I read the blurb for Jerusalem and one quote said it "makes Ulysses look like a primer."

I read the blurb for Jerusalem and one quote said it "makes Ulysses look like a primer."

As eye-rolling a statement as that is, is Jerusalem really that complex? Is it worth a read?

Does anyone have a dl link for it?

I remember seeing that. I've not read it yet, though since I enjoy Moore I suppose I'll enjoy this when I get to it, but sticking stupid shit like that on it is setting it up to fail. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns as many people away as it would attract.

B-ok.org

Moorcock must be getting trollish or senile. All the more unfitting for how shamelessly didactic the book is. I wouldn't call it complex, given the literal lengths Moore goes to in laying everything down

I've read about 200 pages and it's awful. The prose seems like it was written by a teenager, the average noun is preceded by more than one adjective (I'm not exaggerating).
Just read the Illuminatus Trilogy

>The prose seems like it was written by a teenager
>read the Illuminatus Trilogy
opinion discarded

Nope, it's not in lib-gen or any such site.

>it's not in lib-gen
Wrong

This. It's a quote not a blurb you dumb cunt
>only read 200 pages
Hahahaha

wtf I can't find it?

nvm got it

It's alot less impressive when you realize that all the quotes about how good the book are on the back are litterally from Moore's friends

>nouns are preceded by descriptors
For what reason is this necessarily bad, in your view?

What's up with the hate for the Illuminatus Trilogy? I found the book to be hilarious because it doesn't take itself too seriously.

Absolutely awful book. The plot is okay, but all the characters are completely shallow, only interesting because Moore still thinks its edgy to write about whores.

i mean moore is a fucking cunt, and i hate everything about him, but this was a very good book in my opinion. the thing is, its incredibly long and the prose changes a lot. probably the best book i read this year

Such eloquent criticism of prose followed by a namedrop of Illuminatus is just bound to attract mockery

Today I will remind them THAT MICHAEL DIDN'T FUCKING KILL ANYONE

He switches voice depending on the protagonist

you should know by now that mentioning Ulysses while advertising a book is akin to showing an exquisite kobe filet while advertising mcdonalds. it is intended to make the mouth water in such a way that the bituminous feces slips down the gullet quickly without complaint.

>t. brainlet

>implying kobe filet is good

>all the quotes
What edition did you get?

>implying they aren't friends now

it's that easy? I should write him

Anyone else find it weird that an elementary schooler reads Moore comics, what with the fish rape and all?

in before "because his stories are for children"

...

It's a book that's fun to read once you get the hang of Moore's prose. There are some very challenging parts but honestly it made the experience of reading it that much more rewarding for me. I've yet to read Ulysses but Jerusalem certainly has a measure of complexity once you've taken into account how all the histories, characters, narratives, and sort of mathematic philosophy ideas fit together.

side note, the coolest thing I learned from this book was that the Knights Templar were dissolved for being gay.

Specifically they were dissolved for suspicions that they were holding enormous homosexual orgies in the worship of a Satanic goat deity

Comparing the hackery to Ulysses is an insult, straight up. It's a bloated sack of shit of a book. At one point he attempts to mime FW too, and it flops MISERABLY.

Bottoms Dream is the superior 2016 meme by a country mile.

It very much feels like Moore dropped in a bunch of his personal baggage into the book, with several characters going on mental monologues in which they mourn the bygone ages past, with one character delivering a bit too on-the-nose rant about modern comic books and the declining legacy of his favorite comic publications like Herbie Popnecker and Shazam. Another one very inspired by his own pathetic habits and shortcomings as a writer, another one making a big show out of how artists are treated, british political rants from mostly one point of view, etc.

The theme of the book doesn't suffer for it because it is such a hugely personal story centered very literally around a square mile or two of Northampton, laboriously introducing readers to various buildings and landmarks and the like all of which still exist if you pull up google maps and give it a whirl.

I think it's a worthwhile read. Certainly not Ulysses level, but it's very much a love letter to James Joyce and the impact he made on English literature, and an attempt at contributing to the literary canon, which I think Moore has done a better job at than anything I've seen come out in the last 5-10 years.

If you're not coming into it expecting your mind to be blown its a very comfortable read. The Prose is certainly unique and not always in a good way, but every once in a while it resonates and feels very satisfying. I enjoy what Moore was trying to accomplish in each of his experimental chapters, even if it comes off as sloppy. I think this book will be looked back on very positively in the future if not for excellence achieved, then for its significance to early 21st century culture and outlook.

Thats all well and good, but Northampton is a shithole and I don't want to read about it.

Why do you say it flops. Just curious. I just finished reading Round the Bend the chapter about Lucia Joyce written in that style, and while it took me several goes to get the hang of it but once I did solving the word puzzles became kind of fun. Then somewhere in the middle of it the sentences start opening up in my head as I read them, suddenly there are 2 or 3 coherent meanings each one conveys. It was kinda of like being on a literary hallucinogen or something.

besides that that chapter is itself an ode to Finnegan's Wake, calling it a masterpiece throughout and even comparing the writing of it to "the language of the angels"

I normally don't post, or even come to this board, but I look at for these threads so I can warn people not to buy this book. It's not that it's the singular worst book, and he actually has some pretty decent ideas spread out, but hell, it's 1300+ pages of prose I could wipe my ass with. It's just not worth it, and the story is impossible to follow once it gets to the afterlife and the boy starts choking on the cough drop for 400 pages. Really, I was excited to read it thinking it would be a hidden gem and then wasted a few weeks of my life.

Someone who likes this book give me an excerpt that proves it's got something to it. Pretty please.

Fifty pages of this.

Listen to this man. You're better off wasting time on McElroy or literally any other hack tomester. They all have more substance.

Is this in English? Or is this a language I'm unfamiliar with?

Every single word is a pun, usually sexual. Sometimes relevant enough to be a double-entendre, sometimes not.

>Eas 'es girht prixclamotion merk
Not sure what Eas is supposed to be, but the rest is made up of "girth," "prick," "exclamation," "motion," "mark," and possibly "merk" as in "merkin"

>Herbrow legsin'cun
"Hebrew," "her brow," "lexicon," "legs and cunt"

i like being filthy but fuck that

How can you not laugh at "joycy cunto", though?

Kids shouldn't read this

50 pages of that shit is way too much. Nothing but masturbation.

>What edition did you get?
Just picked it up in Waterstones.

I'm sure people thought Ulysses and Finnegans Wake was a failure in their times too.

Ulysses wasn't it was an instant classic

ok my bad

Haven't read the book, but Moore uses a literary technique taken from Pynchon that I like very much.

All of his works much like Pynchon's have three levels of storytelling, one is macro, a huge intertwining plot line with multiple characters and pov's, the second is micro which is individual characters past and present and their individual stories, and the third is a cosmic level that instantiates when you pull all the narratives together. You can see this in Watchmen where the cosmic is mankind facing its possible demise, in Gravity's Rainbow science and technology in the face of death etc.

>literary technique taken from Pynchon
user... It's literally as old as Canterbury Tales

You are right, but it started being reused after the advent of modernist literature and post-moderism, before that you had basically the modern novel like for example Proust that focused just on the individual storylines.

Loose ends all over the place

>no explanation or lore that explains how the heaven works for the rest of the world, it's entirely Northampton
>all the mentions of high-rise towers and cameras in the first part don't amount to anything
>Moore describes past-Burroughs as a disease-ridden shithole and then laments how Bong politicians have somehow ruined it
>Alma was supposed to save the Burroughs but just made a shitty art show instead
And of course

>lore that explains how the heaven works for the rest of the world, it's entirely Northampton
You just might have successfully missed the point

>dude muh childhood lmao

Much as Moore admires Pynchon, I dare suppose he encountered this in many other places before.

DUDE MUH BING BONG CHUBBA WUBBA LMAO

>2017
>still falling for the rambling experimental doorstopper meme

Borges was right

>Borges
what

>“Writing long books is a laborious and impoverishing act of foolishness: expanding in five hundred pages an idea that could be perfectly explained in a few minutes. A better procedure is to pretend that those books already exist and to offer a summary, a commentary.”

> Borges didn't read Les Miserables

as they always say, the first mystery is always sexual freedom with sex magic

He sounds like a massive pleb.

doesn't sound like a patrician opinion.

He's just salty he never had enough ideas to fill a 1,000+ page book himself.

this

Ok, that's fucking great.

Jaysis.

Now THAT makes Ulysses look like a primer

Except Joycey Boy already did it better almost a century ago with FW