Talk:Ulysses (novel)

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

The idea is that he could be imagining what she is thinking. GeneCallahan (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

The narration of the episode is problematic because the focus of the novel is more on the manner of presentation, the means of discourse, the style, and how these modes of discourse, complete with their own cliches and proscribed sentiments, influence daily life. The first half of the episode, while I would say is narrated from Gerty's perspective, is moreso a revelation of the cliched images that make up Gerty. She is, basically, a compilation of romance novels, and lady's advertisements. How she is picturing the situation is in these terms, reminiscing about her blouse, her hat, her stockings, and yes, her undergarments - all to properly slot herself into some kind of general romance novel plot scheme, with Bloom acting as that 'loneliest man in the world' for her to rescue. And Bloom, himself familiar with these cliches (he did purchase such a novel: Sweets of Sin, from a hawkers cart in "Wandering Rocks") perfectly fulfills his role, and feels guilty over it, thinking to himself that Gerty was 'thinking of someone else'. He is no more exempt from the cliches of the discourses, than Gerty. He is playing his part, as much as Gerty is playing hers. I see the narration as streaming through their alternate consciousnesses, but given that they are operating within a kind of stereotypical or cliched moment, their speech and thought is, to an extent, indistiguishable. They are, in a way, co-authors writing the same book, and as such their voices blend together to an extent that comes directly out of the the form of the episode.Myron Soloduk 69.11.44.218 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant that Gertie MacDowell is a grandaughter of the citizen?Stronnag (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

his Dublin was right there and did not need to be recreated? Well no. Much of it had been destroyed several years earlier in the Easter Rising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.83.150 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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 (UTC)

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

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)

Proteus Summary

The claim in the Proteus summary that Stephen mulls "various philosophical concepts (the most prominent of which is the issue of signifier versus signified)" is inaccurate. Nowhere in Proteus does Joyce mention Sausserean linguistics, nor does he bring up "signifier vs signified" in the chapter. The only philosophy he specifically references in the chapter is Aristotle’s "De Anima" (although even with that he only references it indirectly), which he folds into a self-dialogue about the relationship of sight/sound to reality.

Obviously, Sausserean linguistics is certainly relevant to philosophical issues in the chapter, and paralells can definitely be drawn between it and the ideas the chapter is dealing with (i.e. the reoccuring idea of the protean/shifting nature of language), but if people think this is relevant I think it would best be put in the "Criticism" section and sourced with relevant articles on the topic.

Given that Joyce never actually mentions "signifier vs signified" I think in its current state, this is an example of original research. So I deleted that specific paranthesis from the article. If someone wants to replace it with the relevant background on Aristotle, feel free (or I'll do it myself if I get the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarlo123 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Character descriptions

I have changed the description of Stephen Dedalus as written in the List of Characters section. The former described Stephen erroneously as "extremely religious as a child, but after his mother's death last year he struggles with issues of faith and doubt." It is clear in the novel that Stephen has major issues with his mother's death, but his struggles with faith and doubt can be found as early as A Portrait of the Artist, and weren't explicitly caused by the death of his mother - as she was alive in the earlier novel. - Mayneverhave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayneverhave (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Social issues section

I don't see how this section fits in with the introductory nature of the start of this article. It only confuses the reader at this point, and I'd consider the views expressed controversial. I suggest moving it somewhere else, ie, towards the end.Hohenloh (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain controversy

Not in one section does it explain WHY this novel is controversial in means of subject matter and events in the novel. I'd like to know what its' controversy was before I mean to purchase it. --Arcai 10-1-2008, 2:54 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.21.39 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the article:

In 1920 after the US magazine The Little Review serialized a passage of the book dealing with the main character masturbating, a group called the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, who objected to the book's content, took action to attempt to keep the book out of the United States. At a trial in 1921 the magazine was declared obscene and as a result Ulysses was banned in the United States. (Ulysses (novel)#Publication history)

That's the controversy in a nutshell. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's just part of the story. On a grander scale, many people, critics and other writers, were shocked by what was at the time graphic descriptions of sexual acts (ie, "Nightown") and thoughts (Molly's soliloquy) and lewd language. Nothing quite like it had ever been published before in English.Hohenloh (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

So the only reason is that Ulysess jerked off? If I forget that hypocrisy, that's all? Weren't there "pornographic" literature at that time? Or pornographic pictures of baroque ladies? Or is it Ulysses advertisement or mental masturbation of some "Kritik" ;) :) that literature "professeurs" so gladly gammon about? I tried to cull as much as possible, but if there is no reason, then that "controversy" must go!

Sorry for me being sarcastic, but since when are newspapers & cryptic criticism a believable source of information. There has been "always" ads and propaganda. 86.61.232.26 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay linked at bottom of page

I found this essay linked here: # http://litscholar.net/joyce_lawrence/joyce_lawrence.htm "James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence as Affirmers of Life" I don't see a great value to its presence on the page. Who put it up? The writer does not seem very distinguished. God knows there are plenty of essays by other Joyce scholars we could link to on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewhouse9 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the many controversies concerning Joyce's text, one beauty seems to have been missed by all commentators. When I was a graduate student, the copy of Ulysses sold by booksellers and consequently used by us in our studies was the Hans Walter Gabler Corrected Text. Many of Gabler's "corrections" have now been discredited and The 1922 Text has been republished with nearly 250 pages of notes and an Introduction by Jeri Johnson.

However, one of the most ridiculous errors in the original text was missed by Gabler; nor does it attract any note by Johnson. In Molly Bloom's soliloquy, the robber cat has eaten the place. Evidently, this is ludicrous. But Molly has been thinking of buying fish for Friday and the obvious word for what the robber cat ate is plaice. This is borne out by the first translation into French (by Auguste Morel, published by Gallimard in their Folio edition). Joyce, himself, had a hand in this translation. There we learn that the cat ate "la...plie" or, in English (per Harrap's Shorter French/English Dictionary), the plaice. (Corrected, 629; 1922 Text, 715; Morel, 1102).--PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the mistake is Molly's. Gabler was not correcting spelling mistakes but transmission errors. Rc65 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to apply common sense to the esoteric world of Joyce scholarship is, at best, a hazardous venture. But, are you seriously trying to argue that James Joyce could not distinguish between place and plaice?--PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chapter summaries

Some of these are probably too long, so I'll probably work on shortening them where possible. Any objections or recommendations before this happens? StevenEdmondson (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Zzyzx11 "temporarily" removed a list of mentions of the novel in other works and media by this edit. I say congratulations, and let's make it permanent.

There is room for a textual discussion of its influence in other works, and perhaps even in popular culture as a supposed example of erotic writing (which is ironic, given its nature). But a never-ending list of trivia does not belong. Kablammo (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lost [tv series]

Lost is introducing both characters Leopold Bloom from the book and the book itself [Season 5 episode 6] into the mythology of the series, worth a mention in a new heading 'in popular culture' maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and added a new section 'In popular culture' with a small piece covering the introduction of both the book and it's characters in Lost tv series hope it is acceptable. Twobells (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a list of references in popular culture is little more than trivia. While there may be a place for the influence of this book on later works (even popular ones) there should be some context given, not a bare list of references. Such a list would soon overwhelm this article. Accordingly I am removing the new heading, but if anyone disagrees, discuss it here. Kablammo (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeric titles

"The original text did not include these episode titles and the correspondences; instead, they originate from the Linati and Gilbert schema."

The Homeric titles were in circulation since at least 1918 and used by almost everyone who corresponded with Joyce about Ulysses. The first schema was not compiled until 1920. Plus, why call the chapter "Nausicaä"? Rc65 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I am missing a paragraph on the reception of Ulysses (compare the German Wikipedia's short paragraph on reception). -Diggindeeper (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)