/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18435305]

ITT: Books you got filtered by

[Anonymous No.18435310]

[Anonymous No.18435319]

>>18435305
Damn, dude. Just get a good reference edition and The New Bloomsday Book and you're good to go! There are tough moments, but it is worth it. I believe in you!

[Anonymous No.18435682]

>>18435305
Step 1: Read it.
Step 2: Decide if you enjoyed the parts you understood.
Step 3: Get away from it.
Step 4: Re-read it with multiple annotations. It will make perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.18435751]

>>18435319
I'm midway through the book so I'll just power through but thanks for the recommendations
>>18435682
I've absolutely loved the parts I understand so I'll take your advice.

[Anonymous No.18435790]

Don't know if it was picrel's translation or what but this one hard filtered me. I've read Marlowe and Mann's Fausts but I couldn't make it through Gothe.

[Anonymous No.18435814]

>>18435751
Even if you're halfway through, The New Bloomsday Book is something you should get. It's not an annotation, it actually helps guide the reader with what's happening in Ulysses through each episode, instead of just being a laundry list of all of Joyce's references.

[Anonymous No.18435870]

>>18435814
>>18435319
Thoughts on Gifford's "Ulysses Annotated?" Is it too much to read comfortably?

[Anonymous No.18435872]

[Anonymous No.18435885]

>>18435870
I'd say if you're reading Ulysses on your own, and it's your first time, don't get it quite yet. You'll get bogged down into looking up every single reference Joyce uses, and he uses a fuck ton. My second time through Ulysses I used Gifford's "Ulysses Annotated" and it took me three times longer to read the novel than my first time simply because I was chasing down every reference. If you're in school though or doing academic work on it, definitely get it, but be cautious about spending too much time with it. It's amazing, it really is, but it can be a lot for someone's first time.

[Anonymous No.18436486]

>>18435319
>>18435682
>>18435814
>>18435885
How can you people seriously claim to like a book that you need to read a bunch of other books just so you can BEGIN to understand it? Where every page you need to stop and translate it like it's written in an alien language, and dense with absurd numbers of references? I refuse to believe anyone likes books like Ulysses, they just like the feeling of being smart they get from reading it. I guarantee that if a similar, hitherto unknown book was written by Joyce and I handed it to you and said 'lmao look at this shit that reddit says is good' you'd laugh and mock it.

[Anonymous No.18436848]

>>18436486
you don't have to get all the references to like it

[Anonymous No.18437004]

>>18436486
Anyone with any sense of prose can tell that Joyce is a masterful prosist even taking the references into consideration.

"A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him on the mild morning air" - even a simple description like this has alliteration, assonance, clarity of image, and is not phrased in a cliched manner. The voice is obviously unique. If you put the writing of a couple of great authors next to random reddit shitposters the gulf in quality would be obvious.

[Anonymous No.18437022]

>>18436486
Unironically agree with this guy

[Anonymous No.18437037]

>>18435305
You got this OP, it's a really amazing book and I can't wait to hear how much you enjoyed it when you manage to get through.

Also picrel took me three tries because I was a dumb teen and didn't know what a close reading was

[Anonymous No.18437242]

[Anonymous No.18437282]

>>18435305
Imagine Ulysses made sense at first glance.

[Anonymous No.18437283]

I just didn't have the time or fucks to give to put into reading this book. I'm sure it's great and I'll get around to it one day, but it's probably the "hardest" book I've tried to read.

[Anonymous No.18437290]

>>18436486
I enjoy challenging books which require me to actively map out and think hard about what is going on and each individual sentence. I also enjoy Ancient Greek and Irish history as well as humanities in general, so Ulysses is perfect for me.

[Anonymous No.18437295]

>>18436486
But I am not claiming you NEED to read the other books to enjoy it. I am saying that having a guide will enhance the enjoyment. In my first read-through, I didn't have any guides and still loved it, even if there were some chapters that I had no idea what was going on. And no, I don't like Ulysses because it "makes me feel smart." It has some of the most beautiful prose I have ever read and it's a feat of English style. I actually learned to deal with grief better through Leopold Bloom and the death of his son and father.

[Anonymous No.18437296]

>>18437283
Not to be pretentious but I found Pale Fire pretty easy (at least compared to other books listed in this thread which I have read). Lolita is more difficult, but Nabokov in general is not a difficult author.

[Anonymous No.18437302]

>>18437296
I too found it easy and read it twice to make sure I didn't miss something. The only section which kinda stumps me still is the haunted barn one and its context within the larger narrative. Lolita was easier imo.

[Anonymous No.18437307]

>>18435305
So /lit/, I have a question that I didn't want to start a thread for, and it's sort of related. In the preface that some dweeb wrote in my copy of Meditations, the writer says that things that are out of your control cannot harm you, which is a key element of stoicism. Is this some sort of misunderstanding by the guy writing the preface?

Let's say that I get captured by an enemy fighting force and I get tortured for seven years in a POW camp. This torturing is out of my control - I cannot stop the torturing (for the sake of this example, let's say that I cannot escape the camp, give up information, or spit in the face of the torturer to make the torture end, lessen, or worsen respectively). How exactly am I not being harmed if I am being tortured? Physical harm is being done to me through the act of torturing. The author of this preface says that the only harm that is being done in an instance where I have no control of the situation is to the perpetrator of the harm (i.e the torturer in this example).

Through every conceivable definition of the word "harm", I cannot see how things that are outside the scope of my control are unable to harm me if I simply choose to believe they aren't harming me, as the writer of the preface says. Am I being filtered by the fucking introduction? Someone please explain.

Sorry if this post is kind of fucked up; I just got back from doing a squat 1RM, and I'm tweaking on a bunch of caffeine.

[Anonymous No.18437309]

>>18437296
>I found Pale Fire pretty easy
To be honest, I really wasn't into the flipping back and forth aspect of it. I figured if you really spend time with it and read with a notebook you'll get a lot out of it, which I planned to do eventually, or am I just making this more complicated than I need to?

And for info, I've only read Lolita and Invitation to a Beheading by him, but didn't really find them difficult either.

[Anonymous No.18437312]

>>18436486
The references don't make it great.

[Anonymous No.18437314]

>>18437309
Should have bought two copies like Kinbote recommended ANON

[Anonymous No.18437316]

>>18437314
I do lol I have a fucked up vintage copy and an everyman's.

[Anonymous No.18437321]

>>18437309
>or am I just making this more complicated than I need to?
This one. Just pay attention and you will have no problems. One more thing, take Kinbote's advice and read the commentary first exclusively. Kinda spoilerish but Kinbote doesn't care much for the meaning of the poem. It's his way of getting his revenge.

[Anonymous No.18437324]

>>18437316
I read a digital pdf copy of pale fire on my desktop: on one tab I had the poem opened and on the other tab the commentary, felt it was the perfect way to read it

[Anonymous No.18437328]

>>18437321
>It's his way of getting his revenge.
That's interpretive. Or partially so. It could be that Kinbote really does think the poem is about Zembla. Or just some secret references to Zembla. Does Kinbote even exist?

[Anonymous No.18437336]

>>18436486
You, sir, are one dumb motherfucker.
>>18437295
Based. Hades was my favourite chapter.
>>18437283
Give Pale Fire another go. It's not that hard, but I can see why a novel like that could be a bit much for peeps.

[Anonymous No.18437337]

>>18437321
>>18437324
All right, thanks anons. I'll give it another go soon.

[Anonymous No.18437342]

>>18437321
His revenge against shade ? No(he loved and admired shade), but he did want to take revenge against Sybil by supplementing his commentary with the poem

[Anonymous No.18437354]

>>18437342
Yes, but he was clearly dejected that more of the poem doesn't reference Zembla. Towards the end he even says that he despaired reading the poem until he came upon the notes because how little the poem concerned itself with Zembla like he wanted it to be. (referenced at the start)
He loved Shade (probably homosexually) maybe that's why this "betrayal" hit hard.
Also notice how towards the start of the commentary he is commenting on many lines of the poem, but in the next 3 cantos he frequently takes leaps of 50-60 lines as if he is not interested in them. Zembla influence was the highest in the 1st canto by his own admission.

[Anonymous No.18437362]

>>18437328
>does kinbote even exist?
The index suggests it is a Russian emigre linguist(probably) professor, Vladimir Botkin's, alter ego. I would love to discuss it here but it would spoil it for peeps.

[Anonymous No.18437378]

>>18437354
Agreed.