Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

NY Times Sunday book review asked authors Charles McGrath and Rivka Galchen this question:

How Would ‘Ulysses’ Be Received Today?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/boo...

How would you answer that? (I still haven't gotten the courage to tackle it yet.)

First, I agree with both commentators in the NYT. On its surface, Ulysses would not make the waves it did on its release; too much has changed culturally, we are inured to subtleties in literature. Which is a shame, because a book is above all an intimate and personal experience.

Second, as Henry James said, a book has to be reread and reread to be understood. Because so few of us reread, we rarely become as intimate as is possible with a complex written work of art (there are book written for simple entertainment, too, and it's possible, I suppose, to read Ulysses that way, although I can't really picture it -- and, conversely, it shouldn't ever be read simply to say one has climbed Everest), and so we rarely truly come to know it in all its complexities. No more than we truly come to know people with whom we are in the most intimate of relationships. A great deal of this, I think, is due to what I'm going to say next, which might raise hackles, I don't know.

Third, Ulysses has become a shibboleth, appropriated by academicians, so that those of us who are not part of that circle are simply afraid of it, and afraid to say what we think of it, for fear of being labelled as literary barbarians, or, worse, if we express admiration, challenged even if we claim to appreciate the book because we have not appreciated it on a sufficiently deep level.

I think Ulysses should be received with an open heart and an open mind, and not only once, but over and over, and not until one has come to understand what the book says to us and we say to the book should we even consider reading it with commentary in hand. Only when we've made it our own, as is our right with any book we choose to love, should we decide to get a commentary and autopsy the corpse, so to speak. (Edit: And thus revivified!)

Because the living book can be read for years, and each time give something new, and we can give something new to it, because art is not a one-way conversation.

How would Ulysses be received today? I guess I've answered not "would," but "should." Yes, know that Joyce has written on multiple levels, know that he has filled it with not just words and story, but music and allusions and guerilla attacks and inside jokes, but know first that Ulysses is a gift to the reader, and each reader is a gift to James Joyce.

It has such beauty, such squalidness, such joy and such pain. I would like it to be received without fear, and again and again. It is a day in the life of the mysterious world.

Nobody's saying anything. I'm so embarrassed. I just open my mouth and out comes nonsense. It's just an opinion, I know. What do you think?

Don't be embarrassed Ellen! I have not had time to thoroughly read the NYT article, and just read through your comments. I read Ulysses this year and I completely agree with your third point. I was afraid to read it, but made it through to the end realizing that there was much more to the book than I had ever imagined! I enjoyed the "everyday" bits and pieces of the book, and admire everything else that Joyce was playing with while writing, even if I am far from understanding it all. And I agree with your point about the book containing "such beauty, squalidness, joy and pain", I found all these points on the surface of the story and was glad to read the book even if I didn't understand the further layers.

I am afraid to read Ulysses. Afraid of wasting my time and not properly understanding the book, afraid of judging myself too harshly on this account. When I will make up my mind and sink my teeth into it, I will remember to keep an open mind :).

When I read it, I followed my professor's advice. I broke it up into pieces. It seemed less scary that way.

I do agree with your points Ellen. I think that the aura surrounding the book is what intimidates everyone. Almost like War & Peace does.

Once I started and got through (most of it) I found it really entertaining. Most parts at least, some of it I would wonder if we had to know EVERY aspect of Bloom's day. lol

Tina wrote: "some of it I would wonder if we had to know EVERY aspect of Bloom's day.."

Ha! I've often wondered when or if anyone would ever do the same with a woman's day. Our thoughts are so much more elevated! (Wait, they are, aren't they? Hmm...)

Well put

Rivka Galchen rightly observes that she didn’t come across a single contemporary reviewer who described Ulysses as obscene. I consider that Joyce was more driven by anti-Catholic hatred – much more so than by his sexual concupiscence. Joyce’s mockery of Catholicism, severe in places, pervades Ulysses. This fact is not given any importance nowadays. It isn’t even much recognised. It seems that peoples of the 21st century are not easily shocked by lots of things! I agree that the book would get a very quiet birth if published to-day. By the way, Ulysses is still a good read. I particularly like episodes 4, 6, 11 and 12. My home village of Shanagolden is mentioned in episode 12!
Patrick Moloney

Oh, Patrick, I was born in 1952, third generation Irish in America, still purebred, so to speak. And besides the rhythm of the speech, the first thing I recognized was the hatred of the church. It runs deep in the Irish, even the Irish American. I said before, in another group, another thread, this book was like coming home. No, unless you'd experienced the bitter condemnations of the priests, the nuns, and oh my god, the monsignors, above all, you wouldn't believe it. Because outside their own small group, the Irish are mealy-mouthed about the church, or were in my childhood. Monsignor may be a son of a bitch, but nobody's allowed to say so except us. How Irish was my hometown? http://gizmodo.com/the-story-behind-s...

Ellen wrote: "Oh, Patrick, I was born in 1952, third generation Irish in America, still purebred, so to speak. And besides the rhythm of the speech, the first thing I recognized was the hatred of the church. I..."

I grew up, Ellen in the late 1940s in Ireland and saw at first hand the great work done by priests, brothers and nuns. Like Joyce I got a great teaching - in my case almost free. I went to schools run by the De La Salle Brothers. Because of them I was able to go to university and get my degrees. I've had a great career in education and am now retired. I have always been thankful for the opportunities I got. Joyce's ungrateful response to the many opportunities that he got from the Jesuit priests always puzzles me. And nowadays, the mindset of the younger generations sadden me.

You're preaching to the choir, in one sense. I'm talking about something that's outside reality. I could tell you why some of the people I grew up with felt the way they did, but it's beside the point, because I may or may not agree with them, but the point is that Joyce was never alone.

That was very well put, Ellen.

I partly agree with the two authors.

I myself am one of those who tried reading it last year but failed miserably and gave up. Mostly because I couldn't understand the references from the other books since I hadn't read them and being from a different culture, I am not so familiar with the history of the period. It doesn't take long to realize that this a beautiful book and it really saddens me to read all those disputed comments about the book because,even though I gave up on it for the time being, I never really gave up on it completely, I wish people could see the potential it has and not write it off because it was difficult.

At times I look at the book sitting on my shelf and regret every day that I've wasted not reading The Portrait of The Artist as a Young Man or any other books that I should be to help me understand Ulysses.

It is layered, it is difficult but that's part of its reason why people are attracted towards this book even today. I knew about it before I read it and I still chose to give it a try. When I gave up on it, I did because I knew if I kept going on I'll only be missing out on a great book. I didn't want to read this book just so I could claim to have "climbed the Everest". I wanted to read Ulysses because I wanted to experience for myself what was it about this book that made people talk about it even today even if only to call it the most difficult book ever (and I must say, that makes it utterly intriguing! I guess that's the charm of it). The generation of today, myself included, like a book which is easy to read. But we are not readers without complexity. As much as we like our books to be simple, we also appreciate the intricacy of one.

So, I guess, from first hand experience I can say that maybe it won't be as readily accepted as it was back then, today. But give it time and it will be. IMO, people are more accepting of things today, specially of books and diversity. I think it's fair to say that it'll be justly appreciated if not more.

I did not enjoy Ulysses. I stopped around page 550. I felt like Joyce was not saying anything too profound. It was an accomplishment, I thought, in that it said so little while so prolix.

I prefer a writer who explains the complex with limpidness, but Joyce makes the mundane complex, and while we might be impressed with the language and the complexity, the various styles, the breadth of knowledge he displayed, I simply do not value what I see as his MO.

Patrick wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Oh, Patrick, I was born in 1952, third generation Irish in America, still purebred, so to speak. And besides the rhythm of the speech, the first thing I recognized was the hatred of t..."

He probably did not like being told he would burn in hell if he disobeyed the thought-policeman (god). Kids hate being told that if they have half a brain.