/lit/ - Literature

What kind of a person do you need to be to follow Ulysses? I tapped two times.

Is the Bloomsday Book actually better then Ulysses Annotated?

>>14327610
i listen to nothing this board says, im here to sp (shitpost) as everybody else is

to answer your question, if one is stupid enough to actually read joyce, he is stupid enough to listen to this board unironically

>>14327610
I’m just saving Ulysses for a special occasion, I don’t need a guide just the right time and setting.

>>14327700
Above 120 IQ

>>14328072
But you don't read joyce if you're stupid...

bump

>>14328072
Some people on this board are legit though. Got me into reading again and I enjoyed their suggestions.

>>14328177
right
you only read Joyce if you’re a midwit coomlord

>>14327610

Nobody who has a real taste for literature, I mean for Homer and Shakespeare, could give a damn about modernistic tripe like Joyce. Degenerates like him only write the way they do because they cannot get attention in any other way. Novelty is their safeguard.

>>14329890
Joyce’s apparent eccentricities are superficial by comparison with the depths of his traditionalism. His devices of style and technique which startle new readers most are in reality nothing but logical extensions of traditional poetic practices as old as Macbeth or Milton’s “Comus”—and older. If you think that you dismiss the greatest prose stylist in the history of English-language literature since Thomas Browne so easily, then I doubt that you actually understand either Homer or Shakespeare.

>>14329939
Based

>>14329890

Homer is dull. Change my mind.

>>14329939
>Its apparent eccentricities are superficial by comparison with the depths of its traditionalism. Its experimentation is neither so novel nor so capricious as it seems at first sight. Indeed, the devices of style and technique which startle new readers most, emerge, when studied, as logical extensions of traditional poetic practices as old as Macbeth and Comus—and older.
t. bloomsday book introduction
based plagiarist poster

>>14329939

I have read Milton, Shakespeare, and Sir Thomas Browne. I am intimately familiar with their works. So I invite you to show me how, in any way, James Joyce resembles them in Ulysses. You have made an assertion; now I am asking you to prove it.

>>14330037

What did you think of the scene at the end, with Priam, where Achilles weeps with him and returns his son to him, after having held on to his anger during all the books prior--where the great hero finally relents, merely because of the pity of a grieving father? What did you think of the scene where the Myrmidons finally pour out with Patroclus in the sixteenth book, and the Trojans flee in absolute terror, each man seeking to escape utter destruction? What did you think of the lively and heated argument between Achilles and Agamemnon in the opening council-scene? Did none of these things move you? What translation were you using?

>>14330523
Homer is too rooted in maleness to be a universal writer as is claimed, and the scenes you chose to illustrate his greatness show this

>>14330766

The meeting of Hector with Andromache is one of the finest passages in the poem. I also don't see how compassion and shedding of tears are in any way typically "male" attributes.

>>14330523
>>14330766
>>14330773
I assume you guys are reading homer in the ancient Greek right?

>>14330773
>how compassion and shedding of tears are in any way typically "male" attributes.
Who said they were? I'm pointing out how Homer privileges the male experience. He's a great poet, just not a universal one

>>14330836

You used the word "maleness," which means "properties characteristic of the male sex." But at any rate, there are many great and interesting women in Homer--Andromache, as I say, and Helen, and Penelope, and Hecuba, and Nausicaa, and among the goddesses Athena, Hera, and Thetis.

>>14330988
I could definitely masturbate 1000 times in a year. Do I get backpay?

>>14327610
>Finnegans Wake before Ulysses

>>14327610
You can actually read Ulysses. Finnegans Wake is impossible to read without a guide, or possible but pointless.

>Finnegans Wake

>>14327610
my FSIQ from the WAIS-IV at 22 (4 years ago) was a 144 and I still can't get through Ulysses

>Implying

>>14327700

Finnegans Wake. A formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book. Conventional and drab, redeemed from utter insipidity only by infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations. Detest it. A cancerous growth of fancy word-tissue hardly redeems the dreadful joviality of the folklore and the easy, too easy, allegory. Indifferent to it, as to all regional literature written in dialect. A tragic failure and a frightful bore.

>>14330836
All great literature is. The female experience is entirely vapid.

>>14332489
Holy based

>>14329748 >>14328072
I've been visiting /lit/ on an off for a few years now and I realized a while ago that the best way to enjoy your time here is to keep reminding yourself that there is no singular voice. Despite all the circle-jerking that goes on here every post comes out of a vacuum and no one person gets the final say on anything, so take every piece of advice and every scathing review with a heaping handful of salt. Also remember that no one here has actually ever read a book before

>>14330523
>debate me in the rain