No, I've never liked Ulysses nor Finnegan's Wake but by some incomprehensible means, James Joyce had took place in my best author spot as I turn over the pages (non which I fully understood of course). The fact that he waited sixteen years to finish Finnegan's Wake (which I gave up on page seventeen) to prove his immortality is what I see as the most admirable side of any author and for that fact, I have came to follow his trends of 'modernism' for the future (not now of course, I am merely a High Schooler).
James Joyce's is Finnegans Wake is gibberish, his pedantic stuff that was written out of his pomposity to prove to some of his contemporaries like Pond that his was magnum opus. Pond admired him but for this book he was critical of making the book obscure and incomprehensible. D.H. Lawrence said, ' My God, what a clumsy olla putrida James Joyce is! Nothing but old fags and cabbage-stumps of quotations from the Bible and the rest, stewed in the juice of deliberate journalistic dirty-mindedness – what old and hard-worked staleness masquerading as the all-new, Nabokov said "nothing but a formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book, a persistent snore in the next room and only the infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations redeem it from utter insipidity" Now you can think what kind of book it is. Derrida, a deconstructist praised Joyce' s both Finnegan's Wake and Ulysses. I never understand Derrida and I do not care to in fact. There are so many who could be enjoyed and why we should stick to such eccentric writers. There are pretenders who say Joyce is matchless in his experimental style but I do not care. I have a number of masterpieces on my list and why I should rack my brains with such stupid works though some of the critics who tirelessly keep on praising the works but the reality is among those praising critics some of them might never enjoyed and completed the books themselves.
His short story collection is really good (Dubliners), and it's fairly straightforward and simple to understand. I highly recommend it, even if you don't like his other works. His first novel, Portrait of the Artist, is by far his most accessible and is a good read. Ulysses is also very good, though a bit overrated in my opinion. As far as Finnegan's Wake is concerned, I'll probably never attempt to read it. I've heard many times that if you want to read Joyce, you should do so chronologically (Dubliners, Portrait, Ulysses, etc.).
This is very good advice. I rather like James Joyce's work. He appeals to me in a way I can't really fully describe.
Ah, I read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man before Dubliners. I can't remember much about the former because I read it a few years ago, but recently I finally got round to reading Dubliners and I enjoyed it.
I've read some of the stories in Dubliners, about half of Ulysses, and some excerpts from Finnegans Wake. I do think Joyce was brilliant and uncompromising. Sure, he was experimental and, especially in Finnegans Wake, very, very difficult, but hey, somebody has to explore the limits of what's possible in prose. I think our friend haribol is out of line in claiming that Joyce's later books are "such stupid works". They are anything but stupid. They were not written to be easily read, no doubt; it takes a large, concentrated effort to get through them. Everest is not a stupid mountain just because it's difficult to climb. One day, when I'm retired and have time on my hands, I'll read all of Joyce all the way through. I'm sure I'll need some guidebooks to do it, but I'll do it. I'm actually really looking forward to it.
"Saying that a great genius is mad, while at the same time recognizing his artistic worth, is like saying that he had rheumatism or suffered from diabetes. Madness, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police." - James Joyce (I don't really understand what this meant)
"I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality." - James Joyce Indeed the fact no one had fully interpreted his works was clearly laudable. At very least he was the one who had inspired me into writing.
Joyce's "A Portrait..." I eventually came to love " A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" after three readings. It's a lyrical, tender study of the appearance, growth, and, finally, self awareness of an artist's character.
Ulysses has been lying in my house now for the best part of a month. I've read 50 pages. Man i can't stress enough how much of a difficult read it is. Usually I read about a page and then I sit stewing, trying to interpret it. I just can't seem to get into any kind of flow when reading it. If i'm not sitting trying to understand what he's on about, i'm looking through the dictionary to find some word that he used. Having said that, there has been passages when i've just sat back and gone, WOW, pure genius
I have to say I bought the book so that I could read it, just to say I have read a 'masterpiece'. I haven't read it yet, and probably won't for a while, but one day I will. As for whether it is 'masterpeice' or just a pile of gibberish, that comes down to personal taste. I know that Dicken's is a celebrated writer and well acknowledged, but I personally don't enjoy his work as much as others do.
The Dubliners is quite good, in my view. I also thought Ulysses was fairly good. Haven't tried his other work.
