5 ms·

There's a piece of writing advice I like: "Take pity on your reader." Stream of consciousness style writing at such length is very painful to read. So I never u

There's a piece of writing advice I like: "Take pity on your reader." Stream of consciousness style writing at such length is very painful to read. So I never understood why an author would do it, but for some kind of self-gratification that strikes me as pretentious. Now this article has explained that Joyce had a goal that I often think about in relation to my often humdrum life, elevating the ordinary. I have a bit more respect for this now. Perhaps not enough to read the thing again, but still.

Paul_S 10y ago
Thanks. How does stream of consciousness elevate the ordinary? Forgive me for trying to drill down to the nub of the matter but without it the answer is just pushing the bubble up the wall. Since you didn't realise this on your own when reading it can I assume that it didn't succeed in that respect?
- edgarvaldes 10y ago
  Not OP, but I think books like Ulysses are more important for historical reasons than intrinsic literary value. It's not a bad book (far from it) but not a Top 100 Book [1] IMHO. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100_2.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100_2.shtml
  - Paul_S 10y ago
    I happen to agree with you 100%. I read the book this year and found it fascinating to see how easily relatable people 100 years ago were, especially since the stream of consciousness gives a better insight into their thoughts than a regular novel would. I did not however think it was a great book in itself which is why I'm curious to know what makes it great in other people's opinion (especially since I didn't find that article very supportive of it). Most of the time it felt like the author was enjoying himself more when writing it than I when reading it.
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  For me the stream of consciousness style didn't work at all. But I'm referring specifically to these passages of the article, which set the novel in a new context for me. I always appreciate hearing someone else's well-articulated reasons for why they adore something that I did not, particularly when the sheer joy of their experience shines through. >Joyce picked June 16 as the time of the novel partly to commemorate his first date with his future wife (more on that in a moment), but also because it was an otherwise ordinary day, on which ordinary people did ordinary things. Like the rest of literary and artistic modernity, the novel pits the epic against the mundane, and Joyce’s version toes the line with virtuosity. and >Ulysses bathes in low-culture vulgarity, even if it’s hard for today’s reader to see it clearly. The choice of June 16 as an homage to his future wife’s first date is partly romantic, but partly bawdy, too. >Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants in faux-humble deference to tradition, as Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot had done by incorporating classical references and source material, Joyce devoured and disgorged them again. And it was beautiful and real, like watching a drunk heave outside a pub in the wee hours of the morning. This is life.
Waterluvian 10y ago
You serve your audience, not the other way around. I'm sure a lot of authors and artists feel that the audience is an entity meant to serve them.

Paul_S 10y ago

Thanks. How does stream of consciousness elevate the ordinary? Forgive me for trying to drill down to the nub of the matter but without it the answer is just pushing the bubble up the wall. Since you didn't realise this on your own when reading it can I assume that it didn't succeed in that respect?

edgarvaldes 10y ago
Not OP, but I think books like Ulysses are more important for historical reasons than intrinsic literary value. It's not a bad book (far from it) but not a Top 100 Book [1] IMHO. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100_2.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100_2.shtml
- Paul_S 10y ago
  I happen to agree with you 100%. I read the book this year and found it fascinating to see how easily relatable people 100 years ago were, especially since the stream of consciousness gives a better insight into their thoughts than a regular novel would. I did not however think it was a great book in itself which is why I'm curious to know what makes it great in other people's opinion (especially since I didn't find that article very supportive of it). Most of the time it felt like the author was enjoying himself more when writing it than I when reading it.
marcusgarvey 10y ago
For me the stream of consciousness style didn't work at all. But I'm referring specifically to these passages of the article, which set the novel in a new context for me. I always appreciate hearing someone else's well-articulated reasons for why they adore something that I did not, particularly when the sheer joy of their experience shines through. >Joyce picked June 16 as the time of the novel partly to commemorate his first date with his future wife (more on that in a moment), but also because it was an otherwise ordinary day, on which ordinary people did ordinary things. Like the rest of literary and artistic modernity, the novel pits the epic against the mundane, and Joyce’s version toes the line with virtuosity. and >Ulysses bathes in low-culture vulgarity, even if it’s hard for today’s reader to see it clearly. The choice of June 16 as an homage to his future wife’s first date is partly romantic, but partly bawdy, too. >Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants in faux-humble deference to tradition, as Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot had done by incorporating classical references and source material, Joyce devoured and disgorged them again. And it was beautiful and real, like watching a drunk heave outside a pub in the wee hours of the morning. This is life.

Waterluvian 10y ago

You serve your audience, not the other way around. I'm sure a lot of authors and artists feel that the audience is an entity meant to serve them.