Reading "Ulysses"

[dunf]

Ulysses has a reputation for being the hardest of hard books: an incomprehensible mess. This semester, I'm in a seminar on all of Joyce's work, and for the past 12 weeks we've been giving Ulysses a page-by-page analysis. I have heard before that "close-reading" is the only way to really "get" the text, and I'd like to oppose that notion.

Chapter 15

Comments

[coldsaladotears]

I agree entirely. We were reading Kharms, an absurdist, the other week in my Russian lit class...and all everyone wanted to talk about was the parallels to Russian life. We never once talked about how fun it was to read! It is an absurdist text! It isn't supposed to have meaning...Kharms deliberately writes in his manifesto that he is making art for the sake of art...he's just fucking with my head, and I like it! Leave the text alone!

Goddamn academics.

"Leave the text alone"

[dunf]

That's a really fascinating statement for me to hear...I think I agree with you. Do you mind, though, if I ask for a clarification? When you say "leave the text alone," is that a synonym for "don't alter a text by forcing it into an interprative/academic norm" or, more literally, "don't mess with a text (at all), just read it?"

I think addressing that statement might help me figure out a lot about what the hell it means to major in English.

Re: "Leave the text alone"

[coldsaladotears]

I mean that in the best works, the text creates an image or a fabric in our minds -- to just look at one brushstroke; to look at one thread is to miss the point entirely & come away with the wrong impression.

Re: "Leave the text alone"

[dunf]

That just hoisted the flag I've been trying to salute for a while; I did not know where to look. Any class suffers if minute textual analysis doesn't do a damn thing for clarifying the "whole thing." Got what you mean and I'm with you.

On that note, I'd like to start a new genre of criticism that has no name as of yet, but might at this time be termed "open-ended half analysis." I have come across this new critical lens half out of laziness, and half out of a genuine interest in pursuing it: why come to a CONCLUSION about any text in a work of criticism? One would better leave the text, as you say, "alone," and simply point out what makes it interesting with limited interpretation. This branch of criticism will ask more questions and explain fewer things. At the core of this critical theory lies the idea that all humans are students, all humans should read what they like, and if anyone feels so inspired to write something about a beautiful piece of literature, they should do it.

[ininetyfour]

YES that is the way to read. And live.

[dunf]

With spear in hand, 24/7.

[cosasqueson]

I'm in an elective on modernist literature right now, and inarticulate monotone sophomores with a limited collective vocabulary effectively kill reading aloud.

But in principle, yes.

[dunf]

"memonom...nemom...momoneminim...mnnnennenmem...MNEMONIC."

-daft girl in my Joyce seminar

[The phrase "inarticulate monotone sophomores" describes most of the pitfalls of any college class...I apologize for their presence in a class that should be as lively as modernist lit. What are you reading? And, moreover, has your address changed? You can email me at dunfordm@kenyon.edu if the security feels better. I have some diagrams that I need to mail to you.]

[thirty_eight]

When I was in Zurich (that sounds kind of pretentious), I went to a James Joyce society reading and analysis. It was basically a bunch of old Swiss people and me in a room with the resident Joyce scholar reading and analyzing the text (if I recall correctly, it was a portion from the newspaper office chapter). Basically, there seemed to be something worth commenting on in every word. I realized it was all very silly