I highly recommend the podcast Re:Joyce by Frank Delaney if you're at all interested in Ulysses.
He reads Ulysses and discusses it - sometimes an episode is dedicated to just one sentence, sometimes a paragraph.
Tragic that he died before completing it and that his website has gone untended.
If you haven’t read it, I recommend trying. The language and form is difficult, but just treat it like a scramble down a hill: maintain direction, pay attention to your surroundings, but mostly just go with the flow.
That reading direction is spot on. Also, it's normal to struggle through the early Stephen chapters. The prose becomes much more conventional and accessible once you meet Bloom in "Calypso".
My constant recommendations for those interested in tackling Ulysses:
- RTÉ produced a fully cast, essentially unabridged dramatization[1] which is phenomenal. So much of the "fun" of Joyce is found only when reading it aloud.
- Frank Delaney's ridiculously ambitious paragraph-by-paragraph[2] unpacking of the novel in podcast form was sadly cut short by his death, but remains a charming journey through the first sections of the novel.
I really struggled with it, during a time when I was reading many large or difficult books: Don Quixote, Moby Dick, The Quran. I like the idea of it, but couldn't get into it. I was perhaps considering the audio book instead as that might inject a bit more life into it.
* many people think it’s the best English novel of all time (worth seeing what they’re seeing)
* bragging rights
* personally, I found it like going to a different world. It’s equal parts emmersive, foreign, and familiar. There’s moments it’s a slog to get through and moments it’s a page-turner. In the same way The Beatles Get Back was so great because it actually felt like being in the studio, reading Ulysses isn’t like reading a story, it’s like being in a different world.
Just buy a used copy and keep it around the house. It’s a difficult book but not that bad. The hard parts are the stuff about turn of the century Irish politics which no one outside of Ireland really thinks about too much (which you may be thinking is a ridiculous detail to focus on a book, but bear in mind Joyce was trying to paint an accurate picture of Dublin at the time), there is also a huge cast of characters to keep track of and almost all of them have considerable depth, and there are admittedly some parts which are perhaps to experimental for their own good or have dated a bit poorly as literary experiments but the vast majority of the book is absolutely lovely. It’s a near perfect book and only one chapter for me doesn’t work (Oxen in the Sun) but the whole thing really is a peak literary experience which only gets better with a reread.
it’s a lot more manageable if you read his books in order starting with Dubliners. Ulysses is not exactly a sequel but reading through his work chronologically kind of prepares you for his eccentricities. just don’t consult reading guides or appendixes too much because that sort of stuff will just kind of ruin it.
>Can you give me a sales pitch on why I should read it?
Reading it is fun just for the sake of it, like dancing. You don't have to read the whole thing. Every paragraph is a delight. It's less about the story, and more about the language itself.
Perhaps it was just a coincidence with all of the other potentially traumatic events going on in my life at the time, but I've always blamed Ulysses as the reason I lost my ability to write and comprehend creative text.
Trying to decipher all of convoluted thoughts, cryptic language (despite being raised by a speaker of hiberno-english) and allusions to Greek mythology and other literary works of art simply made me feel my ability to read and write was suddenly compromised. Of course reading Homer at the same time didn't exactly make things easier.
I fantasize that one day I'll be somehow able to pick up another copy, understand and enjoy it, and suddenly have all that I perceive as lost to somehow make a miraculous return.
Ulysses gives slowly, then greatly. It rewards return. But it is very hard at first and I know few people who've gotten through it just on their own. I didn't.
My route:
1) I read it out loud with someone I loved at a beautiful moment in my life. I don't know how anyone could simply replicate this, but you should try.
2) Years later, I got the audiobook and listened to it on repeat for awhile, until I started to really know and feel the text.
3) I just keep it around, occasionally reading a chapter, and now the experience is about as extraordinary as one can get from reading a book.
I had been considering reading Ulysses this year. Then found out this week it was the 100th anniversary so I started reading it last night. Not totally sure why I was so intimidated. Maybe Portrait of the Artist gave me an undeserved impression of what it would be like.
Nevertheless, if you were able to enjoy Kerouac's On the Road, you'll be able to enjoy Ulysses. They read similarly. Someone else here commented "enjoy it like a scramble down a hill" or something to that effect. Pace is very important.
I was surprised when reading a letter to the publisher tucked in the opening pages. The author complains about a ban in the United States and resulting copyright issues once the ban was lifted. The requirements to obtain a copyright were virtually impossible given the circumstances of the ban, and this opened the door for thieves to sell illicit copies.
Ulysses is perhaps the ultimate example of a book almost nobody _actually_ enjoys reading, but that many people _convince themselves_ that they appreciate due to certain prestigious literary associations
What do you mean by _enjoy_ here? Do you restrict that word to immediate and accessible pleasures, like eating, or do you think it applies to more drawn-out events, like developing a new skill? The latter is often slow and painful in the moment but pleasurable looking back afterward. If you only include the former, probably few people enjoy reading Ulysses. I think it's much more complicated when you consider the latter.
In Plato's "Republic," he talks about the pleasures associated with the three parts of the psyche: the logistikon (reason), the thymoeides (spirit), and the epithymetikon (appetite). He said that only those people who know the pleasures of reason, in addition to the other two, can judge between the three. He uses this to argue that the pleasures of reason are more enjoyable than the pleasures of fame or the senses, even though most people think otherwise. People who don't know the pleasure of reason may settle for the pleasure of fame, not knowing any better. I think it's possible the pleasure gained from reading Ulysses is like this.
It's a "woke" argument; you can't really argue against it, and that's frustrating. You say, "yeah, but I read Ulysses, and I didn't like it," and they say, "yeah, you must not have read it deeply enough---if you did, you would like it more than you like watching TV or eating ice cream." And they may be right, or they may be wrong. It's like a Buddhist evangelist telling you once you meditate enough, you'll see that they're right about things. You say you did meditate a lot, but they say you need to do it more. You can't argue against it, but you also can't prove them wrong.
I enjoy reading classics. I haven't read Ulysses, but I would say I enjoy reading the Iliad more than almost any other work. When I pick it up and read a few pages, the intensity of emotion is sometimes so strong I get a shiver down my back. This almost never happens when watching television or eating. Those are both great too---balance is good---but I think the pleasure of reading is the strongest for me. It's hard to describe, but I don't think it's just because of some prestigious literary associations---although it is partly because of that for sure. And what's wrong with that? There is something enjoyable about knowing many other people in history have read a book and enjoyed it too. It makes you feel connected to the "great web of humanity." Many people prefer watching football games in crowded arenas to empty couches at home.
I also (truly) enjoyed the Iliad. It is rich with appreciable association.
Having studied english lit in college, I guess I feel betrayed by works like Ulysses. On some level I feel I was promised that immersing myself in the canon to the extent that I could enjoy such a text in the way you described would give me a richer way to perceive reality/life/humanity/whatever. I believe that such is the case with works like the Iliad, the Pentateuch, etc... but for Ulysses, it felt less like connecting myself with more of reality and more like binding myself to the narcissistic culture of literary fiction.
> Ulysses is perhaps the ultimate example of a book almost nobody _actually_ enjoys reading, but that many people _convince themselves_ that they appreciate due to certain prestigious literary associations
I've never actually read it, and don't care to, but isn't it basically a very difficult puzzle (i.e. the satisfaction comes from figuring it out, e.g. the references, allusions, and wordplay packed to an insane density into some bit)? So it can be enjoyable, but most people aren't up to the task (but may still pretend, like you describe).
Edit: I might actually be thinking more of Finnegans Wake than Ulysses.
