Talk:Ulysses (novel)

I deleted this sentence The point that is most frequently missed is that it is a hugely enjoyable and rewarding novel. because it is not NPOV. Though most appreciate the immense originality of Ulysses, "enjoyable read" is not something that would come to the minds of everyone. If you can rephrase it, put it back, but be sure to keep neutral point of view paramount in your Wikipedia editing. - Kricxjo 10:04 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

--- What's the reason for "Points To Consider"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Cliffs' Notes. - Kricxjo 00:30 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Although the schema is very enlightening, it forces the page width on my browser to an uncomfortable width. Might it be an idea to move the schema to (say) Ulysses (novel) schemata, with a link, to make the main article more readable?

Done. Moved to Linati schema for Ulysses. -- 212.229.115.84 19:21 27 Jun 2003

--- I would be so pleased to see something in this entry on why Joyce chose the Roman Ulysses over the Greek Odysseus for his title. I can't find anything elsewhere on the net. Is it purely the aural aesthetic?

Interesting question! I'd guess because at the time Latin was more widespread in Britain and Ireland than Greek, but I'll look into it a bit more. Markalexander100 13:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that until the mid-20th century or so, Greek mythological figures were usually referred to by their Roman names, when they had them. Thus, Ulysses, rather than Odysseus, was the normal English usage. Not so much that Greek was less known than Latin (which was certainly true, but remains true today), but just a different convention in terms of name translation vs. transliteration. john k 06:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but why? Referring to Greek figures by Roman names is an odd thing to do. There must be a reason. Markalexander100 06:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was just the standard way of doing things. Going back to the time when Greek was hardly known, and Greek myths were mostly known through Ovid. The real question should be - why and when did this convention change? john k 16:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--- Why does the article refer to ISBN # 0590425994 at the End?

Deleted. Markalexander100 04:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And I finally found the answer to the Ulysses/Odysseus question- nothing so elevated as Ovid. ;( Markalexander100 09:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And why do you think Lamb used Ulysses? john k 11:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Joyce had little or no ancient Greek. His (school) experience of the Odyssey came through Lamb's "The adventures of Ulysses". Are we talking about Joyce or Lamb's use of Latin here? The latter was writing in 1800...

It seems to me that the sentence 'Parts of the final sentence were used by Kate Bush as lyrics to her song "The Sensual World"' doesn't really belong in the plot summary of Molly's soliloquy--it is, after all, merely another piece of art quoting Ulysses. How about including things that actually happen during the chapter in the plot summary (i.e. Molly menstruating)? --18.243.2.24 02:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That sentence is information about the song, not about the book. Mark¹ 04:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

My understanding is that Ulysses was never banned in Ireland, although the film version was for a time. If I'm right, this canard is repeared in the Censorship in Ireland article. Maybe someone sould double-check and correct if needed. Try googling "Ulysses was never banned in Ireland" for starters. 194.129.118.250 09:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ulysses was never banned in Ireland.

Questions on introduction...

I concerned about the introduction on this article. Many of the paragraphs seem to start in one place and end in another. For example, the second paragraph starts with desribing Bloom's journey but it ends with saying why Joyce picked June 16th. The fourth paragraph is less about the novel, and more about how it is indecipherable without Gilbert and Gorman, though this is not the case. I can see mentioning them as a defense for the obsenity charge, but not as the people who presented the rosetta stone for the novel. Various other minor "stylistic" problems seem to need adressing.

The introduction needs much work. Agreed If you are not introducing the novel you should move down and contribute to the sections, not in the lead proper. Mandel 11:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I edited it to reflect a more NPOV is that Ulysses is a book that academics love and everyone else despises. Frequent criticisms of it include that nothing ever happens in the book and that Joyce gets bogged down in over-complex symbolism.

ÇI don't know of anyone who has read it who "despises" it. Mark¹ 17:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do find the article neglects the objections (other than the obscenity charges). Objections seem to be hinted at in the introduction but there isn't a follow up. Most of the objections that I have heard apply more to the "modern" novel than to Ulysses in particular, but there should probably be discussion of it here. I don't think it needs to be a substantial part of "the lead," but it should probably be discussed in a section below. "Reaction" or something. John (Jwy) 20:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why all this attention on the difficulty of the book needs to be mentioned, other than to assuage people who couldn't make it through or object to its prominent placement on "best novels" lists. With Finnegans Wake, I can understand it, since it abandons plot, narrative, conventional structure and language, but Ulysses isn't THAT inaccessible. Many chapters, such as "Kalypso" or "Nausicaa", are easy to read, but its detractors just focus on the difficulties of "Oxen of the Sun" or "Circe". There are many difficult books, such as Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, or Saramago's The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis whose articles in the wikipedia never mention that they can be difficult and frustrating books that many people give up on.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that its high placement on academic lists of great novels is debated due to its challenges, but it seems to me that opinions about that belong in articles about such lists rather than on the individual pages of the books involved. I certainly don't see it mentioned on the pages for Atlas Shrugged or Battlefield Earth that their high placement on reader-voted lists is due to their readers fanaticism and involvement with organized movements to get them high on the lists rather than widespread readership. Dharmabum420 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Influences?

The section on influences for Ulysses is ridiculous. We know that Joyce mined myriad texts for verbal sources or textual allusions (everything from titilating softporn to Dante). To name only one of these sources is to present that one as being of some especial importance. Either this section should be expanded, perhaps with a discussion of how Ulysses was written, or the reference to influences excised altogether.

It does need expansion, so... go for it. :) I don't think excising it is the answer, though, as that just guarantees that editors won't notice the problem and a potentially useful section never gets expanded upon. - dharmabum 23:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think excising it completely might be the better idea since major influences on the structure of the novel are to some extent (and could be further) dealt with in other parts of the article, and a list of minor influences could go on for quite a long time and end up just being a list of questionable usefulness in an encyclopedia article... Gracehoper 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally found the Doyle thing interesting the first time I read it, already familiar the well-known influences like Dante and Ibsen. It could be incorporated in tighter language elsewhere. There's no doubt that the influences of the novel needs better treatment in the article as a whole, though, in a novel where you could take up a whole sub-heading just listing the writers satirized in "Oxen of the Sun". - dharmabum 07:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Facelift

This article is really messy, really here and there. Needs some major work. To a person who knows nothing of Ulysses it's almost useless because of the sloppiness. Some things I prose are:

A 'History' heading be made as the first header. With this, all the following can be discussed and included:

  Genesis
  Publication history (Maybe even put 'The corrected text' in with this part.)
  Obscenity trial

Structure be section #2. Stripping the structure of the Odyssey links, and instead having like the book itself, Part I, II, III and the chapters. This way a reader of this article understands that Ulysses and Odyssey correspond, but does not take this as Joyce ripping off Homer. I say this because Joyce never openly, that I know of I could be wrong, acknowledged the names of the parts were as the article describes. He described the connection to the Odyssey to friends and acquintances. It says it in the section itself that two other men named them directly for the obscenity trial.

Film and Audio adaptations be put both under a heading called "Other Adaptations" and explain both and be fuller paragraph or two.

Symmetic themes be removed. Add a Themes section. Symmetic and Catholic themes can be discussed along with the connection with the Odyssey and the schemas can be linked and discussed.

This article can get great, like the book, but it needs a lot of work, and I'm beginning asap. willsy 9:52, 22 April 2006

Never having read it before, I found this article quite useful in the past, and am saddened by what's been done to ruin it. WHY HAVE ALL THE HEADINGS BEEN REPLACED WITH "Chapter I" etc? Why ruin the best article on Wikipedia? It doesn't make sense. --62.255.232.30 10:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The themes are still there... just scroll down, as is the entire article the last time I did anything, they're just rearranged and made a lot neater. This was definately not (and probably still isn't) the best article on Wikiepdia, sorry to say, but it wasn't. Thanks to other people who've helped improve much of this article. willsy 15:36 May 1 2006

Trivia

To user Henry Flower, who removed the trivia section with the comment: (→Trivia - encyclopedias do not contain trivia): I can see your point, but you have also arbitrarily deleted the content of that section, which was relevant to the article. If you believe it should not be under Trivia, then please move content to a different section or create one if necessary. Then we could get rid of the Trivia section. Ron g 13:18 May 8 2006

Thanks for moving the relevant content to another section. Ron g 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New intro

Okay, sorry I'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings, or discourage editing of the page, but I reverted back to the last edition of the older introduction. I'll explain why: 1) The first sentence said everything that was already in a paragraph just a little below it. 2) Mostly all the novels after it were influenced... or stole a lot from Ulysses (i.e. Virginia Woolf). 3) Background... There's already a History, and i think History can be considered a background of a book, just have to scroll down a little. willsy May 15 2006 17:19

Why Did Joyce Use Latinized Greek Names?

The Roman Catholic Church has had a profound influence on recent Irish history. Ancient in this case being before the Church was formed and spread its influence to Ireland. Joyce represents this influence is by the Latinization, or Romanization, of the the Greek. --Tombeek 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the article this comment is meant to refer to, but according to Ellmann the principle reason Joyce used the Latin versions is that they were far more popular in translation in the 19th C.; few people in Joyce's time would've been familiar with them. - dharmabum 00:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Soliloquy

I believe that during Molly's whole soliloquy Leopold's asleep and she's reflecting on past partners etc. I could be wrong, so I'm asking for some help with it, thanks. willsy May 22 2006 21:43

Why not separate Legacy and Influence sections?

Willsy, it seems to me that the two sections ought to be divided, for a quite simple reason: Clarity. I had no idea Kate Bush had lifted material from the soliloquy — good get. But as more and more material such as this is added on, in both the Influences on Ulysses and the Legacy of Ulysses, if it's all one grab bag it'll become more and more confusing over time. Precisely in order to allow for future editors to add good material, such as your Kate Bush get, and add it in a systematic and orderly fashion, I for one think that Influence and Legacy ought to be separated. It'll make it clearer now, and allow subcategorization in the future as well.

Just a thought. It's your call.

Incidentally, Leopold does indeed start to snore, but he wakes up, though Molly never quite says when it is that he does. And they in fact do wind up making love, not only confirmed tacitly by the text, but also confirmed by Stuart Gilbert in the exegesis. Cheers, --MILH 04:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)