just wondering

[Anonymous No.585748]

Uh, hey. I'm not really a fan of really classic literature, but I thought I would read up on the Odyssey before trying to tackle Ulysses. I did, and then I read Ulysses afterward and I just finished it.

I was wondering why a few people were touting it to be the greatest. There is little doubt that Joyce was a masterful weaver of words and English use, but beneath all the allusions and references, isn't there just sex and skankiness? I found the humor to be amusing and somewhat impressive, but the plot was nothing amazing - and while some people would argue that it wasn't about the plot, that it was what James Joyce wanted to prove, I'm just saying that there are a lot of better novels out there. It certainly isn't the top dog novel of the 20th century for me.

Heck, even the novels that succeed it, like Great Gatsby, Portrait of an Artist, and Sound and the Fury have better stories, better plot, and IMO are just better novels than Ulysses. It may be representative of the Modernist movement but that only really lasted for about 20-30 years. What about the other 70 years? In the context of the previous century, Ulysses as greatest just seems to be overrated, to me.

[Anonymous No.585762]

There is no objective good, so greatest is an empty title applied to something many people admire.

[Anonymous No.585770]

>>585748
That's because it is overrated. Technically, it is very impressive because Joyce dovetailed the entire literary spectrum into one book. But aside from its influence on other books (some even dubitable), it doesn't really succeed as a novel because its storytelling is weak. Something had to be sacrificed for art's sake, and it was story and plot that suffered. It's not the greatest novel because it can't even tell a story properly.

So I agree.

[Anonymous No.585781]

ITT no one understands Ulysses, though they claim to have read it.

[Anonymous No.585785]

Tell a story properly? lol

[Rodney_Dangerfield !jHDnJkFXPM No.585805]

>The Sound and the Fury
>plot

There is no plot. It's really just a bunch of episodes.

[Anonymous No.585807]

>>585748
That's from the critics' point of view. I'm sure they know better as compared to the general public (who love Ayn Rand and Hubbard), but as a critic there's just so much to admire in the inventiveness of Ulysses. As a reader who knew better, however, it's a passable book and a fairly forgettable one. Even if you knew the allusions and read the annotations that the novel refers to, there's nothing much going on and the story is just weak. The utter complexity is perhaps what attracted critics to recognize it as best (or perhaps peer pressure), but I also agree that Gatsby has a better flux and storytelling, even if it is simpler. And a novel works by telling a story well.

[Rodney_Dangerfield !jHDnJkFXPM No.585813]

Seriously, don't soil Faulkner.

[Anonymous No.585820]

>>585781
I'm going to argue that you don't understand it either if you're that close-minded about things. I find you pretentious, but irritation was probably your intention, so hey.

[Anonymous No.585823]

>>585813
he wasn't soiling faulkner, you idiot. he was praising the guy.

[Anonymous No.585835]

I like CJ Cherryh and she has some pretty complicated stories... proabably nothing compared to Joyce idk lol

[Anonymous No.585859]

>>585820
No, you really didn't understand a thing and I imagine you didn't really read it either. Or you did but couldn't see past its reputation to the heart of it, which isn't about modernism or intellectualism but life and passion...

[Anonymous No.585920]

>>585859
life and passion my ass - don't you read that in ten-dime novels? well, i guess i overrated the novel even more. i think i can get more life and passion from those dime novels.

[Anonymous No.585927]

>>585859
Yeah, because having an opinion is WRONG.

Stop being so fucking full of yourself, you prick.

[Anonymous No.585933]

get the fuck out just straight get the fuck out

implying the great gastby is good