Holy fucking shit this is probably the most boring and dull novel I have ever read

Holy fucking shit this is probably the most boring and dull novel I have ever read

What a steaming pile of pretentious turd

Para pensar

Yup

I've just finished the part where the family Christmas dinner dissolves into political/religious squabbling. So far, I'm really enjoying the book. Does it get worse?

Yup

Everything that follows after Stephen's childhood will probably lose you depending on how close to the Catholic faith you are. Someone here once described the book as appealing to 'relapsed Catholics', frankly I have to agree

Yeah, it begins to drag at some points, but the people saying the whole book sucks and isn't worth reading—they are plebs.

The more lit majors and wannabees wax poetic on a "classic" the more shit and boring it is. Read what you enjoy and not what you think will make your friends think you are an intellectual. I read classics in private and Sci-fi and fantasy in public and then I enjoy technical/expository books. I've been reading books on beekeeping, gardening and homesteading in the last two years with some fiction between for a palate cleanser and I've been having a blast. Find what you enjoy and read it. The only reason to read the intellectual fiction is for a fucking grade towards a useful degree in STEM.

It gets more boring but the fact that it's a prelude to Ulysses should make it pretty easy to finish

It is a garrulous book

Hey, I like it :^(

It's an absolute masterpiece with some of the most well-written passages in the english language; but expecting this board to understand and appreciate it would be a huge mistake. You really have to be deep into the study of literature to get why it's so good.

muh trivial prose flexing about catholic guilt, endless quoting of latin phrases and pretentious talk from young people about what is beauty

insufferable pile of garbage

it is worth reading for Ulysses however

>you have to be really deep into the study of literature to understand the basic clichés of a coming of age novel

Literally the most reddit post i have ever seen

Thank you for proving my point.
This board is legitimately embarrassing.

specifically explain from your deep literary perspective why it is so good

you wont

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Never liked it. A feeble and garrulous book.

This thread made me notice something:
is "dull" THE definitive giveaway for a pleb review?
Seems like many screenshots that pop up in goodreads hate threads have it, usually in reference to a classic

BAM

Nabby strikes again

'Boring' is pleb, 'dull' is pseuds posturing.

The interesting thing about taste is it's formed in the formative years (teenage years mostly). If you read this and other classics while a teenager it will probably have had a greater effect on you and you'll think it's better than it was because you've never read other books like it with that type of poetic prose.

The older i get, the more I find myself disliking new books and rereading the books/classics I read as a teenager.

As usual, Vlad's got my back.

Okay.

The first important aspect of the book that most people completely miss is the significance of Stephens last name, Dedalus. The last name references the legendary architect of the Labyrinth of Crete and is alluded to many times throughout the book. The book opens with Stephen's father telling a childish story, and closes with Stephen writing to his legendary father, Dedalus. ("Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead")

This shift of fatherly figures, in Stephens eyes, helps explain the structure of the novel. It opens with Stephen admiring his actual father and the strict order of the Catholic church that he represents, and closes with Stephen admiring and immersing himself in the mysticism that Dedalus represents. This is shown clearly when Stephen considers himself "a priest of the eternal imagination." Rather than join the Catholic priesthood, as he was supposed to, he decided to be a priest of the realm of mysticism. We can also see a clear change in the prose style, diction and syntax as Stephen ages and changes what he believes in and is passionate about: for the first half of the book the prose is very ordered and close-minded, which mirrors the Catholic church. We can see a clear shift in prose style in the second half where Dedalus decides to break the shackles of the Catholic church and notes that the day is "a day of dappled seaborne clouds," then continues onto describe the world in increasingly aesthetic ways--as he transitions from a jesuit to an artist. We can also see a clear increase in detachment from Dublin and Ireland in general with Stephen. He increasingly immerses himself in the realm of the mystic and grows distant from even his family.

The true mastery of this book though, is shown with how Joyce uses such stylistic prose, yet almost vanishes from the novel. When reading Portrait one almost forgets that they're reading Joyce and feels instead very close and intimate with Stephen, even though the novel is written in third person. At many points in the novel one feels as if they're closely connected with Stephens very awareness. Joyce carefully crafted Portrait to produce this exact effect, which is very revolutionary in nature. It is produced in part by the way that Joyce describes the world in Portrait: we are only given details that are important or rather, we are only given the details that impress Stephen himself; the setting of a room or location is weaved into the narrative as each detail is noted by Stephen, which closely connects us to his awareness. We see what Stephen sees, and nothing more. This effect isn't at all easy to produce. Joyce put an insane amount of effort and attention into where each word is placed and how each sentence is structured in relation to the others. Portrait is noted as the first novel in the English language where it is very relevant to note that the author paid close attention to the framing of thousands of sentences.

>he didn't pay attention to the ballad of turpin hero
i'm so sorry, user. you're just a pleb. if you didn't absorb a vast quantity of prose mastery throughout the last quarter of the book, then you completely missed the point. the endless honing that doesn't come to fruition until his conversation with Lynch.

just learn to pare those fingernails.

I can keep going, or expand on something if anyone is interested in me doing so. My hands are tired after working and working out today.

wonderful post

Worth reading for the sermon alone

your last paragraph was what struck me about the novel, the way he puts into practice the process that Stephen himself goes through, he specifically notes the transformation of perspective and the role of the author, removing himself, "refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails". that paragraph of the book was so inspirational to me that i had to copy it down myself, if only to help cement it in my mind.

Did Joyce ruin literature for anyone else? Nothing else written comes close.

Joyce's style is definitely my favorite. There have been times where I was reading another classic and thought about what it would be like if Joyce had written it instead.
Another passage that really shows how Joyce connects us to Stephen is this one:

Her Bosom was as a bird's soft and slight, slight and soft as the breast of some darkplumaged dove. But her long fair hair was girlish: and girlish, and touched with the wonder of mortal beauty, her face.[...] The first faint noise of gently moving water broke the silence, low and faint and whispering, faint as the bells of sleep; hither and thither, hither and thither: and a faint flame trembling on her cheek.

In this passage there are multiple repeated words and phrases. This repetition limits the details that we're given, as Stephens mind is focused on these specific details that are repeated. It's the small things like this that intimately connect us with Stephen, and shows how masterful the writing really is.

Is it really? It's still on my list of books to read before long. But if Veeky Forums shits on it then it must be exquisite. Makes me want to read it any more.

Can I get an 'objective' review (kek) from someone who genuinely enjoyed Dubliners? Shit was insightful and, dare I say, comfy. Humans instinctually seek comfort. Nay-sayers can go fuck themselves.

I feel like Melville elicits more powerful feelings in me as a reader. But Joyce is definitely unsurpassed as a technician. He just sometimes feels a little... engineered, I guess.

*even more

Pardon. And also for the gif that won't animate.

Effeminate nu-males who have never went through the experiences in that book detected.

The fact of the matter is, if you can't relate, you will not enjoy it.

You also type like women, perhaps that's the reason you're all a bunch of pansies.

This is a quality post and you inspired me to read Portrait as soon as I'm finished with Paradise Lost. Thanks user.

>allusions and allegories make it good!

nope

I get the importance and artistry behind it all.

I just find it an incredibly boring novel to read. I'm not someone who is obsessed with plot or anything, and I love Ulysses and Dubliners, I just find Portrait so goddamn boring I can barely read it.

I dropped it twice before just saying to myself, finish this fucking thing and be done with it.

Saved

I love it when someone is able to put something into words that I can't

>messes up twice in one post
What am I paying you for!!

I regard Dubliner's lower than I do Portrait, but it's still an amazing piece of literature. I think the power of Dubliners, aside from the increasingly masterful and stylistic prose that we see from Joyce as he grows into his prime, is how Joyce portrays the lives of well, dubliners, in a very realistic manner. We're given a very realistic portrayal of humans and their lives throughout the city. This often leads to the idea in many (mostly plebeians) that Dubliners is a very dull and boring work. But if we look closer we can see very deep emotions and implications within the banality of Dublin life that is presented. One such case is in Araby where we see a young boy who has for the first time discovered what passion and longing is as his body and mind become controlled by thoughts of the girl next door (who we, the readers, only become indirectly acquainted with: a precursor to the mastery of technique Joyce shows in Portrait where he syncs our awareness with Stephens and we're only shown that which has impressed him--this time in first person rather than third). The boy has this mystified and passionate illusion of the Arabic bazaar, which is mirrored with the illusions he has for the girl next door. The boy gets to the Bazaar, which turns out to be uneventful, but if we look closer we can see a clear, slow building disillusionment which culminates in him expressing that he was a fool that was consumed by vanity; he didn't really know the girl that he expressed such passion for, he was just impressed with her appearance, which is mirrored with his false impressions of the Arabic bazaar.

The stories in Dubliners are very subtle, as life usually is. And this is generally lost on people. I dare say that most people who have read Dubliners have not actually read it, because you really have to pay close attention and delve deep below the surface to really understand what's going on. Joyce crafts the stories with such care and detail that one could ponder over every word and find a deeper meaning than previously understood.

Sounds like you're describing Hemingway more than Joyce.

I'm no Hemingway scholar, but I think it's safe to say that he was likely very inspired by Dubliners.

well Joyce described one of Hemingway's stories as one of the best stories ever written

Yeah I recall seeing that talked about here before. It's no surprise, really. I don't personally like Hemingway very much, but the man wrote some very powerful short stories. He used the same idea of the iceberg technique, I guess you would call it. Hemingway was just far less stylistic.

Regardless, I thank you for the review. The occasional post like your previous one are a primary reason for why I still lurk this board.

this is probably my favorite joyce

Thats fine, you may always enjoy it in the future or you may not. Enjoyment isn't neccesarily important here imo. If you arent interested in the novel for whatever reason, there is no problem. The only time an issue arises with people being bored by classic novels is when they start calling people psueds if they enjoy it. If you understand its importance and artistic merit, and the resons many do enjoy it, then there is no issue with disliking it.
Of course people can always dislike classics for legitimate flaws as well, just most peopl who call things shit with the boring argument do no such thing.

>you dont have to enjoy, just appreciate the artistry

this is a pretension I hate. novels and fiction are for entertainment, for pleasure.

who gives a fuck how many allusions or allegories exist in a work, if you yourself dont enjoy it, they mean fuck all

>fw to Ulysses and Stephen is a depressed beta boy who shitposts on /r9k/

heh, how quickly the Norns JUST FUCK OUR SHIT UP

this

>yws, goy! read only what you want! who needs to move on to more challenging things?! just find what feels good, goy! it's supposed to be pleasure!

the childhood bits are the best
after that it gets depressing and ends on a bit of an anticlimax
read dubliners if you want a 20/10 ending because holy shit that had me tearing up FUCK

And people cannot get pleasure and enjoyment from artistry? All I am saying is that you can dislike something as much as you want, as long as you do so with some reason that is a little bit more substantial than the stupid fucking boring argument. To be completely ignorant of the qualities of something while you call it boring and shit is about as pathetic as you can get. It seems like you are one of those people unfortunately. Also, most good fiction is not solely for entertainment. I think you should just go back to the sci-fi general, or perhaps even reddit.

Which story?

A Clean Well-Lighted Place

>Not old enough to get it.

Well, we all saw that one coming

This. First I read it for AP Lit, then read it several years later and then it clicked for me.

>Novels and fiction are for entertainment and pleasure
No, that's not at all true. That's a very hedonistic view of literature. Most good literature is created with artistic merit in mind, and is not at all meant for pure pleasure.

How do you guys go about reading people akin to Joyce and Pynchon (not trying to imply they're equals, but I see them both as difficult)?
Gravity's Rainbow sits just above the bottom of my to-read stack, and from time to time I enjoy picking it up and trying to decipher paragraphs out of context -- it's usually pretty difficult. When reading excerpts from Portrait, I've had to spend a bit of time thinking after nearly every sentence. Have you people that have read through a lot of Joyce reached the point at which you can read, understand, and appreciate a page every two minutes? Or does it never get easier? The difference between this sort of literature and middle-brow fiction is the effort you are demanded to put in to processing and understanding it?

Fuck you you illiterate Cuck that book is a masterpiece. The bird imagery is impeccable with the transcendence of faith. The choice between being Following his last name allegory (Stephen- Biblical-priesthood) last name-Daedalus the father of Icarus and by the far the greatest story of Greek Mythology. Read this book if you're a catholic and have patience to annotate for all the shit.

There's a lot more difference than just the effort put into processing and understanding a work when it comes to the difference between high brow lit and muddle-brow. You also have to take into account prose and style that can take a lot of knowledge and prior reading to fully appreciate. I was able to get through Portrait pretty quickly my first time through, not gonna lie. Without footnotes, even. Just keep reading and your ability to understand and appreciate literature will grow. Read good secondary material on high-brow lit like Portrait and eventually you'll understand how scholars and people who are really into literature are able to understand and analyze literature. Keep in mind that with authors like Joyce there are always things that you're going to miss the first time through, even if you're very well read. It's just nearly impossible to get all the references from a city that existed over 100 years prior.