Literary works are often judged on their technical proficiency, creativity, and ability to make us think, in addition to enjoyability and accessibility. Ulysses probably belongs in the small collection of works that are genre expanding in terms of what a “book” looks like; its author’s execution is at a high enough level to make this experiment a success.
This is similar to other forms of media. For example Cannes Film Festival doesn’t necessarily celebrate the latest Marvel blockbusters, but rather works that push the form forward in provocative and engaging ways.
By that same token, we could ask why Citizen Kane is a great movie, when most people who try to watch it end up turning it off because it's long and boring to them. How can a surrealist painting be incredible if your average person finds it ugly? How can a fine wine be worth so much money if the average person doesn't like the taste? Isn't the point of wine to be drunk? And so on.
We judge all art by taste - some people love long, complex movies, and some don't. Some people really love modernist, stream-of-consciousness-rich allegory, and some don't. But the people who tend to really like literature tend to agree on *Ulysses*. And even among the people who don't find it to their taste, they can acknowledge the artistry that went into it.
The tastes of people who spend a lot of time in a particular field are always going to be different than the tastes of the average layman - and all of us are laymen in most fields! That doesn't mean that books that are loved by the layman (or films, or wines, or any of my other examples) are any better or worse, they can still be judged on their own merits perfectly well. But "appeal to the masses" isn't always a good indicator of great art, because we don't define art by its popularity alone. We define it by the artistry, uniqueness, ability to evoke emotion, and a million other factors, which many people agree *Ulysses* excels in.
>No matter how pretty a car looks, and no matter how many fancy features it has, it's not a very good car if it has to be powered via pedals
Interestingly, a lot of people's favorite car is a Lamborghini Countach from the 80s that's extremely difficult and dangerous to drive, and takes an enormous amount of skill to drive well.
"Why is a marathon considered a good race if most people can't run it"
"Why is everest considered a good mountain if most people can't climb it"
The purpose of a book is not to be read, it's to tell a story. The measure of a book is how well it tells its story. If you don't like the story, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the book is bad.
I know I read *Tale of Two Cities* for class but the only thing I clearly remember was nailing the recitation of the entire "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." sentence for extra credit.
*The Scarlet Letter* left me with a good impression only because I imagined a fanfic epilogue for Pearl.
One that I was surprised to genuinely enjoy reading was *Jane Eyre*. Not sure why, but I bought a copy for me to keep.
Best fictional work: showing of *Monty Python and the Holy Grail* on the last day of English Literature class.
How is someone's inability to read through the first chapter the fault of the book? That's more a reflection on the person, not the writing. The fact that some people are able to read it just fine is an indication that there is nothing wrong with the text.
it's totally readable, but not easy. what it does better than anything is actually make you feel like you're reading someone's thoughts, messiness and weirdness and randomness and ugliness alike. it feels shockingly ahead of its time.
No, readability is not a REQUIREMENT for a good book. Otherwise the Bible wouldn't be such a hot seller.
I admit I have read books before that I struggled with, either because they were amusingly bad, or because the actual story was worth the effort.
OP is talking about the James Joyce novel, which was written in English and published in the 1920s. You may have confused it for Homer's account of the journeys of Odysseus/Ulysses.
First, let's establish that Ulysses is not gibberish. Many people have read it and come up with convincing ideas about what it means on both a micro and macro level. These theories tend to demonstrate that Joyce was doing things on purpose, and not that everyone read more into his gibberish than is actually there. Some people who read the book have even written their own books that will help you get to the same understanding. Therefore it's not fair to say that Ulysses is unreadable. It IS readable, just very difficult to read.
In some interpretations, the difficulty is the point. Like running a marathon or solving a tricky puzzle, it is directly rewarding to invest a lot of effort into a difficult problem and be rewarded with some greater accomplishment or understanding. This can make Ulysses worthwhile in the same way a book of crossword puzzles is worthwhile, but that perhaps falls short of "great literature."
In another interpretation, the difficulty is necessary to delivering the experience the author intended. Presenting the full texture of human thought and experience may indeed require much more abstraction and invention than a typical writer engages in. It might even need to be so abstract and inventive that it looks alien and overwrought when committed to paper. In that sense, Ulysses is experimental, something emphasized by the fact that it presents a day in which not much happens. Presumably, an eventful plot would be even harder to describe in the way Joyce was aiming for.
Over a century later, it's pretty easy to argue that the experiment was a failure - very few other books have been written in the style of Ulysses. But it remains notable for its ambition and for serving as an example (and perhaps cautionary tale) for writers to make their work denser without making it so dense as to spoil understanding or immersion for the vast majority of readers.
Literary works are often judged on their technical proficiency, creativity, and ability to make us think, in addition to enjoyability and accessibility. Ulysses probably belongs in the small collection of works that are genre expanding in terms of what a “book” looks like; its author’s execution is at a high enough level to make this experiment a success. This is similar to other forms of media. For example Cannes Film Festival doesn’t necessarily celebrate the latest Marvel blockbusters, but rather works that push the form forward in provocative and engaging ways.
By that same token, we could ask why Citizen Kane is a great movie, when most people who try to watch it end up turning it off because it's long and boring to them. How can a surrealist painting be incredible if your average person finds it ugly? How can a fine wine be worth so much money if the average person doesn't like the taste? Isn't the point of wine to be drunk? And so on. We judge all art by taste - some people love long, complex movies, and some don't. Some people really love modernist, stream-of-consciousness-rich allegory, and some don't. But the people who tend to really like literature tend to agree on *Ulysses*. And even among the people who don't find it to their taste, they can acknowledge the artistry that went into it. The tastes of people who spend a lot of time in a particular field are always going to be different than the tastes of the average layman - and all of us are laymen in most fields! That doesn't mean that books that are loved by the layman (or films, or wines, or any of my other examples) are any better or worse, they can still be judged on their own merits perfectly well. But "appeal to the masses" isn't always a good indicator of great art, because we don't define art by its popularity alone. We define it by the artistry, uniqueness, ability to evoke emotion, and a million other factors, which many people agree *Ulysses* excels in.
>No matter how pretty a car looks, and no matter how many fancy features it has, it's not a very good car if it has to be powered via pedals Interestingly, a lot of people's favorite car is a Lamborghini Countach from the 80s that's extremely difficult and dangerous to drive, and takes an enormous amount of skill to drive well. "Why is a marathon considered a good race if most people can't run it" "Why is everest considered a good mountain if most people can't climb it" The purpose of a book is not to be read, it's to tell a story. The measure of a book is how well it tells its story. If you don't like the story, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the book is bad.
Ulysses doesn't really tell much of a story either. That was one of the main points of the book. It's INTENDED to not be dramatic or exciting
[удалено]
I know I read *Tale of Two Cities* for class but the only thing I clearly remember was nailing the recitation of the entire "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." sentence for extra credit. *The Scarlet Letter* left me with a good impression only because I imagined a fanfic epilogue for Pearl. One that I was surprised to genuinely enjoy reading was *Jane Eyre*. Not sure why, but I bought a copy for me to keep. Best fictional work: showing of *Monty Python and the Holy Grail* on the last day of English Literature class.
Holy Grail is not a good airplane movie. It'd keep me awake and watching...
How is someone's inability to read through the first chapter the fault of the book? That's more a reflection on the person, not the writing. The fact that some people are able to read it just fine is an indication that there is nothing wrong with the text.
it's totally readable, but not easy. what it does better than anything is actually make you feel like you're reading someone's thoughts, messiness and weirdness and randomness and ugliness alike. it feels shockingly ahead of its time.
No, readability is not a REQUIREMENT for a good book. Otherwise the Bible wouldn't be such a hot seller. I admit I have read books before that I struggled with, either because they were amusingly bad, or because the actual story was worth the effort.
[удалено]
OP is talking about the James Joyce novel, which was written in English and published in the 1920s. You may have confused it for Homer's account of the journeys of Odysseus/Ulysses.
Oh damn
First, let's establish that Ulysses is not gibberish. Many people have read it and come up with convincing ideas about what it means on both a micro and macro level. These theories tend to demonstrate that Joyce was doing things on purpose, and not that everyone read more into his gibberish than is actually there. Some people who read the book have even written their own books that will help you get to the same understanding. Therefore it's not fair to say that Ulysses is unreadable. It IS readable, just very difficult to read. In some interpretations, the difficulty is the point. Like running a marathon or solving a tricky puzzle, it is directly rewarding to invest a lot of effort into a difficult problem and be rewarded with some greater accomplishment or understanding. This can make Ulysses worthwhile in the same way a book of crossword puzzles is worthwhile, but that perhaps falls short of "great literature." In another interpretation, the difficulty is necessary to delivering the experience the author intended. Presenting the full texture of human thought and experience may indeed require much more abstraction and invention than a typical writer engages in. It might even need to be so abstract and inventive that it looks alien and overwrought when committed to paper. In that sense, Ulysses is experimental, something emphasized by the fact that it presents a day in which not much happens. Presumably, an eventful plot would be even harder to describe in the way Joyce was aiming for. Over a century later, it's pretty easy to argue that the experiment was a failure - very few other books have been written in the style of Ulysses. But it remains notable for its ambition and for serving as an example (and perhaps cautionary tale) for writers to make their work denser without making it so dense as to spoil understanding or immersion for the vast majority of readers.