>mfw reading Ulysses
This shit is esoteric as fuck. How do you patricians do it?
don't focus on understanding all the allusions
just enjoy the rhythmic rise and fall of words
i dont even see why people enjoy it so much
its just an exxperimental comedy devoid of themes
>>8221967
>devoid of themes
read the preface if you need some help
>>8221945
Read it out loud anon
>>8221945
>he fell for the meme
This >>8221960 is the only advice you need.
You have to EDUCATE YOUR AESTHETIC SENSE before reading it, otherwise you will focus on 'understanding the symbolism' or some other idiocy, and you will not enjoy it.
Ulysses is funny, and sometimes beautiful, and it's definitely one of my favorite books. I did not read it, but, rather, I lived through it. It's immense.
The only secondary source I used were those sparks notes summaries that one finds on the Internet. Nothing else.
You also need to read Hamlet and Homer first, but I guess you have done that already.
>>8221989
This is like analysing a symphony on the basis of one single note. There's no rigor in it.
>>8221989
context, faggot
>>8221989
low quality bait
>>8221988
I'm not all that concerned with thematics and symbolism until I'm finished with the work and am able to mull things over on the book as a whole. I enjoyed several books purely aesthetically at first, Lolita especially. Nabokov even said in Lolita's afterword that Lolita should not be seen as a statement piece but "aesthetic bliss." It's hard to enjoy Ulysses this way because of it's texture, which is bumpy and contorted. I find the same texture in Faulkner's writing, but I find it easier to see the reasons behind Faulkner's obstructions. Ulysses' just seem arbitrary.
I'm sure it'll make sense later on, this "texture," it's just kind of irritating.
>>8221972
>“The pity is the public will demand and find a moral in my book—or worse they may take it in some more serious way, and on the honor of a gentleman, there is not one single serious line in it.” - J.J.
There are themes, certainly, but they have no weight. Joyce, much like his imitators Nabokov and Pynchon, had a passion for jokes and pretty words, but not much else.
>>8221945
Annotations. Lots of them. The Oxford classics edition is favored largely because it has a fairly decent set in the back.
You should be fairly well read before attempting Ulysses.
The absolute minimum requirements are The Illiad, The Odyssey, The Aenid, The Bible, Hamlet (most of Shakespeare, actually) and of course Portrait of the Artist
>>8221989
To me that sounds pretty even without context desu. Doesn't matter who wrote it.
>>8222050
>it's texture, which is bumpy and contorted
>arbitrary.
>it's just kind of irritating
i mean, that's how life can be too, right?
>>8222066
>There are themes, certainly, but they have no weight. Joyce, much like his imitators Nabokov and Pynchon, had a passion for jokes and pretty words, but not much else.
I disagree. in my experience they touch deeply upon life
>>8221989
I dont have a problem with it
>>8222066
>>8221988
This "Joyce is only interested in Aesthetic s" meme seems at odds with some of his own statements, especially ones concering his views on being anti-romantic, how the modern mind is preoccupied with sublities, or even his own classification of Ulysses (he first called it novel, then epic, then a monster novel, even an encyclopedia). Then there's Joyce assertion of Bloom as the Everyman, with all of its social and philosophical implications. Clearly Joyce meant there to be meaning in the work, perhaps just not in the outrageous schema of symbols he designed. As the Oxford intro put it, there is no meaning to be gained from learning Cyclops' color is orange, yet Joyce approved it anyway. But Joyce also approved Pound and others, who focused on the humanity in Ulysses, and the very meaning-finding the complex schemas seem to spite. I'll agree with Oxford again here, and state that Ulysses is both deeply aesthetic and humane, and that hiearching the other misses out on the enjoyment of the book.
>>8222329
>i'll conclude by sitting completely on the fence
What are you fuckin neutered?
>>8222155
>to me, an amateur, it sounded amateurish
You shouldn't be surprised by your mediocre analytic skills. Amateurs often confuse their own level of skill with that of a master.
>>8222580
t. a master
>>8222580
You're right, "His pitying gaze absorbed her news" has many intricate levels of meaning which ought to be thoroughly analyzed.
