Talk:Ulysses (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Confusing sentence

"The first half of the episode is marked by an excessively sentimental style, and it is unclear how much of Gerty's monologue is actually imagined by Bloom."

This sentence is confusing. Perhaps it can be edited. I'm no expert, but why would one think that L. Bloom is the narrator in the first half of Episode 14? Isn't it more logical to think that young, sentimental Gerty MacDowell is the narrator?

Michael H 34 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Organization

Should not the first part of Major themes dealing with the structure and titles of the episodes, appear before the Plot summary? There is redundancy now in the repeated list of episode titles. I propose to make that change; discuss if you object. Kablammo 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed change has now been made. Kablammo 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 13 "Nausicaa"

I would like to know on what textual evidence the following claim from the "Plot summary" is based:
The first half of the episode is marked by an excessively sentimental style, and it is unclear how much of Gerty's monologue is actually imagined by Bloom.
For, as it seems to me, there's a clear break, marked by the style and motifs, between the part of the chapter that depicts Gerty's perspective and the one following Bloom's train of thought. --84.189.234.133 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (now logged in as --A. Nymous 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

The issue shouldn't be textual evidence, but secondary sources that make the same claim. My answer, unfortunately, is that I don't know what I was basing it on, although I'm fairly sure it was based on some critical work, and not made up by me. I've certainly read things suggesting that Gertie's monologue may be in Bloom's imagination. john k 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is to say, that Bloom is imagining what Gertie is thinking, and using that as fuel for his masturbatory fantasy. But this should certainly be sourced. john k 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Levin says of Joyce: "He is a sentimental lady novelist, gushing over Gerty MacDowell." Sexisim aside, could that be the source on which the first clause is based? Kablammo 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not the source I've read, but it's my understanding that the idea that the Gertie monologue is sentimental is widespread. john k 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zurich allusions

I read an interesting article in a Swiss newspaper explaining that several of the place names in Ulysses are based on locations in Zurich (where much of the novel was written). How would people feel about my adding a sentence of two to this effect directly below the Dublin paragraph in allusions/references? Owen 10:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll put that in. Owen 10:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No I won't. I checked the facts and in fact the newspaper is all wrong. The Zurich references are in Finnegan's Wake. Owen 11:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary is too long.

The plot summary looks like it's 2 or 3 thousand words. That's ridiculous for a novel that was once described as, "Nothing happens. Then, nothing happens again". What is it, a synopsis or a rewrite?
What's wrong with, "One day in the life of Leopold Bloom, his wife Molly, and Stephen Daedalus. Bloom goes about his day's business, while his wife is committing adultery and Stephen is preoccupied with existential wrangles. By describing their conscious thoughts, memories and daydreams, the novel tells the story of the characters' lives, portraying a fairly representative sample of human experience."?
Then each chapter can be summed up in a dozen or so words. I don't see any reason for details like the precise time of day or Bloom's address, and there's definitely no need for references to Homer, like the one for Wandering Rocks!Sante Sangre 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Your summary was offered for Beckett's "Waiting for Godot". agnus 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, but it was also applied to Ulysses. The point is, if a synopsis includes details of Bloom's lunch, why not every other detail as well? Episodes 8 & 16 (Lestrygonians & Eumaeus) have one-line synopses, while 13 & 14 (nausicaa and Oxen Of The Sun) have paragraphs of character interpretation and textual analysis! That is not a synopsis. Sante Sangre 16:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It is too long in places, goes into trivia, yet fails entirely to mention to principal point of the last episode and its final phrase. Much of the trivia can be taken out, but the structure and an explication of the principal themes, tied to events in the episodes, should be preserved. Kablammo 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I whole-heartedly agree that it is too long. It is useful information, but it perhaps deserves it own article? I would not expect to find a five-page long chapter-by-chapter breakdown of a novel in a hardcover encyclopedia, I don't see that WP needs to be an exception here.

[edit] Individual Chapter sections?

I'm new to editing, so maybe this is a taboo, but is there any reason why we shouldn't aspire to have individual sections for each chapter here? If any book warrants it Ulysses does; each chapter has its own formal variations, schematic properties and allusions. As is, I don't really feel that these brief synopses can accurately express what Ulysses accomplishes, nor that we can pile enough information in a single page to accomplish that. Timiciousknid 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be the best way of summarising the vastness of the novel. You can't do justice to Ulysses by trying to cram the whole thing into a neat little hundred-word summary, yet a long summary just becomes unmanageable. Plus this method has a precedent in the novel itself, with 'Wandering Rocks' functioning as an eighteen-epidsode 'summary' of the novel (with a coda at the end). Any volunteers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Manual of Style folks don't like too many subheadings. But subsections would allow direct linking from other Wikipedia articles to individual chapter sections. I can think of at least one article where that would be useful. I'll do the change and we'll see what others think; it can always be reverted back. Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex?

Someone has been tampering with this. The following parts have been added by some jackass:

"Before seeing the boys out of the classroom,he has sex with them everynight because he knows that it is possible"

"his is perhaps why Joyce disembodies the narrative from the three main characters. SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX"

That was all I could find, but I didn't read every last word... Just thought you should know 83.71.35.139 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC) James Emerald

Yes, unfortunately vandalism is a continuous problem on Wikipedia. When people notice it they remove it. If you register as an editor, you can "watch" an article to see when edits have been made and keep one step behind the vandals. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in this article

I can't help but feel this article is a tad biased. I know Ulysses is known for its greatness, but amongst many, even many academics, it's known as being hard to read, having little plot, and being rather - how should I put it - unpleasurable. I feel this article should at least REFERENCE these opinions, since Wikipedia tries to be as representative as it can be. Reading the book is quite an investment I believe, and is criticised by many - possibly more than any other book of its standing. Jph53 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

I've removed the "spoiler" warning from the top of the plot summary section because it's superfluous. A section heading of "Plot summary" should be enough to tip off the reader that the section contains a discussion of the plot of the novel. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a spoiler warning on a piece about a just-released film could be useful to some. But Ulysses is not a thriller, nor does it have a surprise ending. Readers of this serious work are highly unlikely to have their experience "spoiled" by this page's disclosure of details of the "plot" (such as it is). Can we leave the tags off here, and confine the discussion of their utility to articles where the question is at least closer? Kablammo 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnegans Wake

I changed the publication date of Finnegans Wake to 1939. (Don't know why it said 1927.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.111.41 (talk) 23:05, May 30, 2007

It's only a guess, but maybe that's when the first portions of Work in Progress were published? In any event, I agree with you that 1939 is right. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication history sentence

The last sentence concerning the longest sentence in the English language seems a bit out of place in that section. Should it be moved? Stan weller 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortened, and moved to episode 18. Kablammo (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Free State?

The box at the top of this article says that the book was published in the Irish Free State, which did not exist until several months after publication of the complete volume, and years after publication of the serialization. To be historically precise, it was published by a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This designation may be politically unpopular (with the Union flag suggesting that Joyce was "British" rather than Irish!), so we should perhaps avoid historical precision in this instance. I would suggest either removing the nationality altogether, or simply writing "Ireland" without the flag. Mtford 05:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is just plain wrong. According to its instructions, "country" should be "Country of original publication". That would either be the US, where Ulysses was serialized, or France, where it first was published in its entirety. My vote would be France. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree with that. I've changed it to France. Mtford 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I took out the field entirely, given the confusing layout of the infobox and the ongoing changes to the country field. See below. Kablammo (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Joyces " country of Origin"

The article on JOyce incorrectly states that he is French.

Joyce was Irish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.169.230 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is referring to the country of origin for the book... which is correct. It was published in Paris, France.66.31.169.230 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This infobox field continues to be changed, even though there is a hidden comment which states the field refers to the place of first publication. This is understandable as the national field appears after the author name, rather than after the publication information. I first removed the flag icon as it serves no purpose, and I now have removed the field entirely. There is no need for such information in an infobox, and the publication history is covered in the text. Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference format

This article now has two reference formats, with references given both in the text and in footnotes. (I believe I may have been responsible for the latter, in supplying cites in response to a cn call.) I propose converting all references to footnoted references, retaining the page cites to paginated media. Does anyone have any strong preferences for another format? The article right is not fully referenced, and it would be easier to convert now to a consistent format. Kablammo 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started the process of conversion to a consistent referencing format, with footnotes and sources. Kablammo (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre Contention

"Joyce is often quoted as saying that one could recreate the city of Dublin, piece by piece, from Ulysses. Many scholars have noted that although this rather bold statement may have been true at or around Joyce's time, so much of the city has changed that this claim is no longer viable."

Joyce was saying that if his Dublin was gone, you could recreate it from Ulysses. How could this "have been true at or around Joyce's time," when in Joyce's time his Dublin was right there and did not need to be recreated? If this was not true later, it was never true!

---

Hoping I'm not taking the original Joyce quotation out of context:

'I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city suddenly disappeared from the earth it could be reconstructed out of my book.'

Joyce mentions nothing about 'his Dublin', and he does specifically state 'if the city suddenly diseappeared', so there would be a 'need' for recreation. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the content of the wikientry. It was a very simple statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.138.79 (talk) 12:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

---

No, but you've completely missed my point. The text says Joyce's claim is "no longer true" -- but of course Joyce never meant that you could re-create the Dublin of 2007 from his book! He wasn't a dolt. He meant the Dublin of that time. And that claim, if ever true, is still true.

GeneCallahan 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Joyce once said of Ulysses 'I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city suddenly disappeared from the earth it could be reconstructed out of my book.' The passage of nearly a century has changed Joyce's Dublin, but many of the places and landmarks featured in Ulysses may still be found"

Much, much better!

GeneCallahan 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright information?

I would like to request a summary of the copyright status for Ulysses in its various editions. I recall from some edition of Norton's anthology that the heirs wanted a lot of money for the privilege of printing exerpts, but that the editors were able to work around this by using the original, serialized version of the "Nausikaa" chapter.

Another question: I have a 1994 edition from Secker and Warburg (London). Is this the 1922 text?

Thank you, Dawud (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but the novel is in the public domain in the US. (I think it's worldwide, but I'm not sure.) The 1980s "corrected" version is still in copyright. You can find the public domain version at dozens of websites, several of which are linked at the bottom of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

I think I came across a typo. In section 15- Is "his martial" meant to be "his marital duplicity"? Just wondering. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:21, May 1, 2008 (talk) 125.161.141.225

Yes, it's a typo. Thanks for pointing it out. In the future, please feel free to make any improvements you think are appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Amis?

What's so special about Martin Amis that his opinion of the novel deserves to be in the opening paragraph? Anthony Burgess, Vladimir Nabokov, and Jorge Luis Borges all felt the same way about the book. Isn't it enough to mention that it is first on the Modern Library's list? AshcroftIleum (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There also is unnecessary detail about the demographics of Eire, which lacks context. A more nuanced description of religious themes is needed, including Joyce's decision to have the Ulysses character (Bloom) be Jewish.[1]
Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)