|
James Joyce's "Ulysses" (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Personally, I think originality is more important than clarity, as "being clear" really presupposes an "end" i.e. being useful.
Sure, aphorisms are great, but if you're able to do something never before imagined by anyone else... that's the starting point to actually producing a piece of art, in my really humble opinion on this subject. |
That's the lovely thing about pieces of art though - they can be both art and .
Someone can take a dump on a cardboard box in downtown Chicago, put a velvet rope around it and charge admission, and suddenly that's "art."
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Joyce on Ulysses:
"I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of ensuring one's immortality."
|
This right here only serves to verify my presupposition that Joyce was really just riding his high horse right up his own asshole.
Just because someone claims they've put all these magical puzzles and riddles that very few others will ever get, doesn't mean they actually have. The general lack of clear consensus regarding "Ulysses" would seem to either infer Joyce' utter brilliance in being so adept with the English language as to stump nearly a century of academics, or that there really is little to no real substance or value in the work. Obviously I tend towards the latter.
Perhaps my education is an anomaly, but I had far more professors throughout my uni years who panned Joyce as little more than a literary joke. This of course raised the ire of their colleagues who'd spent many years agonizing over "Ulysses", and led to some rather spirited impromptu debates between the philosophy and English departments - so I guess I can thank Joyce for that. His relentless efforts at being a complete cunt definitely gave me some of the more entertaining lectures I had in school. :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I read Portrait some years ago and must say it's among the most terrible books I've ever touched. Since Ulysses is supposed to be written in similar style I don't even want to imagine how ty it is.
...What is there to enjoy about books that are so twistedly insane that you need to make notes and consult the analysis of several professors to even remotely understand what's going on. |
Portrait is actually a very straightforward novel, for the most part. I don't know why you'd need to consult outside analysis to figure out what was going on... |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Portrait is actually a very straightforward novel, for the most part. I don't know why you'd need to consult outside analysis to figure out what was going on... |
I was talking about Ulysses. I understood what was going on in Portrait, but quickly got annoyed by it.
The only thing that keeps me from dismissing Ulysses and similar "unreadable" works as an insane joke by the author and pseudo-intellectual wankery by those who claim to enjoy it, is that I sometimes end up on the other side of this argument when discussing David Lynch with some friends... :confused: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
That's the lovely thing about pieces of art though - they can be both art and . |
Exactly!
Regarding your example, yeah, I remember that in high school everybody was puzzled by everything the art teacher said about Duchamp and his nuttery, and I thought it was genius... however, because people like Duchamp have already gone great lengths to take art to new grounds, I think a piece of art titled "Speed turd in a cardbox and the velvet rope" doesn't really sound all that original any more. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I think a piece of art titled "Speed turd in a cardbox and the velvet rope" doesn't really sound all that original any more. |
The attempt to "shock" the taste of the broad public has itself become a cliche. And yet so many artists today still dutifully soldier on at it, apparently convinced that novelty and "transgressiveness" are the only requirements for great art.
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The attempt to "shock" the taste of the broad public has itself become a cliche. And yet so many artists today still dutifully soldier on at it, apparently convinced that novelty and "transgressiveness" are the only requirements for great art.
|
I think it's probably because silly ideas die hard :) |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The attempt to "shock" the taste of the broad public has itself become a cliche. And yet so many artists today still dutifully soldier on at it, apparently convinced that novelty and "transgressiveness" are the only requirements for great art.
|
And I think that maps nicely onto "Ulysses" - sure, it isn't poop in a box, but Joyce' intent genuinely seems to be to spurn the kinds of discussions we're having right here, for a long, long time - not to write a book with any sort of worthwhile content (unless your definition of "worthwhile content" is decades of people bitching about you - oh great, another deadmau5 thread).
And it kills me that I'm giving him exactly what he wants. Even posthumously.
Motherfucker. :mad: |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Give me Fitzgerald or Hemingway any day. I haven't read any Joyce, but he definitely sounds about as douchey and pretentious (probably more) as Eco.  |
|
|
| Stasis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Hemingway and Vonnegut are the two authors I've tried more than once and still shake my head. I don't get them apparently. I can write. In short sentences, too. Look. The hills are dark and blue. |
:whip: :whip:
Have you read The Sun Also Rises? Bullfights? Non-stop drinking? Fishing in Spain? More drinking? That book is like the best thing ever. |
|
|
| RJT |
Perhaps I'm one of few here, but I really hated reading the Great Gatsby while I was in High School (especially odd given my HST obsession).
I'd probably try to give it a go again now - just never really had the desire to, and absolutely hated drudging my way through it in HS. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Fitzgerald is just so depressing in all the right ways. |
|
|
| Stasis |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Perhaps I'm one of few here, but I really hated reading the Great Gatsby while I was in High School (especially odd given my HST obsession).
I'd probably try to give it a go again now - just never really had the desire to, and absolutely hated drudging my way through it in HS. |
Do it! I had the same hs experience, and have now re-read The Great Gatsby a couple more times, and it's so much better than I remembered. (I just think the forced reading of school can ruin even the best books) (same thing happened with me and hemingway too). Those sorts of authors were just meant to be related to by people in their 20's anyway...not high schoolers. |
|
|
|
|
