James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
theguardian.com
James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#2>You may like or you may dislike Ulysses, and you are entitled to express your opinion of its merits or demerits, but you are not entitled to demand that it should be other than it is;
This is profound. Replace “Ulysses” with “X” and it holds true for much of the hate spreading today.
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#3I tried reading it in late 2015 and it was just hard! The only thing I remember and find really funny is the dog on the beach peeing on an unsmelt rock!
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#4I tried reading it in late 2015 and it was just hard! The only thing I remember and find really funny is the dog on the beach peeing on an unsmelt rock!
Talking about James Joyce, vs. really reading his works...it's kinda like the difference between talking about Einstein, vs. really reading (including understanding the math) his major works (in high-level physics). Except reading Joyce brings far more old-school more social cachet.
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#5Ulysses is like a very funny joke that you don't understand. Well, a lot of jokes actually.
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#6It's a very tricky book to get a handle on, I must confess I've only made it halfway. I made a sort of "reader's companion" app to try to make sense of some of the esoteric language and references - https://camin.xyz/ulysses-companion/ (not at all mobile friendly)
Full credit goes to John Hunt, The Joyce Project at joyceproject.com for the annotations, I just found that site very tricky to use as I read.
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#7> If I understand him aright be sets out to depict not merely the fair show of things but the inner truth
I can't parse this. It reads like an OCR error; should it read "If I understand him alright, he sets out..."?
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#8Much to learn here for modern music journalists. Instead of inserting their own desires, shallow beliefs and ego into the review, the book is reviewed for what it is, with the artists intention considered and respected.
Compare and contrast with this tiresome Guardian review, which leaves you very unclear about the performance but all too sure about what the reviewer likes and wants
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jan/30/the-smile-revi...
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#9> If I understand him aright be sets out to depict not merely the fair show of things but the inner truth I can't parse this. It reads like an OCR error; should it read "If I understand him alright, he sets out..."?
"Aright" is probably correct, if a bit archaic from our perspective, but "be" is almost certainly OCR error (plus lack of proof reading), and not the only one.
Long live the Grauniad. (That being a nickname given to The Guardian due to its tendency for typos.)
Re: James Joyce’s Ulysses reviewed (1922)
#10> If I understand him aright be sets out to depict not merely the fair show of things but the inner truth I can't parse this. It reads like an OCR error; should it read "If I understand him alright, he sets out..."?
"Aright" is probably correct, if a bit archaic from our perspective, but "be" is almost certainly OCR error (plus lack of proof reading), and not the only one. Long live the Grauniad. (That being a nickname given to The Guardian due to its tendency for typos.)
Not just typos - from [0], we have
“The absence of corrections yesterday was due to a technical hitch rather than any sudden onset of accuracy.”
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/guardian-200-t...