there is a story there, so when I lose the thread I get a bit frustrated. It's an absolutely gorgeous experience, of course, but one riddled with such frustration. I'm not sure if maybe reading an outline of the story first would help, so that I have the general idea in my head before going into it?

Reading an outline definitely helps. Don't worry about it diminishing the experience, it is, as you might have guessed, not a book where the pleasure comes primarily from the plot.

Being able to refer to a guide and say 'oh yes, this is Bloom talking to his boss in the as agency right now helps a lot in keeping yourself grounded.

Seriously though, I would recommend Dubliners.

I liked the apt reference to the “blue pencil”, “used specifically because it will not show in some lithographic or photographic reproduction processes.” (wikipedia)

It is unreal to me that someone like Joyce was a real human, he seems like some otherworldly figure. Someone like Joyce will never exist again.

Just to help pulling his figure back to humanity a little bit, here's some letters that he wrote, about his fetish for dirty farts. Not that there's anything wrong with it, just that Joyce was a real human with humanly desires after all.

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/02/02/james-joyces-...

Ulysses is like a very funny joke that you don't understand. Well, a lot of jokes actually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com