BEHOLD THE GENIUS OF JAMES "JAMES JOYCE" JOYCE

To shave himself.

The original rapper?

its obviously meant to reprsent his stream of conciousness as he falls asleep and begins to dream and its very good at doing that

This. Joyce is best enjoyed when slightly drunk.

Problem? This is my favourite part of this chapter - Bloom drifting off into an Oriental dream space; a continuation of his daydreaming throughout the book re: his Jewish roots and 'lost homeland'. So fucking good.

And Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White
And Monty Python and the Holy Grail's black knight
And Benito Mussolini and the Blue Meanie
And Cowboy Curtis and Jambi the Genie
Robocop, The Terminator, Captain Kirk, and Darth Vader
Lo-pan, Superman, every single Power Ranger
Bill S. Preston and Theodore Logan
Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan

Does one need to read ‘The Odyssey’ to appreciate ‘Ulysses’?

Yes.

memory unlocked

Attached: Screenshot_20220318-104535_Chrome.jpg (675x385, 192.6K)

>in compressed mineral from
>from

>Dinbad the Kailer
I don't get it, D doesn't sound like K at all

>mfw I first posted this image as an underageb&
>come back to Yea Forums for the first time in a while and someone's posted my pic
feels weird

Nobody asked faggot

For me it's Rinbad the railer

Ye but it also is speaking of the ideal of the whole book, saying how bloom sleeps in the same way sinbad did; did he is likewise a hero, the liturgy of permutations of sinbad the sailor is him saying basically all men are the hero of their own life and make the meaning themselves, overcoming the challenges of their own lifes.

BUT THATS FAGGOT SHIT, normies aren’t heroes, having a hoe in your bed whose Pussy’s bleeding from another man fucking her that day isn’t an achievement, Joyce and the modernist worship of mundane and lowly as the heroic and high is bullshit to anyone who isn’t obsessed with justifying themselves with pathos. That’s also why all these people are deeply depressed and mentally ill, they really are life deniers and haters who have to pretend their mundane bullshit is the height of the world.

Wake is superior to Ulysses because at least Joyce is having fun with it and not preaching at us (badly.) about being a basic bitch nigger.

Attached: scoobs.jpg (1042x922, 111.41K)

Based. I only read mundanecore when it's written a certain way but I can't for the life of me think why people think it's any deeper than most epics, tragedies, and holy texts

Filtered. There is more literary content in this single extract than in anything released in the last decade

The Odyssey is far more worth your time. Ulysses is merely an aesthetic experience, the Odyssey is a comfy story well told

No one said that is an achievement, it's more so in spite of the fact that Bloom is a literal cuckold not because of it that he is hero. Who are these people? Modernists? Joyce was practically the only modernist who wasn't a life denier. If you love God and life than all his creation is admirable and beautiful, I don't understand how it could be otherwise. Why would you not celebrate every aspect of life? And how could divinity not show itself through everything no matter mundane, average, commonplace or bullshit it is? I feel like you have chosen to be ideologically opposed to Joyce more so than actually being opposed to him. You have to see through all his bullshit, he is a deeply spiritual man, and he was never an atheist. It's not a justification at all. It doesn't need to be justified. Also Ulysses does seem moralising but that was not Joyce's aim at all, if anything Joyce was a cunt with zero empathy for others who after finishing was worried that he had systematised it too much and that he would be mistaken for a moralist. Unironically Gilbert's hackery is probably closest to what Joyce meant.

fuckin beautiful. imagine being incapable of appreciating this.

I bet you jerk off to instruction manuals

Also you know that there is no difference between a basic batch nigger, Bloom or you or me and whoever you hold to be someone of value, Dante or Swinburne or whoever, in the eyes of God.

if they could achieve that sort of prose, i would.
why are you so angry? post something you find beautiful so we can enjoy that together, user. i'd rather share something than you tear something apart alone, because nothing will remove the beauty of ulysses from my sight

Attached: 1394554294-i-fucking-love-science.jpg (1300x867, 114.89K)

James "Jerk Off Instructions" Joyce

Fucking retarded schlock. Is this from Infinite Jest?

Better than any woman could write

>No one said that is an achievement, it's more so in spite of the fact that Bloom is a literal cuckold not because of it that he is hero.

The challenges of his life are portrayed as equivalent.

>Who are these people? Modernists? Joyce was practically the only modernist who wasn't a life denier.

I see them as all life deniers, whether that’s pound writing alliterative verse about tax code, Elliot writing about how he can’t find meaning in life or Joyce trying to glorify the mundane.

>If you love God and life than all his creation is admirable and beautiful,

It is, this does not negate hierarchy, Christianity does not negate hierarchy in heaven and the vast majority of religions do not within the ultimate for.

1 Corinthians 15:41
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Whether this is the sephiroth of the Jews, the angelic hierarchies and thrones of Christianity, the variety of heavens in Islam with differing prophets, the tattva and deity hierarchies of Hinduism, ranks of bodhisattvas and Buddhas, the celestial bureaucracy of Taoism, etc. hierarchy is not dissolved within the spiritual ultimate in any actual religious conception.

>Why would you not celebrate every aspect of life?

You frame it as if it is the mundane which accepts life when it is the worship of this which denies the multiplicity and extremes and diversity of life.

>And how could divinity not show itself through everything no matter mundane, average, commonplace or bullshit it is?

In the same way the sun is more glorious than the moon to anyone who is honest so also is the glorious in life of more value. There is more spiritual and human depth and a greater variety in what life is even in your generic rapper rapping about wealth and power than in your modernist crying over his feelings, for wealth and power are more vast and higher ideals than little feelings.

>i feel like you have chosen to be ideologically opposed to Joyce more so than actually being opposed to him. You have to see through all his bullshit,

I am against him both in terms of his form of writing being not a new form as people think but just another manifestation of the asiatic rhetorical tradition and I am against him in terms of his beliefs and what he thinks is of worth, if I disagree both in terms of content and form what could I be in agreement with?

>he is a deeply spiritual man, and he was never an atheist.

Weak room temperature spirituality that would not die and kill for its love is of no interest to me, his spirituality is nothing more than a sense of pathos over transience.

>ulysses does seem moralising but that was not Joyce's aim at all,

I disagree most of his work feels like he’s standing and trying to preach while being a worldly man, but he fails in both regards. He’s trying to be what Rabelais actually is.

> Also you know that there is no difference between a basic batch nigger, Bloom or you or me and whoever you hold to be someone of value, Dante or Swinburne or whoever, in the eyes of God.

But there literally is, whether I point to Christianity wherein Enoch walked with god and was taken away or if I point to John the beloved, or I point to the different ranks and glories to those within heaven such as the elders, the apostles with their thrones and so forth, humans are not equivalent. Yes the jew and gentile are reconciled as being one in the body of Christ, but just as the eye is superior to the toe so also are the members of the body of God superior and inferior based on their role and the work they’ve done, according to how they were created and the acts for God performed. Likewise if I turn to any other religion it is the same.

It is a modernist sentiment to be against hierarchy, for even the most nondual schools of religion keep a practical hierarchy in some regard.

Unrelated but what's your two cents on Rabelais, Cervantes, and Melville? People often regard them as precursors to modernism.

I wish I wasn't phoneposting otherwise I would reply properly. I'm not suggesting that there isn't hierarchy, desu I just don't understand, how is it not just God and then everything else. That is the only demarcation I can see, but In general I struggle to delineate at all, or see things separately, or as they are. Isn't God just so far beyond whatever hierarchy is below him that it is practically rendered insubstantial? The differences essentially erased by how far a distance is between them and God? What is the comparitive difference between the sun and moon when they are compared to the splendour and literal perfection of God. Isn't it nothing? I think Joyce entertains the extremes, multiplicity and diversity only in so afar as they are particular manifestations of the same thing. It's not that hierarchy doesn't exist, of course I don't believe that there is no difference between myself and Abraham or Job, but that difference between job to God and I to God renders the difference between Job and myself as nothing. I may be retarded but.

Rabelais, Cervantes and Melville, i like all of them. If I had to rank them in terms of preferences it would be Melville=Rabelais>Cervantes.

>Rabelais
His is the actual embrace of life, the drunkenness on life you can only find in bar songs or tom o bedlam, he writes life like a carnival and doesn’t reduce any aspect of life, and in terms of style he is the grotesque in written form. I know of no author who can give the same sense of fullness, and by fullness I mean in own breath he will speak of saints booze his farts wealth various gods and joke about cucks all in one breath, Rabelais in my eyes is what people think Joyce is, a reflection of the multifaceted aspects of the world and mind, he’s also concerned with actually entertaining and his stories are very well. I particularly like how he plays with the silver axe golden axe tale. I would say the relationship between him and modernism is equivalent to that of maldoror or Huysmans work to surrealism, a clear influence but not replicated in style, tone or methodology which produces a very different (and in my opinion on both, an inferior) result.
>Melville
I put him in the bracket of top respectable authors, I disagree with the hate of Clarel and think it superior to moby dick, but I would say Melville is much more in league with the pulpy and aesthetician aesthetic than people realize, there is more relation between Poe and him in style than most people are willing to admit. We can trace his genealogy of dealing with emotion and human characters from his studies on Shakespeare and from Shakespeare to Ovid and homer, so I would say he’s just following a very traditional mode of human and emotional expression, especially considering so much of his work is Neoplatonic/Gnostic in meaning. In that regard something like moby dick I find it strange people cannot interpret, it has basically chapter long portions where it tells you what the actual meaning and allegory is of the entire story in clear terms. But as for his prose style, there’s a lot of orientalist aesthetic and Elizabethan influence that people just ignore, dudes like Spenser are a major source that people ignore with him.
>Cervantes
While I consider him below the above it’s not by much, I would say he is the one who the modernists are most like or the three but even then, Cervantes is ultimately shilling a heroic attitude towards life balanced with a realism towards it, and again his primary concern is the common entertainment.

All of these men can be thought of as influencing modernism due to the form of the novel, dudes like Lawrence and so forth, but they’re in form and type and conception so different that I do not believe it fair to them to call them pre-modernist for example. They had their own very established and consistent aesthetics, which by majority would not fit the modernist lens.

Heh, that's quiet amusing.

im embarrassed to have responded to you in the past after this

>I just don't understand, how is it not just God and then everything else.

Matthew 5:19

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here we again see a confirmation of this hierarchy, for God is a person and a great Judge, again the allegory of the sun and stars is best, the sun will always shine brighter than the stars and be more glorious than the moon, likewise we are told to ever seek to be higher, to refine more, to be more wise, to follow more closely. you may say he doesn’t explicitly deny this, but to deny differences between any man is to deny this.

>Isn't God just so far beyond whatever hierarchy is below him that it is practically rendered insubstantial?

God great and alien is also merciful knowable familiar and family. We are princes compared to a king by his action, and God himself has given divisions for the penalty of varying sins and has called great warriors and judges in comparison to the common person “el” which is in Hebrew “God, Great One.” So no this idea cannot be seen in the various religious texts.

>The differences essentially erased by how far a distance is between them and God?

Nope, Enoch and Elijah were closer to God so they were able to not die, but be taken to heaven while living, likewise Moses was able to speak to God face to face in his day.

>What is the comparitive difference between the sun and moon when they are compared to the splendour and literal perfection of God.

Without his will, nothing, yet he has established the sun as the superior and says the moon the inferior, for he is justice and Law, believing so much in hierarchy, that even Christ who is God had to die.

>particular manifestations of the same thing.

Very generous interpretation, it’s not a mystical pantheism type view where all things derive from a kind of numinous reality such as in zen or Taoism, it’s that they’re equivalent because it’s just an aspect of life to which there is nothing greater or lower in it, for fundamentally his view is the same as the other modernists, a meaninglessness.

I know I sound very vitriolic concerning him and like I haven’t given him a chance, but when you see his prose style isn’t even that unique in the history of lit, all you’re left with is the stories he tells, his ideas as he presents them, his content. And much of it is simply ugly to glorify the ugly, I do not wish to simplify it, but his aesthetic and ideals are the definition of cope. Deep down he has the pessimism of the depressed author he just doesn’t want to admit.

My argument is sound.

You keep using "orientalizing" and "asiatic" as pejorative descriptors for a style of writing, yet are shoe-horning Bible quotes into your comments, when it's the very point of penetration of Eastern influence into Western writing.

The scope of your sweeping statements, where you namedrop everything from Ovid to Pound, indicates that you are not interested in literature, but building up an image of erudition. You have not read deeply into the authors you frivolously mention. If you did, you would gain a sense of humbleness and humor, the lack of which clangs so obviously in everything you say. I'd suggest you stop repeating talking points gathered online and try reading something to see whether you actually enjoy literature before wasting any more time on it.

Anyone read that Alan Moore book that had long chapters of gobbily gook and it had something to do with this guy molesting his retarded daughter or some such?

Can someone explain that to me?

Attached: 1648132521740.png (594x390, 313.05K)

No he even it admits himself, fashioning himself an unhappy man wiling away at optimism. Proust says as much at the beginning of Swans Way when he suggests that Keats is a man perpetually let down by life. Many so called life affirmers are like this. All artists are like this to a certain extent, people who affirm and live life do not write (in general, of course there are many exceptions, but this desire to write belies a dissatisfaction with life as it is) You are of course right in justifying your argument with scripture because I would say I'm "right" but I'm no better than a Calvinist or anyone else who decides to draw a line in the sand over some logical inconsistency (so I'm wrong). It really just comes down to whatever God says is the case, Is the case. I totally disagree that it is a book about meaninglessness, you've kinda dropped your facade a bit and just admitted what you truly think. At its simplest it is the eternal affirmation of the human spirit, that everything is infinitely valuable, that casual kindness and empathy trumps unconcsionable power. When I read it that is how I feel, like life is eternal and infinitely valuable, am I wrong in thinking that? Do I have a baser nature to be moved into thinking that by something that is not necessarily higher than myself? Maybe, but I'm also moved by those things you would deem to be more worthy of having spiritually moved me. I don't know how I have gotten that while you think it's about the meaninglessness of it all. There is so much that simply isn't ugly in Ulysses as well. But yes he wasn't an innovator at all, prose or content wise. I don't think that is very important. No one esteems him for that either, or ever thought Ulysses was good for that particular reason. I also don't think God is intelligible at all, or worth thinking about besides having absolute faith in his love for you. Just remember, you are mistaking me for someone intelligent. And I wish I could reply to you properly but circumstances have made it impossible to reply on anything other than my phone so I apologise for not addressing all your points.

Oh I don’t mean asiatic as in orientalist. Cicero elaborates on an attic, asiatic and middle style of writing, this The asiatic style of writing beginning/formulated first in the west by Hegesias and in china by the Pianwen movement has a diversity of values and weaknesses and shouldn’t be so quickly worshipped nor detested, as the writings of Cicero and others say, the benefit of the asiatic style is the pure sound quality, the intellectual game of it which is more akin to a puzzle game than speech and the possibility of conjoining the form of the writing with the content, thus allowing for the words to be mightily timed and arranged in a manner as strict if not more than poetry, the weaknesses however of the style are also vast, they are chiefly that it absolutely neuters most rhetorical capacity, by this I mean, even in Shakespeare when he’s doing wordplay it is harder to appreciate the emotion or character aspects and the narrative itself has a kind of standstill when you consider the conceit or wordplay or the like, this while still smooth in Shakespeare due to how naturally elegant it is simply does not exist in Joyce due to the density of these, thus also neuters the capacity for the writer to grab hold of your imagination and lead you through the image-world of his mind, communications of ideals is also destroyed for the casual reader. More or less all of the normative aspects of reading a book are sacrificed for something which will be nearer to random slurred speech than any actual powerful speech. Wordplay and such sound controls can also be highly inappropriate and generate bathos, you wouldn’t do wordplay when talking about someone’s suicide if you actually cared for them which means the rhetorical pathos of it will be slain as will the ethos as you are not making a coherency of Content with form,for this reason there’s a natural friendship between the asiatic style and whimsical writing such as those of Lewis Carroll or Shidyaq. The greatest examples of the Asiatic style is the mahakavya style of the likes of magha, bharavi, etc.

Orientalist is completely unrelated to the above and isn’t actually even related to the orient, I am talking about a style of writing that developed based on fetishizing the east and not actually from the east, think de Quincey, or for example I’ll post some quotes from Melville to show you what I mean in the next post.

> The scope of your sweeping statements, where you namedrop everything from Ovid to Pound, indicates that you are not interested in literature, but building up an image of erudition

Cont

Ffs I just wrote out a reply and lost it.

Incorrect, I study literature in the same manner as I study religions and philosophy which is through a pattern of influences and building up from each other. I mention the authors I do because the influence of Ovid on Shakespeare is common knowledge as is the relatively extremely emotional form of Ovid In comparison to his contemporaries.

>You have not read deeply into the authors you frivolously mention. If you did, you would gain a sense of humbleness and humor,

Why would I be humbled when there are people better at doing what they’re trying to do? Why would I be humbled when it is against my beliefs and aesthetic ideals?

> the lack of which clangs so obviously in everything you say. I'd suggest you stop repeating talking points gathered online

None of the opinions shilled here were gathered from anything but me reading primary and secondary lit G

>enjoy literature

I can sperg out about which writers I actually like if that’s what you desire, they’re going to be in opposite aesthetics wise to what I am against here.

Now some orientalist style prose which would fit in with the likes of de Quincey or Alfred Comyn Lyall or Dunsany.

> “The warmly cool, clear, ringing, perfumed, overflowing, redundant days, were as crystal goblets of Persian sherbet, heaped up—flaked up, with rose-water snow. The starred and stately nights seemed haughty dames in jewelled velvets, nursing at home in lonely pride, the memory of their absent conquering Earls, the golden helmeted suns! For sleeping man, ’twas hard to choose between such winsome days and such seducing nights. But all the witcheries of that unwaning weather did not merely lend new spells and potencies to the outward world. Inward they turned upon the soul, especially when the still mild hours of eve came on; then, memory shot her crystals as the clear ice most forms of noiseless twilights. And all these subtle agencies, more and more they wrought on Ahab’s texture.”

There’s also his 12th century Gnostic fragment poem but also a poem where he’s larping as a Muslim warrior which is very enjoyable. Point being by orientalist I don’t actually mean the influences of Asia and but asiatic I am talking about a traditional western style. You have misread me, and desu just because I don’t agree with your tastes I don’t think it’s logical to say I don’t read, I just don’t agree with your taste.

haha unbelievable that i once thought you might be clever

Can you honestly read these Bible passages and take them to be extrapolated to the style of someone's writing rather than to the literal following the commands of God as it explicitly says? Cringe desu

Flann O'Brien >

>Keats

While I love Keats and many of the romantics I also see them as basically the end of the superior western modes of writing, since after them most lit sours to my taste.

>dropped facade
From the first post I’ve said my complaint and I continue to say my complaint is the worship of the mundane in the place of the actual meaningful, which is in itself an affirmation of meaninglessness in the name of being qua being.

> At its simplest it is the eternal affirmation of the human spirit,

A crapulous creed, it is not the affirmation of any spirit, it is the worship of the mundane for the high has become too invisible to be seen.

> that everything is infinitely valuable,

No, that everything has the same value, these two are the same doctrine but you mask it with a coat of emotion.

> that casual kindness and empathy trumps unconcsionable power.

That’s a different doctrine, one I do not agree with. Kindness and empathy in of themselves are meaningless, for kindness in excess without restraint is decadent evil, and empathy is not a value in itself without constraint, whereas power if it is actual power is balanced in justice and contains the merits of brotherhood and mercy. So I do not agree.

>When I read it that is how I feel, like life is eternal and infinitely valuable, am I wrong in thinking that.

Yes for the common life is not eternal in any positive sense and infinite value is just a feeling of emotional value coating all things. Preciousness and gratitude are good but they ought not corrupt your eyes.

> Do I have a baser nature to be moved into thinking that by something that is not necessarily higher than myself?

OF COURSE, it isn’t nice to say but I genuinely believe that an evil opinion, to see nothing as higher than anything else is nothing short of demonism to me.

> No one esteems him for that either, or ever thought Ulysses was good for that particular reason.

Nah he’s shilled as an innovator in prose and style all day, both by academics and people here and you know it.

> I also don't think God is intelligible at all, or worth thinking about besides having absolute faith in his love for you.

I’m not apophatic, I don’t agree. Knowledge of God is possible for God is both the unknowable God and the knowable person, who has spoke and has been written of, thus I do not agree that thinking of God and contemplation of God is impossible nor valueless, but I agree with the likes of st athanasius and paul that reason is the mirror of God, and by scripture and contemplation our mirror is cleaned and we may reflect is light in a more pure fashion, grasping him more and more intellectually. We will not reconcile on this belief.

> Just remember, you are mistaking me for someone intelligent.

Making me feel bad Shawn! we’re both of average intellect I’m sure, it’s fine.

>phone so I apologise for not addressing all your points.

It’s cool, I’ve been phoneposting this whole time.

?

I’m not talking about his style of writing by citing that verse but rather what he shills in his writing, which is that all things have equality in life fundamentally, which I am showing the Bible verse to demonstrate that it is not the case.

I think you’re getting confused on the topic G, no problem just re-read the argument.

Attached: DE70D308-E70C-448F-974F-981DE9580DF1.jpg (800x450, 58.05K)

I'm still not convinced you are speaking out of a truly felt aesthetic experience which has led you to repudiate Joyce and proselytize against him to those still under the fake glisten. It appears more as a vain attempt to stake a personhood of sorts, one that drives its worth from a wide and authoritative grasp of literature. Speaking of any author with such dominance, that reduces their whole body of work to their name, is always highly suspicious.
I haven't even read Ulysses, but on the basis of those works I did I find your characterization of Joyce's writing extremely faulty. Someone who enjoys literature isn't trying to climb some kind of a summit to have a grand overview of literary patterns and lord over them with absolute judgements of taste. They travel into a completely opposite direction, teasing out of the book its incomparable individuality, the magic of presence through letters. Ease up on the secondary literature I say