Posted on 06/18/2022 2:38:23 PM PDT by Borges
On June 16, 1904, a nondescript middle-class householder stepped out of his house to wander through the streets and alleys of Dublin, and like you and me, kept thinking all the while about the numerous issues that bothered him — this ranged from the choice of soap he had to buy, to more serious matters like the death of his son and the suspected infidelity of his wife. The innocuous happenings of this single day became the stuff of a modern-day prose epic, turning the central character Leopold Bloom into a modern Ulysses with the banalities of his middle-class existence being transformed into the singular experiences of an epic hero on his quest.
Ulysses by James Joyce was deservedly lauded as the epic of our times when it was published in 1922, although Bloom’s “adventures” as he walked up and down Dublin could not have been more remote from the adventures encountered by the valorous hero of the Greek epic. This gargantuan book was to radically alter the literary topography of the West through its focus on the extraordinariness of the ordinary and its revolutionary stream-of-consciousness narrative technique that depicted the thought processes of its central characters without the mediation of the author-narrator. The result, admittedly, was rather confusing, as most readers were bewildered by the sudden unexplained jumps in thought in the rambling narrative that extended to hundreds of pages. The most noteworthy of all these mental rambles was the monologue of Bloom’s wife Molly. This largely unpunctuated “river run” of thoughts gave an insight into Molly’s mind as she guiltlessly thinks about her various extra-marital affairs; understandably, the words she uses in the intimate privacy of her mind are not what can be publicly expressed in “decent” society. Although many feminists later hailed Molly Bloom’s monologue as a rebellion against the patriarchal order of words, this section caused outrage through what was perceived to be a scandalous and unapologetic espousal of a married woman’s adultery. It also added fuel to the allegations of obscenity that the novel faced.
All these aspects of the novel are worthy of celebration, but in this centenary year of its publication, it must also be celebrated for rewriting the legal concept of obscenity in literature. The novel, before its publication in entirety, had been published serially in the American magazine Little Review from 1918 onwards when it began to face allegations of obscenity. The issues which carried the chapters of “Lestrygonians”, “Scylla and Charybdis” and “Cyclops” were confiscated and burned by the US Post Office. The mid-1920 issue which had the “Nausicaa” chapter had to face a worse problem when the New York branch of the Society for the Suppression of Vice lodged a formal complaint against it in court. The Special Sessions Court, despite the testimonies of novelists like John Cowper Powys, declared the novel to be obscene and convicted the editors of Little Review. This effectively precluded the possibility of the novel being printed in the US.
Ulysses was rescued from premature death by Sylvia Beach, the owner of the well-known bookshop, Shakespeare and Company, in Paris. What is now celebrated as the launch of a historic book was a low-key Parisian event that coincided with Joyce’s birthday on February 2, 1922. Although strict censorship laws prevented the possibility of Ulysses reaching Anglo-American shores, the ban in the US managed to transform what would have been a highbrow work that daunted the faint-hearted into a controversial book that was sought out for its forbidden content.
Taking advantage of the fact that Joyce did not have legal copyright over the novel in the US, some magazines began to publish excerpts that highlighted the sleaze rather than literary merit. It soon became a “bootleg classic” and continued to be so, till Random House publishers decided to test the waters by publishing the entire novel in 1930.
As expected, the novel was confiscated on the grounds that it was obscene. The ensuing court trial became a landmark in censorship cases worldwide, for its perspective on obscenity in literature, and how a book should be evaluated in terms of its effect on readers.
The prosecution contended that the novel was obscene as well as blasphemous; Joyce, it was pointed out, was not a believer and wrote with a distinctly anti-Catholic viewpoint. The defence lawyer Morris Ernst rightly pointed out that the concept of obscenity was variable, depending on the time and context. The perception of obscenity could change from one person to the other, and it was difficult to arrive at a comprehensive definition of the concept. However, what was to become a pivotal clause not just in this case but for later obscenity trials as well, was his argument that a literary work had to be judged as a whole and not on the basis of excerpts when it came to judging issues of obscenity. Judging the entire novel to be obscene merely on the basis of one chapter was being unfair to the novel and novelist.
Judge Woolsey’s decision was that the novel was not obscene; despite the presence of words popularly perceived as dirty, it did not contain “dirt for dirt’s sake”. He felt that the novel was a “somewhat tragic and very powerful commentary on the inner lives of men and women”.
This decision radically altered the legal landscape for books accused of obscenity and led. years later, to the liberation of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, another iconoclastic work by a maverick genius. It was also invoked in India to dismiss the charge of obscenity made against The God of Small Things in 1997.
The four-letter words that were thought of as obscenity in those days have lost their shock value and are quite liberally used not just in literary works but also in the more popular media of films and television serials today. So, when Leopold Bloom stepped out of his house on June 16th, the English novel too was stepping out of the confines of stuffy Victorian morality to breathe the pure air of freedom.
I liked The Wasteland, and also Prufrock. In them Eliot seemed to tap into something vast and deep, and even though I couldn't see into it, he showed me it was there.
Your disparaging and unkind remarks regarding Pink Floyd shall not go unnoticed. One of the great, nay greatest, questions of immortal life raised throughout the ages is and shall forevermore be:
“How can you have any pudding if you dun’t eat your meat?”
Like performance art?
Maybe Laurie Anderson could read Joyce aloud while wearing ice skates and playing the violin?
Note that (in #34) I described their words as "almost completely forgettable."
I was thinking of the exact question you quote when — after pausing and looking at the ceiling — I added the "almost."
There's a great documentary called "A Decade Under the Influence" which details the decade after the studio system collapsed and before the rise of the big budget blockbusters.
"Easy Rider", "A Woman Under the Influence" and other works by Cassavetes, etc. brought the European art film aesthetic to America.
Yes, some of these movies were meandering and self-absorbed, but many were great works of art.
It's more than I can say for any superhero movie of the last four decades. They may have advanced CGI and special effects, but that's about it.
Thorogood is WAY better than Van Halen.
Van Halen is horrible.
“That’s a good excerpt but so much of it is hard to understand and boring.”
True.
But it’s not necessarily.
It depends what one is interested in.
I tried to like Pynchon.
I like people who attempt things, try things, create thing ambitiously.
But, often it’s not that good.
“I also agree that one has to plow through a lot of dreck to get to it, which I didn’t have the patience to do.”
Yeah.
But is it all dreck?
It’s esoteric, especially for me being so distanced from 1904 Ireland. And it’s rendered in a non-conventional way.
What did you think when you finally got there? Was it like the moment in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the beam of sunlight strikes the headpiece on the Staff of Ra? Was it like when Jake Blues has his moment of vision in the Triple Rock Baptist Church?
A Decade Under the Influence" sounds like a good one!
Do you think Rosemary's Baby was an example of the "European art film aesthetic" ?
Ditto John Galt’s speech.
I only took one shot at Ulysses. It seems to be a work for those who need to signal their high view of themself.
The sexual content in the first pages is just voyeuristic pandering. Was James Joyce just early version of MI5/6 and CIA looking for maniacs?
I will take Don Quixote over Ulysses anyday.
I read Ulysses like 40 years ago when I was 20 or so.
I forced my way through it and didn’t understand much, really.
I was reading a lot of things then.
It’s picking it up again various times over the years where I’ve come to understand more and more. Kindle is a great tool.
What happened is over time I have determined what’s good, or not so good vs what what is set apart and Joyce is set apart.
Back then I liked Phillip K. Dick and read all sorts of his books. I am not sure I could read one today, I’d be bored. Or I’d be past the goofy stuff I might have found intriguing in certain books.
I still think he was a great writer, and his huge influence is now apparent. But he was a hack and a bit insane if not more than a bit.
Joyce was the opposite. As I got older Ulysses became a lot more easily readable.
I still have a hard time reading Shakespeare. Always have. But I know it’s classic.
Bible too (which of course is in a different category).
Joyce is unique and he’s not a scam. It might be a waste of time, but there is a there there.
I would put 'Rosemary's Baby' in with films like 'The Stepford Wives', 'Demon Seed', 'Seconds', 'The Ice Storm', and the 70's remake of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'.
These were critiques of "the American dream" through hyperreal storytelling.
I believe they attempted to critique America in a similar way as the European films critiqued Europe or the human condition in general.
I'm a fan of French New Wave, Italian Realism, and some German Expressionism which all have different aesthetics. There is still something unique about American storytelling. Once you accept the initial plot outline, setting, and characters the story pretty much stays grounded in those elements. European movies can often go off in fantastical ways with surreal or magical realism elements.
Wim Wenders seemed to bridge the gap between American and European storytelling in film. I especially liked his 'The State of Things' which combined film noir elements with a surreal story line. Also, Jim Jarmusch with films like 'Mystery Train' that took basic stories and threw in a few fantastical elements.
Slainte! I agree with you.
I think I would rather strike my thumb with a hammer, and legitimately curse, and that would be more sensible than to read the screed.
Someone must have been getting paid by the word. Or there’s an inside joke there that we are not privy to.
Life is to short to be consumed by illogic.
TOO short, too.
Molly’s life affirming yes as I’ve heard it described is sill pretty awesome to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ii_aZ6djNkM
It reminds me of the Mona Lisa. Or a Jackson Pollock. If no one told you it was great art, you’d never suspect.
Same thing here, never could get pass the first few pages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.