James Joyce sucked

[Anonymous No.14536312]

I'm not stupid enough to waste my time trying to read finnegan's wake, but I've read a portait. . ., dubliners, and Ulysses and I can honestly say that the appreciation of James Joyce by our intelligentsia is just a sure sign of corruption and degradation of Western thought, just as the modernist genre intended. Joyce wasn't just a bad writer, he was a monumentally bad writer. He was shit. Due to his schizophrenia he was unable to write a single sensible chapter. All Joyce was capable of was writing pretty sentences when viewed by themselves and without any sort of connection to the whole.

James Joyce is in the same boat as john coltraine, the beat poets or modern art. No one will be honest and admit that shit is meaningless trash. People are too afraid of the approbation of their peers to admit their real view. This provides insight into how our views are shaped by television and entertainment. Where does this universal respect for the talent of Jimi Hendrix (for example) come from? From entertainment. You'll never hear anything but praise for hendrix from your tv so you adopt that position as your own. This is how most of our opinions are formed. This is why people like Joyce.

Joyce's entire career is a psychological study of an intelligent guy becoming more and more erratic and incapable of coherent though due to the progress of his schizophrenia(schizophrenia is genetic, and joyce's daughter had severe schizophrenia as well). He was a lunatic that had the chance to become a good writer but mental illness snatched that away from him. But since the modernist genre was created with political intent his god awful rantings became the pinnacle of Western lit when it should have been tossed in the bin. Take Ulysses, for example- you can't read it and make any sense of it without a commentary. Since he was mentally ill, he spent decades writing a book about one summer day in dublin in the early 1900's and every sentence has some reference to pop culture, current events or trends in Dublin at that time; things no one that didn't live in dublin during that period would have ever heard of at all. So you have to study this dumb fuckin book like it's hegel's Science of Logic and when you're done you have nothing to show for it but attaboys from the pretentious douchebag crowd that all need to be machine gunned into a mass grave.

[Anonymous No.14536334]

Joyce at his best (particularly in Ulysses) is one of the few English-language writers who can seriously get on Shakespeare's level. It seems like you were pleb-filtered hard.

[Anonymous No.14536342]

>>14536312
RAW said he is good tho

[Anonymous No.14536347]

>>14536312
2 digit IQ hands wrote this post

[Anonymous No.14536349]

>t. Virgin Woolf

[Anonymous No.14536350]

>>14536334
But Joyce has less than half of Shakespeare's depth.

[Anonymous No.14536368]

>>14536350
Shakespeare is an all-around giant of course but I meant Joyce's use of language.

[Anonymous No.14536388]

Joyce destroyed peoples faith in received pronunciation and was pushed heavily by his Jewish friends in the critic and publishing circles because they wanted to undermine the British people. He was salty because gays were still being castrated at the time but he wrote larping as a Irish nationalist since outright promotion of homosexuality was illegal. He is largely irrelevant today as nigger speak has replaced the gutter lingo he was pushing. Don't you me.

[Anonymous No.14536390]

Joyce had no ability for the coherent thought required in writing a story. Since he was too mentally ill for that he relied on a trick- ignoring all the elements of a story and just writing the abstract, meaningless thought processes of a schizophrenic. This was Joyce's cope for being too crazy to write a halfway decent novel and due to political winds of his day (the postmodern foundations of modern education were built between 1900-1940 and so "geniuses" were manufactured among the pseudo intellectual intelligentsia) his little gimmick was labelled genius when it was really just insanity.

Actual writers can impart meaning to people. The better they write, the more meaning they can communicate. Good stories evolve into the basis of societies, morality, tradition, which creates nations. Humanity has long used stories to pass knowledge from generation to generation. The behavioral role of stories in human societal development and evolution can't be fulfilled by modernist gibberish. Religion, fiction and brutality are the three forces which create societies. Joyce, and the whole modernist genre, is incapable of communicating any meaning whatsoever. His work is utterly trivial, a path backwards through evolution, a complete dead end artistically.

When Ulysses was first published, Joyce got a 10,000 grant from John D Rockefeller Jr, the robber barron responsible for the creation of the social sciences, modern education, and much of the modern world and his explicit intent was to cripple humanity intellectually, spiritually, and in every other way necessary to reduce humanity to an easily managed herd of cattle. That's why we now go to art galleries and look at blank canvases that we are told are art or read novels comprised of nothing but the rantings of schizophrenics and we're told that's genius and listen to noise on our radios and we consider it to be music.

Fuck Joyce. If you like him you're just an NPC. You have no agency of your own. You're just a puppet.

[Anonymous No.14536398]

>>14536334
>Joyce at his best (particularly in Ulysses) is one of the few English-language writers who can seriously get on Shakespeare's level.

Joyce wasn't fit to lick shakespeares ass clean. Shakespeare could tell stories,he could impart meaning. Joyce couldn't maintain a train of thought for more than three sentences.t.

[Anonymous No.14536408]

Envy is so PALPABLE ITT lmao
SEETHING angloids and /pol/tards as well

[Anonymous No.14536410]

>>14536368
>Joyce's use of language.

Joyce could write pretty sentences. He was just incapable of stringing them together in any sort of coherent or meaningful manner.

[Anonymous No.14536417]

>>14536388
>Joyce destroyed peoples faith in received pronunciation and was pushed heavily by his Jewish friends in the critic and publishing circles because they wanted to undermine the British people.

Amen brother. Nice to see someone that has an awaren4ess of the political underpinnings of Joyce's popularity.

[Anonymous No.14536423]

>>14536408
Ok pavlov's dog. Turn your goytainment back on mean words cant hurt you there.

[Anonymous No.14536424]

>>14536410
>>14536398
You can thank the Ezra Pound influence for that. Pound was a colossal failure so he started to contaminate the actual talents from his time and sabotaging their works as well.

[Anonymous No.14536439]

>>14536417
Jews were non-entities in the early 20th-century. They didnt even have 1/100 of the influence they now have. Shit opinion. And even if Jews liked Joyce's work and promoted it, so fucking what? lmao

[Anonymous No.14536446]

>>14536439
>Jews were non-entities in the early 20th-century.

I haven't even mentioned the role of the jews yet. . .But the Rothschild's took over banking fa earlier than that and the jews have always held disproportionate power because Christians were forbidden from lending money at usury, so kings would employ court jews to do that for them.

[Anonymous No.14536456]

>>14536424

Ezra pound hated jews and yet without even realizing it he was their agent,

[Anonymous No.14536490]

>>14536390
He's canon whether you like it or not. Comparing him to postmodern hack artists like Miró and the like is stupid.

[Anonymous No.14536497]

>>14536490
>He's canon whether you like it or not.
what a fool
>the intelligentsia tells us we have to like him so you have no choice!

[Anonymous No.14536505]

>>14536490
>postmodern
>hack artists
pick two

[Anonymous No.14536507]

>>14536497
cope

[Anonymous No.14536515]

>>14536439
You can read the Jew the gypsy and Islam. This opinion is demonstrably false. Disraeli was a Jew, Churchill's debts were paid off by Jews, many major European cities were majority Jewish populations.

[Anonymous No.14536533]

>>14536312
>>14536390
>>14536410
Nothing personal, but you sound like a massive plotfag.

[Anonymous No.14536542]

Lmao how can you read the dead and think he's a bad writer

[Anonymous No.14536555]

>>14536312
Who do you regard as the greatest novelists of the early 20th century?

[Anonymous No.14536563]

>>14536368
I meant the same. Joyce was a masterful writer, but he has nothing else to offer. It's like a plate full of garnish.

[Anonymous No.14536771]

>>14536533
and you sound like the average dipshit.

[Anonymous No.14536782]

>>14536555
I think Tolstoy was the greatest novelist.He was equally good at short stories as well.

[Anonymous No.14536793]

>>14536563
well put. joyce's works are like a mirage. You think you see something from a distance but the closer you get the more you realize that it was nothing after all.

[Anonymous No.14536799]

>>14536312
If you approach Joyce analytically you're missing the whole point. He achieved the linguistic representation of human consciousness. The density of his text is a result of the fact that it incorporates all the humor, emotion, cultural, historical, and ideological reference and linkage that is an innate part of human thought but which is typically lost in the attempt to derive coherent and accessible meaning from the mental stream. The aesthetic form he developed allows the transmission of nuanced thought when read in a meditative state, but it's not universally accessible. Your degree of understanding will depend on the similarity of your thought process to Joyce's, and your familiarity with the languages, cultural mentalities and historical contexts that formed his mind. If you're being autistic about it you'll never get it.

[Anonymous No.14536802]

>>14536515
and the economy of Europe had been controlled by the rothschild's since Napoleon

[Anonymous No.14536805]

>>14536312
drunk irish IDIOT!!!

[Anonymous No.14536849]

>>14536799
bro i read the greeks and romans and shakespeare and it's effortless and obvious what they mean because their work is transcendental in spacetime. everything you wrote is incoherent rubbish. why would i want to 'become' james joyce in order to appreciate his work. using your logic i should pretend to be a dog licking my dick and crawl around on all fours in order to better capture the mood of my own dog and understand his lived experience.

fuuuuuuuuuuck youuuuuuuuuuu pseud.

[Anonymous No.14536879]

>>14536799
>He achieved the linguistic representation of human consciousness
No he didn't. That is untrue propaganda mindlessly parroted by the intelligentsia. Joyce was completely and totally incapable of understanding human psychology. That's why every character in Ulysses was Stephen Daedalus, why they all had the same obsessive tendencies in thought. The only human consciousness Joyce's work accurately depicts is the decline of the human mind under the effects of schizophrenia. If you start with Dubliners and read in order to finnegan's wake it is a clear exhibition of his gradual decline into the utter insanity of finnegan's wake.

>The density of his text is a result of the fact that it incorporates all the humor, emotion, cultural, historical, and ideological reference and linkage that is an innate part of human thought but which is typically lost in the attempt to derive coherent and accessible meaning from the mental stream.

I appreciate the thought you've put in,. but that sentence was just gibberish. The density of his text was due to his schizophrenia. He made no conscious choice to write that way, and it isn't a literary style that anyone should ever try to duplicate. Joyce was driven to by mental illness and degeneracy. All Joyce cared about were the thoughts occurring in his own mind. He was obsessed with them.

>The aesthetic form he developed allows the transmission of nuanced thought when read in a meditative state

That's just fucking stupid. It figures you'd use a postmodern argument to defend modernist trash. You are the automaton that postmodern social "science" based education was developed to create.

>Your degree of understanding will depend on the similarity of your thought process to Joyce's
True, his output is the rantings of a lunatic and to truly find value in it you have to be mentally ill yourself.

[Anonymous No.14536890]

>>14536879
It’s only interesting bate if you actually respond to him, buddy

[Anonymous No.14536897]

>>14536312
Nice pasta

[Anonymous No.14536901]

>>14536410
>>14536563
>>14536793
People find different purposes in literature. Some are looking for "deep insights" into the human mind or human condition. Others are mostly looking for a beautiful deployment of language. I'm in the latter camp. I read nonfiction like philosophy or history to satisfy any cravings for "deep insights".

[Anonymous No.14536909]

>>14536849
>why would i want to 'become' james joyce in order to appreciate his work.

Good question. The point of james joyce was to teach the western world to value insanity over intelligence,weakness over strength, the exact same reason for the elite brainwashing us into thinking a neon print of marilyn monroe of a bunch of campbell's soup cans is actually art.

[Anonymous No.14536916]

irish alcoholic MORON

[Anonymous No.14536930]

>>14536901

art and lit has a developmental role in human societies. it's important. It's not just something for us to do when we are bored, it's how we establish our perception of the world and how we transmit knowledge from generation to generation. You're correct that people go to Joyce looking for "deep insights" the problem is that there are none to be found there.

[Anonymous No.14536970]

>>14536312
An absolutely masterful troll post.
10/10.

[Anonymous No.14536971]

>>14536930
>You're correct that people go to Joyce looking for "deep insights"
No, they don't. That's my point. The virtuosic use of language is the main attraction for a writer like Joyce.

[Anonymous No.14537028]

>>14536424
>Ezra Pound
>Failure
Hmmm pretty sure he's one of english languages greatest poets. . .

[Anonymous No.14537033]

>>14536312
This post just reminded me that I need to read Ulyses this summer. Thank you.

When I write, the best times are those in wich I just correlate everything that is around me with my feelings and perception, striving to find a unity that precedes me. Is possible that it is crap because I don't do this for a living, but in terms of experience is by far the best one.

[Anonymous No.14537037]

>>14537028
Not even top 50, sweaty.

[Anonymous No.14537046]

>>14536849
you're irredeemably autistic

[Anonymous No.14537050]

>>14537037
Have you not read the Cantos my man

[Anonymous No.14537069]

>>14536312
>claims to be against modernity
>writes a 3 paragraph appeal to psychiatry

[Anonymous No.14537075]

no one cares faggot

[Anonymous No.14537082]

>>14537037
Everyone in the top 50 would qualify as one of the English language's great poets though

[Anonymous No.14537090]

>>14537050
Yes. A formless Modernist turd. Pound himself considered it a failure.

[Anonymous No.14537093]

>>14536312
Regardless, the profundity and beauty people of high sensibility have received from him over the decades is enough to justify his canonical place. I don't think he's going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.14537119]

>>14536312
Lmao this post is based beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.14537162]

7/10 if pasta, 10/10 if original. Like the mention of John Coltrane

[Anonymous No.14537172]

>>14536334
(The brand of) Shakespeare is overrated and not that good either.

[Anonymous No.14537205]

>>14536439
I like how the overton window has shifted to 'jews have no influence!' to 'ok maybe Jews have a lot of influence now but they didn't used to!'

[Anonymous No.14537244]

>>14536312
Too true...

[Anonymous No.14537247]

>>14536312
If this is bait, nice job
If this is real you should kill yourself

[Anonymous No.14537257]

>>14537172
Name one English writer who's better than Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.14537261]

>>14536350
There is more depth in a single page of Finnegan's Wake than there is in the entire Shakespearean body of work.

[Anonymous No.14537269]

>>14536388
>Joyce's work celebrates Irish culture
What a fucking pleb comprehension

[Anonymous No.14537270]

>>14537205
I'm not all the people you've ever talked to online so I never said that to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14537280]

>>14537261
based

[Anonymous No.14537281]

>>14536312
>James Joyce is in the same boat as john coltraine
No, Coltrane sucks. Stopped reading here.

[Anonymous No.14537285]

>>14536398
I know a genre fiction babby when I see one

[Anonymous No.14537295]

>>14537257
Oscar Wilde.

[Anonymous No.14537306]

>>14536342
Not OP
Yeah, and RAW got me to read Raymond Chandler, for which I am grateful. And Joseph Campbell like JJ as well. But I just do not like his stuff. You can throw out random Rorschach-test prose that they will spend a hundred years speculating about, but it is ultimately masturbatory.

[Anonymous No.14537313]

>>14537295
Not even the best Irish writer.

[Anonymous No.14537324]

>>14537313
That wasn't your challenge.
I'll take this as a concession.

[Anonymous No.14537332]

>>14536799
If we were to do what you say, and approach a work by assimilating the context in which it was made into our own heads, then try reach conclusions following patterns of thought directed by a non logical text, all that can be done at that point really is project our own meanings on to the text. That's right isn't it? You're admitting to projecting your own meanings on to the text? If this really brought you great value, then maybe you owe your own splendid mind more thanks than Joyce's.

If yours is the best defence of Ulysses I find it discouraging. The 'aesthetic language' might have value but can't an author do that and pair it with meaning?

[Anonymous No.14537337]

>>14537332
>can't an author do that and pair it with meaning
Yes, and they should.

[Anonymous No.14537370]

>>14537324
I told you to name an English writer who's superior to Shakespeare. You named Wilde, who's not even the greatest of the Irish, so how can he possibly be greater than Shakespeare? Are you an adolescent or what? You're terribly mistaken. You could've at least said Milton or something respectable lmao wtf

[Anonymous No.14537396]

>>14536971
>The virtuosic use of language is the main attraction for a writer like Joyce.

I actually laughed out loud at your "virtuosic use of language" line. The guy can't clearly communicate the simplest of facts and yet he's a virtuoso? what the fuck do you think language is for, anyway? If Joyce were a virtuoso in the use of language, 95% of people wouldn't set ulysses aside before they'd read a single chapter.

Language devoid of meaning is noise. You've been trained like a dog to think the pinnacle to reach in the use of language is to make fucking noise, rather than communicating.

[Anonymous No.14537415]

>Take Ulysses, for example- you can't read it and make any sense of it without a commentary

[Anonymous No.14537418]

>>14537396
>The guy can't clearly communicate the simplest of facts and yet he's a virtuoso?
I take it you're not a fan of poetry.

[Anonymous No.14537423]

>>14537370
>I told you to name an English writer who's superior to Shakespeare
I did.
>not even the greatest of the Irish
Irrelevant.
>so how can he possibly be greater than Shakespeare?
I'm not going off your retarded calculus.
>You're terribly mistaken.
I'm not, you are an NPC who doesn't think for themself and this extra bit here only further proves that:
>You could've at least said Milton
You're a total fucking drone masquerading as someone cultured.

[Anonymous No.14537427]

>>14537257
Possibly Milton.

[Anonymous No.14537435]

>>14537028
>Hmmm pretty sure he's one of english languages greatest poets. . .
Ezra Pound played an influential role in Rockefeller's is destroying Western culture and art, that's where his esteem comes from, not from any talent he had, though he was marginally talented and had (wasted) potential.

he's considered to be for the same reason joyce was propped up as a great novelist- to set absolute trash at the pinnacle of artistic creativity so that the "intellectuals" will be carried away by stupidity and the society in question will lose its ability to perpetuate itself.

[Anonymous No.14537449]

>>14537033
>I need to read Ulyses this summer.
no one ever needs to read ulysses, but at least you're smart enough to realize that it's a chore that has to be done rather than an enjoyable way to spend time.

[Anonymous No.14537455]

>>14537069
>writes a 3 paragraph appeal to psychiatry

psychiatry, like every other social "science" is bullshit, but it does have some value in providing terms to describe different conditions of the mind and for observing human behavior. It's role in society is the same as modern art, it's political..

[Anonymous No.14537467]

>>14537449
didn't know it was possible to be this based

[Anonymous No.14537471]

>>14537257
Chaucer, Spencer, Donne, Milton.

[Anonymous No.14537475]

>>14537093
>people of high sensibility
faggots like this npc are the enemy of humanity. He's just parroting the brainwashing of academia and nothing in his life will ever shock him into having a thought of his own.
>If you like joyce, you have "high sensibility" and others don't. You are better than those others because of your "high sensibility"
You're just engaging in the programmed behavior I already described in the second paragraph of my first post

[Anonymous No.14537498]

>>14537332
>he 'aesthetic language' might have value but can't an author do that and pair it with meaning?
Tolstoy did.

[Anonymous No.14537519]

>>14537475
How have you managed to form you own opinions independently of this brainwashing? Can we learn your secrets?

[Anonymous No.14537529]

>>14537423
Cringe. Consider suicide, nigger. Wilde is inferior in every way. You haven't really touched Shakespeare if you have the nerve to make such an idiotic statement.
>>14537471
>Chaucer
Blatant thief who debatably didn't surpass its source. Great nevertheless but inferior to Shakespeare.
>Spencer
Worthy rival.
>Donne
Inferior if we consider their overall writing. Superior if we consider their poetic works exclusively.
>Milton.
Worthy rival.

[Anonymous No.14537530]

>>14537475
You seem to regard language as merely a medium through which information is conveyed, more or less transparently and efficiently. You don't seem to recognize the possibility of language as an artform. Why are you even posting on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.14537543]

>>14537529
>using "nigger"
tells me all I need to know about your intelligence level, or more properly, lack thereof

[Anonymous No.14537549]

Pleb-filtered: the thread
And some faggots say /lit/ is the smartest board... TOP KEK I blame Trump and zoomers

[Anonymous No.14537556]

>>14537543
>t. triggered nignog

[Anonymous No.14537575]

>>14537529
>>Chaucer
>Blatant thief who debatably didn't surpass its source. Great nevertheless but inferior to Shakespeare.
>>Spencer
>Worthy rival.
>>Donne
>Inferior if we consider their overall writing. Superior if we consider their poetic works exclusively.
>>Milton.
>Worthy rival.
Surprisingly I agree with your assessments here -- *except* with regard to Chaucer. Calling him a "thief" reveals again your oddly information-based perspective on literature. Did Chaucer steal the language or just the 'content'? Content-wise, Shakespeare was the greatest thief of them all. Yet, to my mind at least, that has no bearing on his artistic achievements.

[Anonymous No.14537578]

>>14537556

[Anonymous No.14537586]

>>14537578
>

[Anonymous No.14537590]

>>14537586

[Anonymous No.14537617]

>>14537590
Cope. Shakespeare is still superior than your faggot writer, you thick lips.

[Anonymous No.14537620]

>>14536879
based

[Anonymous No.14537624]

>>14537617
If you actually read either of them you wouldn't be making that assertion.
Instead, you just call him a faggot, remember the 4 plays you were forced to read in high school, and then parrot the sentiment that Shakespeare is the greatest English-language writer ever, like a good little boy.
Protip: no one thinks you're smart for doing so

[Anonymous No.14537662]

>>14537575
Yea, calling him a thief was an anachronistic and unfair exaggeration on my part (considering plagiarism as we know it was not a thing back then). But while Shakespeare adapted things from history books and historical records, Chaucer did his own reworking of an already existing literary work, so the "theft" is not really comparable in my opinion. Differences aside, I'm glad we can reach an understanding.

[Anonymous No.14537728]

>>14537624
I have read his Complete Works, not just "the 4 plays I was forced to read in high school" as I'm not even American and according to some people here that would've had the opposite effect: I.would've hated his work. Also, I have read all of Wilde's fiction, plays and poetry. The conclusion I arrived to is that Shakespeare is superior and it's not even close. The Bard beats the Irishman on every front. Wilde had wit, congratulations. Shakespeare had everything. "Parroting the sentiment" is a silly notion to have. Opinions vary but Shakespeare is undisputably a giant, not just in the English language but in all of Literature.
>Protip: no one thinks you're smart for doing so
Couldn't care less, we're anonymous, anyway.

[Anonymous No.14537757]

>>14537728
Shakespeare writing is full of bloat, half of the corpus relies on pre-established stories and plots, the writing is hardly ever insightful / philosophical, the dialogue is often contrived; Shakespeare has a lot of issues you've been taught to ignore and make excuses for.

Oscar Wilde, on the other hand, is capable of creating an interesting and original premise, creates characters capable of subtlety delivering compelling food for thought, and has a remarkable handle on the Modern English language to write refreshingly yet virtually never cryptically.

[Anonymous No.14537781]

>>14536390
your humanism is cringe but the rest is based

[Anonymous No.14537796]

>>14537757
life is full of bloat retard. learn to self-reflect.

[Anonymous No.14537804]

>>14537796
So it's not only okay for art to be full of bloat, but having it lots of it also makes you a genius, hunh?

[Anonymous No.14537833]

>>14537530
>as merely
This is where you lost the plot. To the modern intelligentsia, language has to be gibberish to be genius, but the opposite is true. Lots of things are conveyed with language. . .unless you read joyce, in which case it conveys nothing. Joyce it like static on a tv screen. If you stare at it long enough you will start to see patterns, but it's all in your head, there's really nothing there but static.

[Anonymous No.14537839]

>>14537543
what are you even doing in this forum? niggers don't read.

[Anonymous No.14537851]

>>14537549
Samuel Becket, another hack. Beckett was Joyce's assistant when he wrote finnegans wake and he unfortunately was carried away by joyce's lunatic writing style. Beckett was talented but misled. There's a good reason why people call the unnameable the unreadable.

[Anonymous No.14537852]

>>14537833
What information does Beethoven's 9th Symphony convey? Nothing. It is simply a beautiful arrangement of sounds.

[Anonymous No.14537860]

>>14537852
>hurr why don't wordless music say nothin'

[Anonymous No.14537873]

>>14537728
>Shakespeare is superior and it's not even close
I agree. Wylde has wit and he did write well, but he's famous because he was a degenerate faggot. Wylde was the hunter s thompson of his day

[Anonymous No.14537875]

>>14537757
> relies on pre-established stories and plots
Like Wilde in Salome or in Vera?
>capable of creating an interesting and original premise
No premise is truly original but the closest he got to this was Dorian Gray. And that was essentially a reworking of the story found in Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde which had came out four years prior, as well as the decadent themes and vibe found in Huysmans' Against Nature.
>creates characters capable of subtlety delivering compelling food for thought
So does Shakespeare.
>and has a remarkable handle on the Modern English language to write refreshingly yet virtually never cryptically.
Shakespeare had a masterful command on Early Modern English so what's your point? You think Wilde is superior because you can't into Shakespeare? Or perhaps also because it's written in an English you can't truly understand? I'm getting huge r*ddit/bugman/plotfag vibes from your post... The funny thing is I don't even hate Wilde. I quite like the guy.

[Anonymous No.14537878]

>>14537851
>There's a good reason why people call the unnameable the unreadable.
Because they're cynical plebs who can't read it.

[Anonymous No.14537891]

>>14537852

apples and oranges. musical tones and written words are different things.

[Anonymous No.14537893]

>>14537804
Horace stated that purple patches of language best shine when used sparingly. With that in mind, bloat is needed.

[Anonymous No.14537897]

>>14537269
He was a drunkard tho

[Anonymous No.14537903]

>>14537897
who gives a shit

[Anonymous No.14537912]

>>14537878
>Because they're cynical plebs who can't read it.
no, because it's gibberish. It's a big letdown after you read the first two books of the trilogy and when you get to the third you realize the story goes nowhere accept a final volume of beckett doing a joyce impersonation.

[Anonymous No.14537918]

>>14537893
>Horace stated that purple patches of language best shine when used sparingly.
and Tolstoy proved that the best practice is to never use them at all. There's not a purple patch in existence that couldn't be edited out resulting in a better end product.

[Anonymous No.14537921]

>>14537912
>beckett
>going somewhere

[Anonymous No.14537928]

>>14537281
>No, Coltrane sucks
and joyce swallows

[Anonymous No.14537932]

>>14536782
>>14537498
>>14537918
Do you read Tolstoy in Russian, or in translation?

[Anonymous No.14537933]

>>14537285
>genre fiction
oh, you think genre's really do exist? That's adorable.

[Anonymous No.14537941]

>>14537932
In Russian (I'm Russian).

[Anonymous No.14537946]

>>14537519
>Can we learn your secrets?
Trust me, you don't want to.
>He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow

[Anonymous No.14537956]

>>14537921
true

[Anonymous No.14537960]

>>14537941
Fair enough. Tolstoy is clearly among the greatest novelists of all time (if not the greatest). It's interesting, by the way, that he thought Shakespeare was shit.

[Anonymous No.14537962]

>>14537875
>essentially a reworking
huge stretch
>Early Modern English
virtually Middle English
I'm saying Dorian Gray's command over his iteration of the language is the same as Shakespeare's in that day
>r*ddit/bugman
fuck no

[Anonymous No.14537965]

>>14537941
I can't read russian, I've only read him in english.

[Anonymous No.14537968]

>>14537960
>Tolstoy is clearly among the greatest novelists of all time (if not the greatest).
this

[Anonymous No.14537972]

>>14537962
>Dorian Gray
*O. W.
obvious brainfart

[Anonymous No.14538025]

>>14537962
>huge stretch
No, Wilde himself said it was a "fantastic variation" of Huysmans' À rebours (Against Nature). He even held the book during one of his trials (it was the famous Yellow Book).
>virtually Middle English
No, it's called Early Modern English. Middle English is what Chaucer wrote in.
>fuck no
Okay.

[Anonymous No.14538046]

>>14538025
>Wilde himself said it was a "fantastic variation" of Huysmans' À rebours (Against Nature).
You can see the obvious inspiration behind making such a work.
I was talking about Hyde.
>No, it's called Early Modern English
And whatever the case may be, it's not really the same language Wilde was speaking. It is sufficiently different.

[Anonymous No.14538078]

>>14536312
I knew OP was trolling when he said Coltrane was trash

[Anonymous No.14538203]

>>14537839
this board used to be good, stop shitting it up with your crass babble

[Anonymous No.14538234]

>>14538078
coltraine is trash. Granted, he's not as bad as charlie parker, but still. I'll tell you the easy way to spot frauds foisted on the public as geniuses by the (((elite)))-
1. Everyone will claim to like them, whether they've ever heard them or not
2. People that openly express disdain will be considered to be bizarre
3. No one consumes the product they made(listens to their music, reads their books, etc) unless they are forced to by some instructor

[Anonymous No.14538246]

>>14538203
blow me snowflake. If you can't grasp the beauty of discussions thaqt begin with "listen asswipe, fukking joyuce sukks" then I can't help you. Maybe you should just fuck off back to r*ddit until all this blows over.

[Anonymous No.14538429]

>>14536312
>Where does this universal respect for the talent of Jimi Hendrix (for example) come from? From entertainment. You'll never hear anything but praise for hendrix from your tv so you adopt that position as your own. This is how most of our opinions are formed. This is why people like Joyce.
Jimi Hendrix? He must be a hack, nobody could ever like him for being THE most influential guitarist ever...

[Anonymous No.14538541]

>art HAS to follow my predefined definition of beauty and meaning. it MUST imply a coherent predefined meaning.
I had a hard time reading Ulysses too man but goddamn. loosen up alittle.

[Anonymous No.14538578]

>>14538429
>THE most influential guitarist ever...

Who gives a fuck? There isn't one song in the last hundred years that comes even close to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or Bach's air on a G string. Praising a musician as being the most talented of a talentless herd isn't very high praise. Hendrix was really good, but he was nowhere near as good as he's made out to be and all the things that Hendrix did which other guitar players copied from him were things that he himself has copied from earlier players.

[Anonymous No.14538582]

>>14538429
>for being THE most influential guitarist ever...
source?

[Anonymous No.14539031]

>>14538234
I like Coltrane, don't begrudge anyone who doesn't, and only started listening to him in my late 20s at the behest of no one. What now?

>>14538578
Really? Shit on hendrix but such plebian tastes in classical? Machine Gun kicks the shit put of moonlight sonata. Eat a dick.

[Anonymous No.14539067]

>>14538578
How do you put God Bach among beatthoven

Fake news! Bach is true music... beetlejuice it’s just a fuck character along the likes of van gag.

[Anonymous No.14539076]

>>14536334
I would attempt to read his magnum opus if it was something other than story about cuckold.

[Anonymous No.14539135]

>>14538234
What? I love Coltrane... have you ever listen to Blue or Giant? Sure his later stuff gets really experimental but it’s an experience of it’s own.

What musicians would you recommend?

Joyce is an expert writer, he studied his whole life...

[Anonymous No.14539184]

>>14539135

[Anonymous No.14539320]

>>14539184
Don’t need your selfie...
just share what you listen to and what you read.

[Anonymous No.14539606]

>>14539135
>What musicians would you recommend?
classical.

[Anonymous No.14539615]

>>14539067
I agree that bach is way better but no modern song is even close to beethoven's moonlight sonata.

[Anonymous No.14539621]

>>14539031
>started listening to him in my late 20s at the behest of no one. What now?

Why did you start listening to him then? You were brainwashed into believing that coltraine is the shit and so you formed an opinion before you heard the first coltraine song and once we form opinions, it's next to impossible for facts, reality, or our own perception to change them.

[Anonymous No.14539643]

>>14537257
Me.

[Anonymous No.14540346]

>>14539615
>>14538578
Moonlight Sonata is pretty dull desu. Doesn't really develop, just repeats the themes in the obvious keys to go to once you've established C# minor. It's essential /overratedbynonpianists/core

[Anonymous No.14540467]

>>14537662
>Chaucer did his own reworking of an already existing literary work,
Ironic you say this when shakespeare rewrote the knight's tale and troilus and criseyde

[Anonymous No.14540492]

>comparing Joyce with Shakespeare and thinking it makes sense
Hurr

[Anonymous No.14540603]

>>14536312
Everything you say he doesn’t have, he has in plain site in Dubliners. Personally I think Portrait and Ulysses have it too but you can’t deny that Dubliners is great for realistic characters, depth of psychology, emotion, and drama.

[Femanon1234 No.14540669]

ITT: people using copes to justify their misunderstanding of something. Literature can be dense and it can be clear, it can be both too. The fact that you guys are arguing whether an acclaimed writer is a hack without bringing it a textual analysis shows that you either 1. Have not read the texts you are talking which is standard in lit or 2. Can’t be bothered which is worse but also lit nowadays and forever. Either way, Joyce wrote well. Shakespeare wrote well. To compare either is ridiculous. Compare their contemporaries within one movement /romantics vs modernism/ /modernist vs post modernism/; to compare the formats of writers who are so obviously divergent is exactly as this post implies, mentally unwell.
Alas, I will leave you with one phrase of wisdom: fuck jannies

[Anonymous No.14540697]

>>14536916
Based retard.

[Anonymous No.14540707]

>>14537261
Kindly off yourself, my man.

[Anonymous No.14541141]

>it's another "I wasn't able to read/understand it so I'll bash it to feel better about it, and hopefully get some validation from /lit/" thread
>also, letting politics stop you from honestly appreciating art
stopped reading at John Coltrane.

>>14538234
You are a faggot.
I've listened to the entirety of his published records, you obviously haven't. Most of his stuff is not even remotely hard to get into.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQtZBfzez8

[Anonymous No.14541161]

>>14541141
>I've listened to the entirety of his published records, you obviously haven't. Most of his stuff is not even remotely hard to get into.
No duh, unlike what the theoryfag will tell you, Jazz is aggressively accessible, even in its most abrasive forms. That’s precisely what makes it so monstrous.

[Anonymous No.14541233]

>>14541161
Aggressively accessible to who? /mu/tants? Maybe, but for the average person, even Coltrane's Ballads are hard to get into, much less something like Ascension.

[Anonymous No.14541292]

Approaching literature as if mining for epigrams and maxims, i.e. searching for spelled out "deep human insights" is decidedly middlebrow and dishonest, even Scruton (pbuh) knew this.

Also whats with this faggot and his hang up on Coltrane, first you have to be instructed by someone to get into it, now it is aggresively accesible... you cant have this both ways, nigga.

[Anonymous No.14541308]

>>14541292
middlebrow okay, but why dishonest?

[Anonymous No.14541934]

>>14541292
>Also whats with this faggot and his hang up on Coltrane, first you have to be instructed by someone to get into it, now it is aggresively accesible... you cant have this both ways, nigga.
Coltrane took both spiritual ideals and challenging music concepts and transformed then into something readily consumable. If any music could be called evil, it is his.

[Anonymous No.14542056]

>>14541934
>took both spiritual ideals and challenging music concepts and transformed then into something readily consumable
Sounds like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, or any composer who set the mass to music

[Anonymous No.14542741]

>>14542056
Musical consumption wasn't anywhere near the same sort of monster it is in a post-recording world.

[Anonymous No.14542818]

>>14542741
The world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some.

[Anonymous No.14543266]

>>14540603
>but you can’t deny that Dubliners is great for realistic characters, depth of psychology, emotion, and drama.

I think Dubliners was his only readable work. I liked it. It was his first, so his schizophrenia wasn't that severe at that age. Schizophrenia comes on at about the age of 27 and Joyce was under 23 when he wrote it. He was in his mid twenties he wrote A portrait. . .. He began writing Ulysses at age 28- the age when latent schizophrenics finally become full blown schizophrenics. He was By the time he wrote "the wake" (as despicable joyce faggots call it) he was a basket case. If you read his books in order you can see a clear mental decline. Writers usually get better with experience. Joyce just went off the rails.

[Anonymous No.14543279]

>>14537261
what a moron. I'd be willing to bet that this idiot has never read that abortion of a book

[Anonymous No.14543286]

>>14542818
whatchoo talkin bout willis?

[Anonymous No.14543305]

>>14541934
>Coltrane took both spiritual ideals and challenging music concepts and transformed then into something readily consumable.

This sentence is clear evidence that anon lives in a state of near constant delusion. I pity him, really. If Coltraine's music was so readily consumable, why does no one ever consume it?

[Anonymous No.14543319]

>UG DUN LIKE 2 THINK
>UG JUST BLAME OTHERS FOR PROBLEM

[Anonymous No.14543320]

>>14541141
you're what the bongs refer to as a "wanker".

[Anonymous No.14543328]

>>14543305
most people are stupid

[Anonymous No.14543330]

>>14536879
>'

[Anonymous No.14543340]

>>14540346
Have you listened to Moonlight Sonata or do you just mean the famous bit?

[Anonymous No.14543351]

>>14538025
I would suggest reading A Rebours and Dorian Gray and comparing for yourself.

[Anonymous No.14543353]

>>14541141
what a fucking asshole. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, since you claim to be a knowledgeable coltraine fan, and listen to the song you posted and it's the shittiest pseudo-intellectual asshole muzak possible. Literally the lowest form of jazz ever made- the form of jazz that killed jazz off as popular music. That shit is so gay that it's even banned from elevators.

You're a 105 IQ brainlet that's trying to bump it up to 130 by adopting "smart" opinions and preferences. You are a chameleon and no matter how much effort you put into appearing to be intelligent everyone around you will always know you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.14543369]

For me, it's Cherokee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M283JFxesic

[Anonymous No.14543384]

>>14536312
>Joyce's entire career is a psychological study of an intelligent guy becoming more and more erratic and incapable of coherent though due to the progress of his schizophrenia

Yes. Exactly why it’s good. Joyce is over your head OP.

[Anonymous No.14543389]

Based OP. Art suffers from 'authority by collective'; a bunch of pseuds tell you how to feel about something and sheepish retards eat it up, because that's what they've been told to do.

[Anonymous No.14543392]

>>14540669
>Joyce wrote well. Shakespeare wrote well.
at least you're half right. There's no reason to compare joyce to anyone. He was just a schizophrenic babbling nonsense. Fortunately for him, he lived smack dab in the center of the time period when John D Rockefeller paid to make babbling schizophrenia art

[Anonymous No.14543411]

>>14543340
I've played the whole thing live, but when someone refers to 'Moonlight Sonata' and 'Air on a 'G' String' it's pretty clear they are referring to the famous bit. And that they are a bit of a pleb who thinks he can sound cultured by making reference to 'high brow' stuff. I'm surprised he didn't mention Fur Elise or 1812 Overture. Plenty of Coltrane I'd take over all four desu

[Anonymous No.14543443]

>>14543389

I went to the museum of modern art in San francisco once and I was so disgusted that I couldn't stomach art for years after. I don't want to waste time describing the pigshit they flung on the walls and referred to as art, but it was horrid and foul beyond all comprehension. They had no less than seven blank white canvasses hanging around the museum that they were claiming were works of art. There was a coke bottle with a coat hanger wadded up inside it that they were claiming was art. . . I was horrified on a deep spiritual level, so I decided to make my own art and hang it up, and it was the only real art in the place. A group of schoolchildren were touring the museum and one of them left a notebook behind with a stick figure drawing and his name on it. I ripped the drawing out of the notebook and stuck it to the wall between two paintings and then sat there and watched the pseudo intellectuals study it like it was some new treasure. They'd come up, one after another and stand hypnotized for several minutes, staring blankly at a stick figure drawn by a child and not a single one of those fuckers realized the lesson I was teaching them- just because it's on the wall of an art gallery doesn't mean it's art.

[Anonymous No.14543455]

>>14536515
>the jew the gypsy and el islam

Based Burton. Fucking sucks that the board of british jews owns the chapter called “human sacrifice among the sephardi”, they tried to auction it but they failed to get a buyer some years ago. Atleast that’s the official explanation. Doubtlessly some pressure was applied behind the scenes.

[Anonymous No.14543460]

>>14543411
oh, one of those faggots that thinks it has to be obscure to be good and is too stupid to grasp the tactic of naming songs that people generally know in order to communicate my point. I can't stand people like you, I'll be honest.

[Anonymous No.14543468]

>>14543443
imagine being triggered by art lmao snowflake.

[Anonymous No.14543469]

>>14543328
>most people are stupid
another one of you fucks!
>If you don't like the art that the intelligentsia tells you that you're supposed to like, then you're stupid
what a pretentious twat

[Anonymous No.14543475]

>>14543469
You're the one assigning intelligence to art appreciation lmao common midwit mistake

[Anonymous No.14543478]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.14543493]

>>14543475
I'll give it to you straight because someone has to. Are you ready? You're a retard, anon. I recommend suicide. Either that or fuck off back to r*ddit

[Anonymous No.14543499]

>>14537090
The only canto i liked was the one about usury.

[Anonymous No.14543510]

>>14543493
Nah I've read GR twice

[Anonymous No.14543522]

>>14543460
Did you have a point? You appear to be a non musician who has the idea that classical is somehow inherently better than jazz, even though you can't explain why. No musician I know shares that kind of snobbery, you only find it among plebs who think they can sound 'classy' and want to feel superior, and think the cultural clout classical music has can provide that. Essentially a mutated le-wrong-generation fag.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can explain, without buzzwords, why you think the way you do.
By the way, neither Coltrane, nor Bach, nor Beethoven nor Tchaikovsky are 'obscure', they are some of the most famous musicians of all time.

[Anonymous No.14543562]

>>14537449
basde

[Anonymous No.14543569]

>>14536312
192 posts? How?

[Anonymous No.14543599]

>>14543522
>You appear to be a non musician
I've played guitar since 1984, started playing professionally in 1990
> You appear to be a non musician who has the idea that classical is somehow inherently better than jazz, even though you can't explain why.
I never tried to explain why, but since you asked- forget the circle of fifths, in fact forget music theory in general, music is about expressing moods and the moods that modern music can express is greatly diminished from what classical composers could express them. Jazz, at least the latter forms, expresses nothing. it's narcissistic wanking. I took jazz classes in college, which is when I began to realize I hated that shit.

I like earlier styles of jazz-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yy07zVHPpo

[Anonymous No.14543626]

>>14543599
mom doesn't count

[Anonymous No.14543649]

>>14543353
leaving aside the intent, this post was written rather beautifully

[Anonymous No.14543705]

>>14543389
>>14543443
beautiful

[Anonymous No.14543706]

>>14543649
you don't read very much huh?

[Anonymous No.14543711]

>>14543705
whiny

[Anonymous No.14543729]

>>14543706
I read a lot, actually. Are you always this emasculate and petty?

[Anonymous No.14543738]

>>14543729
/pol/ infographics don't count

>emasculate and petty
you're the one blowing your load at some cowardly anonposting

[Anonymous No.14543746]

>>14543738
>/pol/ infographics don't count
how dare you

[Anonymous No.14543771]

>>14543738
Ah I see you have trouble reading yourself. Allow me to remind you that I wrote specifically "leaving aside the intent".

Now would you please ever so kindly spare me your drivel? To be frank I'm not much in need of it, thank you.

[Anonymous No.14543788]

>>14543771
Nah I read what you wrote

[Anonymous No.14543794]

>>14543305
Plenty of people do. It's just that since his time music that is better suited to facilitate hypersocialization and overconsumption has since taken the place of his.

[Anonymous No.14543813]

>>14543794
okay retard

[Anonymous No.14543830]

>>14543788
Then I apologize sincerely for your deficient reading comprehension.
A word of advice for you is to always give a second go-through for posts that may seem a notch above your reading level; otherwise, you might misunderstand them and cause unintended trouble.

[Anonymous No.14543851]

>>14543830
lol cope

[Anonymous No.14543891]

>>14537852
It conveys joy, especially the final 2 movements. This is of course ignoring the choral section in the last movement which has words. The symphony is about joy, and the emotions leading up to, and the ecstatic expression of it. Beethoven arguably was more articulate in describing what that emotion feels like than any written word.

[Anonymous No.14543903]

>>14536312
Why do people who hate modern art always act like they're the only ones on the planet who don't like it?

[Anonymous No.14543999]

>>14543599
There is plenty of pleb classical music, including many popular pieces, but it is usually all listenable and says something, even if it is mundane. Modern classical music is like an evil infection which says nothing, but claims it is deep. I remember going to the symphony, and they played Rach's 2nd piano concerto, and then afterwards played Andrew Norman's 'play'. The fact that 'play' win awards and is considered art by the critics is astounding. I was practically assaulted by incomprehensible noise, that didn't tell me anything. There was nothing redeeming in that piece at all. To even play Rachmaninoff and Norman together was a fucking embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.14544040]

>>14536312
Most people in Joyce's own time didn't like him either, his faggoty literary clique just became all-powerful after the war. None of his books reviewed well.

Coltrane, however, was an amazing musician, so you're still an idiot.

[Anonymous No.14545259]

>>14544040
1900-1940 was a revolution in the western world. All our traditions and culture were overthrown by robber barrons and their pet communists. That's when our modern system of education was established and when the social "sciences" were created by Rockefeller. Joyce was just the right lunatic in the right place at the right time. Rockefeller paid him ten grand to support him while writing it, btw.