is engery some kind of liquor

Well, the quote is BS, but I think it depends on the work. Sometimes I think a work is hard because it's super dense and I should come to it again. Faulkner hits me this way. Other times, I think it's BS that I never want to waste my time on again. Here falls the later Joyce.

1) Like anything, there is a trade-off. You don't want to dilute a work so much that its power is lost, but at the same time, if you are unable to communicate with anyone, you've failed as an author.

2) Some things in life are hard. Not everything can be understood the first time around.

@Santa

obi doesn't drink.

@Santa:

Nope--can't drink:

Underage (by two monts...NEW YEARS' EVE! :D )

Plus, I take seizure meds, so until I change those someday, can't drink...

And I probably shouldn't--I'm not much of a food person, bu I LOVE to drink soda and tea...I drink wAY too much of that stuff and probably stop a can or cup over what was reasonable...I'd be a drunkard and messed up if I ever drank.

:)

My take, quickly, BEFORE I check the others, so I can get my view out quickly and then play the dialogue game...

1. First--this guy is a pompous asshole of a dick of a cunt, and I HATE him.
Without sounding too pretentious...imagine me if I didn't know what I was talking about literature-wise even 10% of the time. I mean I really dislike this guy, I get a look every time he speaks--my friends find this hilarious--and just try and ignore it...I called him on it ONCE--when he said Yeats' "Leda and the Swan" CLEARLY was a poem about how agressive swans can be and that it was crucial to the poem to know just what exact process a swan would have to go throuhg to break human bones WHILE raping her. Yeah. Enough time wasted on this guy...

2. My answer has to be a dependant one, ie, WHY is this hard for you:

If it's hard because the author is unclear, ad you are "of the age" and "degree" when you might be expected to understand this--that is, a 7-year old not getting "Hamlet" doesn't make it a bad play or the kid dumb, he's just not ready to progress from Steam Engines that Could to Princes that Couldn't--then yes, the author has failed, or at least this option is explorable.

IF, however, your complaint is that the author's complexity level is "too hard" or that you don't like the style...

No.

I said that for Joyce--and T.S. Eliot, since Eliot endorsed Joyce and I think both have similar, fragmented styles at times--you need to read it twice:

Once, just blowing through it without thinking...
And THEN go back and see what it all meant.

Because they're Modernists and Realists, and well...

We don't always catch the important things in life when we're "in the moment," and that's where "Ulysses" and "The Waste Land" both at least partially take place, in the stream-of-consciousness...

I thought it was garbled the first time I read it, but reading it again today before class, I caught more of the Odyssey connections and the real ironies that are there.



You don't hae to LIKE an author to say he's succeed.
I think Jane Austen is a carbon copy, cheezy, non-realist who's predictable all the way.
That said, "Pride and Prejudice" isn't a failure just because it isn't my cup of tea.

@semck83:

I think I've heard you knock Joyce before, jsut a day or so ago...?

Why don't you like him, out of curiosity, since it seems you've read more of him than I?

(I've read "The Dead"--good short story, weak opening but a very strong ending with lots of fun symbolism to play with--and we're reading CH. 13 of "Ulysses," which is where I read it twice and...well, it's not D.H. Lawrence-level of awesome-Modernism for me, but I respect it a lot more after that second reading and some context...)

Ahhh, here I was thinking you were some pompous 30/40 some year old failed writer who got kicks posting here. My bad, guess that's what happens when you assume. Viewing your posts as those of an younger college student make them a lot more tolerable. <--Not being sarcastic, kinda half apologizing for the previous critiques, though I still think you make too many threads.

@ obi - I think that you ought to apologize to me for your foul and profane language.

@obiwan, Did I really knock him in that other thread? Huh. I thought I had managed to restrain myself. :-P

Anyway, it's nothing uncommon or unusual, or anything you haven't heard before. And first of all, I think he was a very talented writer. "Portrait of the Artist," which besides a short story whose name (and plot) I forget, is all I've come close to finishing by him, was a well written, good book. (I just got really busy and stuff. I still mean to finish it).

But "Ulysses," I mean, come on, or "Finnegan's Wake"? That's just a big joke. What's the point of slogging through a thousand pages of incomprehensible nonsense four times just so you can finally get the in jokes and be part of the elite club? I've never been convinced that there's ANYTHING more going on here. Not that I'm saying all the crazy references and crap don't exist, but just I think they're pointless and stupid. You're not being a good storyteller anymore, nor even a good writer. Just writing the charter document for an annoying little elitist club.

Hmmm, I think it's a bit of both, as abgemacht says. Basically, I think if there's absolutely nothing to be gained from rereading literature it may be lacking a certain something, but if you have to read it more than once to even begin to understand it, it is definitely wildly overwritten. It occurs to me that my favourite book, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller is nearly perfect in that regard.

@mapleleaf:

Are you fucking kidding me?

@semck83:

I've only read The Dead and this by him, so I can't speak to the others...

But The Dead I picked up on right away, and I didn't get a thing the first time withn Ulysses, but I read it again, just a gloss over, and it was like a lightbulb going off, it all sort of clicked, the inverted Odyssey references--I was like "NAUSICCA! Oh yeah, that's GREEK in origin, like the Odyssey that probably's relevant! lol--and just how everyone has a different view of everyone else...and not everyone's aware of what everyone else is thinking...

And just the idea that this is all so pointless and yet so epic because of its pointlessness...

It's an ordinary day in the life of an ordinary few people...but Joyce does something I LOVE in any writer, and that's showing life's quirks as being truly something to behold...there are those moments...

Like when D.H. Lawrence will have his characters just casually go at it sometimes--not every sex scene in the books are epic, dramatic moments, just like in real life...sometimes, hey, the characters just want to have a moment and screw...which is funny and believable.

It's another reason I like works like "Waiting For Godot" and "R&G Are Dead," too...

Some moments AREN'T epic...which just makes the few moments or few words that DO really carry weight carry a lot of weight.

It's a modern Odyssey the guy's on, and here's this family that, really, is not at all anything special...

And yet, things are so messed up in his life it seems...and his time is messed up...

Well, a not-messed-up family amidst all this, with just normal banter, really does seem more innocent and significant.



That being said, you don't ahve to LIKE Joyce...I'm not blown away by him, probably wouldn'r read or quote him for fun like I do with Eliot or Shakes, but he's not bad...

And saying "it's too hard for me" fails as a reason to call the book a failure. :)

@obiwan, Well, interesting. I certainly agree about liking writers who make a big deal of the small details in life. This is also an excellent thing in film, most of the time.

I didn't say Joyce was "too hard for me," by the way. I have no doubt I could join the club if I wanted to. I just have no interest in doing so, because it seems stupid. (Of course, YOU can say you think it's too hard for me, and I don't really care, but I did not cite that as a reason for disliking the book).

^Oh, I was referencing the GUY saying the "Too hard" bit, not you. :)

Oh, right. Sorry.

@obiwan, Well if that Joyce-girl is not a very good student, his statement is strictly true.
If some-one says something like this I'd laugh him straight in the face (as long as I'm confident I got a sufficient or better grade, otherwise it'll back-fire very hard). I say that he might as well study harder instead of judging others on prejudices.
What helps as well is using the example he always comes up with, get to the bone of it and say at which particular point he's wrong (because people usually are [wrong]).

1. And if something's hard, it depends... I've been to enough classes to say that some people don't have the ability to teach. So in that case the "author" is wrong. But more often it's your fault for not understanding someone that has been transferring a lot of information to you.
2. There's no good answer to this question: some people are ridiculously fast in understanding things, but reading a work twice does give you often better insights and a much better understanding on hidden layers in said work and its applications. In my opinion, you somehow have to get the point, it doesn't matter how many times you've read it.
As you could notice from my previous post, I'd sense this guy's a bully (or at least projected by you as such). Is this correct?

If I'm reading to gain insight into life, myself, or something else, try try again. If I'm reading for pleasure and I don't find myself engaged in the story and needing to know the end, put it down and if I return to it later, great. If not, so be it.

Here is a good example... I started reading Swiss Family Robinson in 6th grade. We had a list of books that included it and Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 for summer reading (there were other books on the list). Seeing as I had read Martian Chronicles for fun early in the year, I wanted to try something different. I also had just read Lord of the Flies (for class) so the idea of a more fun version of a shipwreck story seemed like a good idea. Anything was better than the Great Gatsby after all (still haven't even tried that one as it just doesn't sound like something I want to read). But I just couldn't get into it (SFR) so switched to F451. I had to read a book from the list and I found Wyss to just be bleh.

Years later, after having read Dafoe's Robinson Crusoe and Swift's Gulliver's Travels(far better novels than anything Wyss could dream of writing), I thought I would give it a try again, so I picked up a copy and still went "Bleh!" Sorry, but Wyss sucks as an author and shipwreck stories have been done so much better than he could ever dream of doing them (Dafoe) and with much more depth and social commentary to be gleaned from them (Swift).

On the other hand, Les Miserables started off really slow (I mean *really* s-l-o-w!) but I did get wrapped up in the character of the Vicar of Digny in the early part, despite the slow nature and how much we go through before we ever meet Jean Valjean, and then JV came into the story and had an interesting backstory with him such that the book started picking up steam.

The difference? Hugo *is* a great author and so you can get through the early backstory stuff even if some of it seems a bit tedious. Wyss is a crap author and even though he jumps straight into the shipwreck, his characters are just too one dimensional and his story too derivative to find interesting and worth reading.

Sorry, but reading that book just isn't that important to me. It's not Atlas Shrugged or 1984 and it definitely isn't Gulliver's Travels. It is to GT what Redwall is to Watership Down, what Shannara is to Lord of the Rings, what the Flint movies were to the James Bond, 007 movies. Except at least Redwall and Shannara and Flint were fun. It wasn't even that.

So, not all writing needs to be read just because society calls it a classic. It depends on your goal in reading it. Is it for pleasure? If you aren't enjoying it, fuck it. Put it down and forget about it. If you are rreading for other reasons than just pleasure, maybe try rereading the parts you are having problems with and take your time. It's all in the reasons for the read.

Oh and in answer to question 1...

If you aren't engaged in a story written with the same basic language you speak, it *is* the author's fault for not writing well enough to engage his audience. Now, with older novels like Gulliver's Travels where the language may be very different as a result of the time that has past, I say neither is necessarily to blame, although the reader should make a concerted effort if they are serious about literature, but then if they are, the language shouldn't be a problem. Some folks can't do Shakesp[eare because of the language. I, (and I know Obi agrees) happen to find his work beautifully written and even the pulp like Much Ado About Nothing is still immensely enjoyable when performed by accomplished actors (Branagh's version is much fun, although I wish he had chosen someone other than Keanu Reeves to play Don John. The man has no depth).

So if it is the language due to age, I think it is the reader's responsibility to give it a try, but if they are reading for pleasure, they are under no obligation to try to the point it is tedious and if it is a more current novel, then the author can be blamed for not engaging his audience.

My answer to question 2 is obvious... Read it twice if you have a purpose beyond entertainment. If not, don't even bother to finish. Life is too short to waste forcing yourself to read something you don't enjoy just so you can call yourself a "well read man". you can be well read without having to read overy scrap of tripe that some critic in the history of critics deemed "important literature". Read what you enjoy and reading will be something you will do for life. Read it because it's expected and force yourself and you will find you read less and less.

@obi - As Ulysses is, obviously, way over your head, maybe you ought to have a go at THE SUN ALSO RISES by Hemingway.

It might make a man out of you......

@Obi - Having never read any Joyce, I have to ask just how similar Eliot is to Joyce. I love Eliot's Once and Future King and Book of Merlin. Maybe I should try something by Joyce. also, for a fun (if lighter) reenvisioning of the Odyssey, try Cross the Stars by David Drake.

I think the guy's kinda funny. Maybe he just says things to amuse himself? Seriously though, with the internet, who has time or desire to read a book? Why not just take up calligraphy or origami?

I have the desire to read a book and I make the time. Clearly people who buy kindles and nooks also have both the desire and can make time to read books too. And don't you read things on the internet? Well, maybe you might enjoy a good eBook (a form of book) while you listen to your pirated music.

God is dead.

Don't *read*, eat!

Who has the time or desire to eat? Why not just take up beer can collecting or pop bottle recycling?

Of course God is dead. The everything is all inclusive of the nothing or it would not be everything. I love to eat atheists. Dem sum good carne dare an' lots o' fat on doze bonez.

If a work is too hard, it could be because the author is a poor writer, or because the student is a poor reader, or both. It all depends on the specific instance. That being said, however, in English class, one is not likely to run into bad authors. Read twice to improve yourself, as, if encountered in English class, you're probably the deficient one.

I don't know. My example of Swiss Family Robinson would indicate that sometimes a book is selected but just isn't good based on the tastes of the reader. I'm no slouch reading comprehension wise. Gulliver's Travels, A Tale of Two Cities, The Man in the Iron Mask, and Hamlet are just a few of my favorite non-sci fi works. But SFR just plain sucks (or at least in my opinion it does) yet it was one of the books pushed when I was in school.