Can anyone give me an example of an intelligent writer/thinker/critic who doesn't like Ulysses?

This

I do love Woolf but holy shit was she butthurt towards Joyce

I didn't quote him exactly but the sentiment is the same.

youtu.be/O9IinGHntTs

it's tough being salieri

She was more snobbish than butthurt. Said similarly classist about the Brontes, for example. And changed her opinion of Ulysses later anyway.

Virginia Woolf

Man I love how triggered Woolf was. Imagine being a refined upper class woman who also happens to be a brilliant writer, only to get completely BTFO by a vulgar Irish drunk with a fart fetish.

me t.b.h.

Who?

did u literally come from the /v/ thread

There's a few but they're all women

It is I, acclaimed thinker user E. Moose!

Ofcourse not. Being intelligent and not appreciating the genius of Joyce is mutually exclusive.

>intelligent

Oops missed that
No there are no intelligent critics

Aeolus ?!

Yes, there are.

John Green.

brekekekek lol lol

I'm an intelligent writer, thinker AND critic. A personal flaw with Ulysses is that it's too self-centered. It's got a that slimy mark of a schizophrenic that's on one hand working for himself and other humans, but secretly holds hope that an outside force is looking at his work and will exalt him from the life and death cycle. Stephen really shouldn't have even been in the book, it should have been a unique character of proportion to Bloom. Stephen's entire journey is hackney to me. It also makes Portrait seem strange after knowing what happens to Stephen in Ulysses; the same character having extremely similar revelations at different times in his life makes me think that Joyce was wrestling with the same problem his drunk ass was wrestling with years ago. Also Joyce is the very definition of beta. Couldn't stop thinking about his wife screwing his best friend so much he wrote the greatest modernist piece of all time about it. Of course by trying to find flaw in such a grand and dense work I've likely made myself fool...it may be a thousand years before a book like Ulysses is written again. Everyone should read it.

how's high school going for you?

Bad bait.

Paulo Coelho :^)

>tfw to inteligent for ulyses

wow, there wasn't one legitimate critic in that entire autistic spew

you can always tell who the betas are here because they're the only ones who are so insecure about it that they think it's an legit critique, not realizing they're just telling us what they hate most about themselves

Does no-one care about Waugh?

Ezra Pound
Leo Bersani ('Against Ulysses')

Gabriel Josipovici:
>'The True Sentence, in Joyce's opinion, had best settle for being true to the voice that utters it.' Yet what Kenner fails to see is that in the end Joyce does, against his own deepest insights, cling to one unquestioned Truth, that of the complete work. If there is no True Sentence, then why is there a True Work? This, it seems to me, is a major weakness of Joyce, his refusal to recognise the vulnerability of the Muse, his insistence, against the evidence, that to make a book is itself a valuable activity.

>Compared with Proust and Beckett, Kafka and Eliot and Virginia Woolf, Joyce presents a strangely rigid attitude; he refuses ever to let go, to trust the work to take him where it will. Every 'letting go' has to be carefully fitted into its place in the overall design, even though there is no longer, by his own admission, any authority for the pattern the design itself assumes.

>[. . .] there is ultimately something cosy and safe about Ulysses: underlying it is the belief that the mere accumulation of detail and complexity is an unquestioned good. Far from being 'the decisive English-language book of the [twentieth] century,' as Kenner suggests, it is perhaps the last great book of the nineteenth.