/lit/ - Literature

>>14781792
heh, you wouldn't get it...

>>14781792
>he doesn't comprehend entry-level Joyce
>he doesn't realize that the execution of the stories is so slick that most acclaimed authors can't even approach it
Dubliners is technical perfection. Maybe you have to be a writer yourself to appreciate it?

>>14781817
Try me. Sorry I like reading entertaining books, instead of reading inane shit that's meant to be looked at "symbolically". My apologies if I come to a story looking to be swept away rather than having to meet it more than halfway

It's full of references to things ancient and modern. You likely missed them. It's okay, there are Joyce readers for brainlets like you.

>>14781829
I am a writer. I've written two novels. I don't see anything special in Joyce's writing other than a heaping powdering of irrelevant details. He does use some nice language though, I'll give him that, but it's very antiquated. Also, some of the dialogue was great, but most of it was, once again (surprise surprise) irrelevant, and could have been cut. The dialogue should move the plot, it's pretty simple. We don't need six lines of people saying, "good night, goodnight"

>>14781834
Who gives a shit about references? Only autists. Is that what matters? If I add a million references into my next novel, will that get it published and held in high regard? Do you even think about what you say?

>>14781848
The way he synthesizes and presents them provokes interest so I like reading his fucking books. Sounds the autist is you for arguing that the use of a communicative technique is bad because is can be done badly. Why read or write at all then, since you could say the same about every other literary technique?

>>14781833
Nah, he’s right: you’re a pleb. Give up and go read some more Stephen King or whatever.

>>14781844
> I am a writer. I've written two novels.
Post links then, nigger. You want to assume authority over based Joyce, you better provide your mettle.

>>14781844
>t. Ernest Cline

>>14781844
>The dialogue should move the plot.

>>14781975
ikr

>>14781792
dubliners is shit though
start with portrait then go straight into ulysses

>>14781986
This.

‘Portrait...’ is a masterpiece, but you have to be a good (i.e. thoughtful, intuitive, and intelligent) reader to begin with which OP clearly isn’t.

Poor bait thread

>>14781914
Nice. They're YA, so probably not for you losers.

Anyway, so I see no real rebuttals or explanations of what makes Dubliners so great. Mostly just people insulting me or making jokes, which is pretty much what I've come to expect from /lit/. Good job.

>>14782004
Judging by the fact the OP sounds exactly like the kind of feedback one gets from 'literary' magazines, I'd say it's either a very good bait or he's being legit.

>>14781829
>>14781834
Not OP, but I've also been reading Dubliners recently (only have The Dead left) and can you actually explain yourselves more here?
Sure I'll accept that it's well written, it's very smooth and easy to sink into yet far from simple in language, especially for something written a century ago, which is all very impressive and makes for any enjoyable read. I also found a fair few of the stories rather touching and poignant, but it's far from a work of genius.
The book I read before this was V, which does so much more to elevate the medium of prose. It's much more technically impressive, much more clever.

I just don't see any of these clever little references that I was told to expect, can you actually point me to some? In Dubliners specifically.
Can you explain to me why Dubliners in particular is so "technically perfect", and not just a nicely written naturalist anthology. I'm enjoying it, but it really does seem mediocre.

I will of course go on to read the rest of Joyce's work though, maybe his reputation is more for his later stuff?

>>14782023
> YA
> A literal literary whore attempting to ‘critique’ based titan Joyce.
My fucking sides. For real.

>>14781792
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25487020?seq=1

>>14782075
What does this have to do with Dubliners?

>>14782062
I listened to this podcast once that live streamed the editing process and they sounded a lot like OP. They sounded disgusted whenever they had to read literary prose and kept yapping on about 'hook' and 'plot' like it was the God's own truth. I've never been more disillusioned in my life. The world is ran by plebs.

>>14782083
And yet you can't actually justify your taste, assuming you actually read and enjoy Joyce and aren't just pretending to so you can flex on anons that you enjoy real literature, as I know some of the people itt are doing

>>14782083
I’m not any kind of literary person or whatever, but I was given ‘Portrait...’ to read over 10 years ago, and it LITERALLY changed my life. The difference between people like me and OP or the other stupid cunt “YA author!” is I don’t read books to show off, or for some analytical reason. I read them for what they’re intended to be - stories to capture your spirit and soul. I’ve never read anything like that book since and I am forever changed for it. Fuck the morons who “don’t get it!”; they are simply incapable, and one thing I know for sure is based Joyce was never interested in them anyway.

>>14782062
>falling for such obvious bait

>>14782023
This is probably bait but what the hell. I think, based on how you talk about literature and the writing process; you don't seem to care about the underlying art of it. If all you care about is the plot and keeping the story moving than Joyce just isn't for you. Joyce isn't trying to appeal to those types of sensibilities he's trying to make you really think about the shit he's saying, not just trying to move from one set piece to the next.
Also, since you probably won't understand why YA is so heavily looked down upon here;s a really good article that basically articulates why a lot of people think it's bad; in fact, it sort of alludes to your predicament in a way.
https://www.hbook.com/?detailStory=mcluhan-youth-and-literature-part-iii-2

>>14782168
Great post.

>>14781844
>writing a book before reading Joyce

>>14782141
"Stories to capture your spirit and soul"

Okay, still zero argument here, other than a pointless personal anecdote (and more insults)

>>14782240
Whatever, man. You’re just a shitty reader. As I say: based Joyce wouldn’t have given a fuck about your kind anyway.

how can we show you the sun if you're still in the cave. pull yourself out and then you'll understand

>>14782168
It's not that I don't care, it's that I disagree completely with this notion you have of art. What about Dubliners is designed to compel me to "really think about the shit" Joyce is saying? A lack of clear structure? Stories that usually go nowhere? Dialogue that may, or may not, serve a purpose? How can you make such a confident statement about what is and isn't art? How can you make such a confident statement about Joyce's intentions, while dismissing the intentions of millions of YA authors?

And you've presented nothing to affirm your notion that Joyce "isn't trying to appeal to those types of sensibilities".

Ireland doesn't have a culture. Everything of artistic and cultural value in that country was left there by the British. The thing is the Irishman much like the Jew is prone to parasitic behaviour. They have their own little version of AIPAC and over the years a small but influential elite of Irish descendants was formed on the Northeastern US, especially Massachusetts. That elite pushed hard for a bunch of low-level Irish writers to be propelled to world recognition via US educational institutions.
James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker. All mediocre potatoniggers who wouldn't exist had they not been propped up by America.

I like how no one can actually defend Joyce. You’re simply reduced to screeching ‘you don’t get it, pleb!’ when told the emperor is naked.

>>14781792
He enjoyed smelling farts. He could pick the farts of his loved one in a room full of women farting, and I am pretty sure he must have tried this in his life.
He inhaled every little bit of Guinness stew and mashed potatoes and whatever the fuck else Irish people eat, aged with good old whisky, in the bowels of a fine overweight ugly Irish woman.
The first few times you might feel your mind wince, your stomach churn, it burns the nostrils a bit, but then you become addicted, like getting accustomed to a strong blue cheese or aged herring.
It starts eating on your neurons eventually. Eventually you can tell what she ate hours before. Eventually you know where in the ovulation cycle she is in. Eventually, with enough fumes and flatulence you know a woman's soul better than the gods themselves.
At that point you start breaking the conventions of the usual English language, not unlike lionses of Lumdrum hivanhoesed, being a lapsis linquo with a ruvidubb shortartempa, bad cad dad fad sad mad nad vanhaty bear, the consciquenchers of casuality prepestered crusswords in postposition, scrUFF, SCRUFFER, CRUFFERUMURRAIMOST ANDALLTHATSORTOFTHING, IF REAMS STOOD TO REASON AND HIS LANKALIVLINE LASTED HE WOULD WIPE ALLEY ENGLISH SPOOKER, MULTAPHONIAKSICALLY SPUKING, OFF THE FACE OF THE ERSE.

>>14782311
still better than OP's faggy YA novel about transgender vampires

>>14782310
I am convinced most if not all of the people rushing to "defend" the big man - with insults only, because they have nothing of substance to say - haven't actually read anything he wrote.
Philosophy fags on this board have almost never actually read the books they meme about, why do we assume fiction fags are actually any better?

>>14781792
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25487020?seq=1

>>14782023
If you don't consider your shit to be better than J. K's then you should fucking listen.

>>14782310
It's more along the lines of you not acknowledging any arguments because they make you think too much.
Joyce single-handedly defined what the novel would be for the remainder of the century. He changed the focus point to this deep analysis of the mundane character in a way that had never happened until that point, while also being the most interesting writer of the English language when it comes to linguistics and phonology.
Anything that makes English speakers leave their American/British neighborhood of phonology seems to put them massively at unease, and I'm not sure what causes this phenomenon, but you should thank Joyce for allowing you to step closer to other literature around the world in terms of colorfulness.

>>14782044
OP here. I actually loved Dubliners, I just made this stupid bait post to see if it was worth heading back to /lit/, rather than staying on Reddit (where I mainly post now). Clearly /lit/ is still filled with braincels who don't have a single critical or artistic bone in their body.

Anyway, I think Dubliners is significant for two reasons. The first, and not so interesting for me personally, is the historical context. The gist of it is that Ireland was going through, in the words of Wikipedia, "a search for a national identity and purpose." As Dubliners continues, Joyce weaves more and more of this political context into his stories. Some it can feel relevant (I live in a place going through a similar search), but yeah, this wasn't the big selling point.

The other significance Dubliners carries is the naturalistic style in which its written (which also, taken on its own, doesn't necessarily interest me). However, what I found so brilliant about Dubliners, and what all timeless authors seem to share, is the ability to take the complex emotions that live at the heart of our souls and pull them out. Then, using confident language, these authors bare this complexity in plain light, capturing in simple sentences some indelible truth about the human condition. Every story in Dubliners has that skill in full show. Every story is undoubtably true to itself. The characters are no characters but people. They have memories, hopes, desires, regrets. They are real - their regrets are the regrets of the people Joyce knew, and of the people he didn't. They are the regrets of Dublin, of Ireland, of the world. Same too with their hopes, their dreams, and so on. The detail Joyce imbues in every page is incredible, but it's not done to show off. I think it comes across so matter-of-fact sometimes, because to Joyce, he's simply describing what is. The world Joyce invokes is so fully realised that it can't be ignored, at least in my eyes, and becomes so vivid that it comes to life and follows you off the page. These simple stories, sometimes almost "plotless" (although I actually think the idea of plot is quite a damaging construct) are effective because it feels like they've been recorded from some God's eye that Joyce had been gifted, the ability to see into other people's lives, and understand just how it was.

Also, on another note, the sheer breadth that Joyce covers is incredible. He writes from the perspective of a child all the way to a perspective of a man in the twilight of his life, all the while never missing a beat. He also writes between genders and never falls into any of the tropes, still common, but especially so at that time.

I'm surely missing a lot, and I need to read the thing again after a bit of time to munch on it, but yeah, I definitely recommend finishing it. Story is about the characters, and I really think that's the highlight of Dubliners (not "muh references, muh symbolism").

>>14782422
OP here. This is not me lmao

>>14782277
Well, first of all, I think the notion that Joyce isn't trying to appeal to your sensibilities is self-evident based on the fact that your's obviously don't line up with his. Second, I think it's a bit ironic that you can call Joyce and presumably most (if not all) other modernist authors shit but when I post a critique of YA I'm "dismissing the intentions of millions of YA authors." Did you take Joyce's intentions into consideration? Somehow I doubt it. Finally, Dubliners is not there to "compel" you to do shit. If you want to understand the deeper meanings you can, if you want to throw it away and post on /lit/ about how shit it is you can. Joyce isn't trying to tell you want to do; 'you' have to want to understand it.

>>14781792
>>14782422
kek

>>14782469
actual OP here. I have never read joyce

>>14782469
You couldn't be me if you tried

>>14782422

>>14781792
OP, there's probably nothing we can do for you. Whether you're a "writer" or not, if you are too dense to make sense of basic Joyce, it's hopeless. Your "Joyce plot" summary is basically what every story ever written looks like (intro, shit happens, descriptions, end), and aside from your weird hatred of names, and figures of speech, what do you expect? I could point out the aging and thematic progression of the stories as they cover stages of life, or sit you down and explain every damn allusion and subtle detail in "Araby" I know, or even prove the importance of every sentence and image, but in the end you're still likely to just dismiss it because you were never moved by the story in the first place. I can tell you how shocking and unusual his stories were, and how afraid people were to print or publish them, and try to give some context for late 19th-century Dublin and Irish middle-class life under British rule, but again, if you don't apprehend anything moving from the story in the first place, it's not worth our time.

>>14782422
Thanks for the thoughtful response, OP or not.

I like how you put it, there is something really special about how he is able to capture the humanity of so many very different kinds of people, what makes them the same, what makes them unique. It's why I've found it so easy to read, it's certainly a very enjoyable collection of stories.
I guess I just need to manage my expectations, I was preparing myself for another "difficult read", but for what it is it is quite special.

>start insulting and arguing with some guy at the bar
>he gets really pissed off and pulls some of his friends over and tells me to come outside if I'm going to say things like that
>hide behind friend (who is Ernest Hemingway) and let him deal with it

>>14782604
Thanks. I don't know why posting on 4chan compels me to be such a combative asshole, but either way, it certainly does.

I'm not a big fan of slogging through books. After taking a stab at Ulysses (and of course, slogging), I came to Dubliners and was very impressed. I think starting on the easy reads is probably a good call. Get a feel for the author, for his language, his mind, where he likes to look, and then take the stairs to the next level when you're ready. I know one day I'll try Ulysses again, but it'll definitely be after Portrait of the Artist, and probably with a bit of context too, like an overview, or some background on the writing. Or, maybe I'll enjoy the challenge. Guess I'll find out.

And when I do, I'll make a post hating on it

>>14782422
This is a well disguised plagiarism of the Wikipedia page for Dubliners...

>>14782744
>well disguised
I literally quote Wikipedia you fucking dingleberry.

I'm not sure if everything I wrote after referencing naturalism is on Wikipedia or not, but if it is, that just confirms to me that they've got good taste as well

>>14782083
>I listened to this podcast once that live streamed the editing process
link? sounds like good scornfuel

>>14781792
fucking filtered lmao you turbo-pseud

>>14782788
sorry I honestly can't seem to find it again. I removed all traces of it from my computer in a rage

>>14782739
I don't know why I feel compelled to be an asshole when I start threads
>proceeds to start every thread using an ironic veil of criticism as bait
>gets upset when the thread is taken sincerely and sincere criticism is offered
OP, you are an asshole. Maybe if you were sincere you wouldn't be as combative you sniveling irony dependent paintywaist coward. Say what you mean next time. Actually, no, run back to your hole and take your mask of insincerity with you. Disgusting creature.

>>14782903
>every thread
What are you talking about?
>gets upset when the thread is taken sincerely and sincere criticism is offered

Literally no criticism was offered (okay, that's not true, one guy tried). It was just people either insulting who they thought I was, or telling me I just didn't understand what literature was.

Disappointing showing, I have to say

OP here. As an author of children's picture books, I feel like I have some authority on this subject, so listen up. I do not care for the works of Tolstoy, Proust, and Joyce. They insist upon themselves.

>>14781844
>a heaping powdering

>>14782948
You have no conception of the effect of a leading question; as is expected of an irony employing coward. Let me clue you into something, faggot; you aren't deserving of a sincere showing because you didn't share sincerely. This thread is a mirror created by your seed of deceit. Reflect on the ramifications of the distortion. Who do you see reflected here, /lit/ or your lies?

Wherever you decide to fuck off to, leave the mask behind.

>>14783099
Lmao this is incredible. I feel like I'm reading a joker fanfic

>>14782311
How did I miss this? This was the reply I wanted

>>14781792
>>14781833
>>14781848
Based as fuck.

>>14781829
As a writer it's easy to appreciate him and get inspired but actually read it? Nah, OP's right, shit's boring as a story.

>>14782168
>he's trying to make you really think about the shit he's saying
Which would work if he actually had interesting insigns. I don't recall any. Care to point some out?

Also while the article points a few of genuine flaws about the genre, it's less driven by limitations of YA but what the market deems acceptable, which changes all the times.

>>14782469
I'm OP, my dubs prove it.

No one even likes Joyce. They just say they do for pseud credit. There is no emotion in his work. It is deadening modernist obscurantism at best, and completely meaningless at worst.

Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo....

His father told him that story: his father looked at him through a glass: he had a hairy face.

He was baby tuckoo. The moocow came down the road where Betty Byrne lived: she sold lemon platt.

O, the wild rose blossoms
On the little green place.
He sang that song. That was his song.

O, the green wothe botheth.
When you wet the bed, first it is warm then it gets cold. His mother put on the oilsheet. That had the queer smell.

His mother had a nicer smell than his father. She played on the piano the sailor’s hornpipe for him to dance. He danced:

Tralala lala,
Tralala tralaladdy,
Tralala lala,
Tralala lala.

>>14781844
Modernism isn't about the plot. Stay clueless.

>>14783099
This.

You’re full of shit, OP.

Here's the thing about the modernists: their statement was 'make it new", not "make it good". They produced a lot of experimental pieces that don't really hold up if you evaluate them in the same way you would literary classics from other eras/movements, or even popular fiction today. This is why pseuds have such a hard time explaining why they like these works, and insist "you just don't understand it" when you say you didn't like it yourself. These works do not stand up to the common criteria.

If modernists were asked to fashion the emperor a new set of garments, they would also give him "invisible clothes" as well. But when called out for it, they would say "actually he's clothed in his imperial majesty and humanity, so he's not really naked". When you point out that he is nonetheless literally naked and those "clothes" are no clothes at all, the modernist-apologist says "nuh uh you just don't understand it retard haha imagine thinking clothes have to have a physical form loooooool go back to reading Harry Potter".

Dubliners does not have any incommunicable, transcendent merit. It's a literary slice of life about boring Irishmen going about their boring lives. Don't fall for the sophistry. The emperor is naked.

>>14784659
A bit too harsh, since a lot of the experimental ideas can be of use for others. Modernism was basically the catwalk of fiction, stuff interesting for the insiders aka. writers but almost meaningless for people who actually want to wear it/read it.

>>14782422
>in the words of Wikipedia