Woolf managed to captivate the audience far more successfully than Joyce and showed a great deal more good taste in her...

That was pretty much late-Joyce's MO

Yeah totally, not even memeing

>Structuring Ulysses so obviously off of the Odyssey strikes me as somewhat gimmicky,
That's the Modernist point, dumbass. There are no such hero nor tales in our world anymore, They have been replaced by the ordinary man and his journeys.

But it's incredibly unsubtle.

Yet you failed to see it...

I saw it you retard

Woah so deep

Then why did you say this:
>Structuring Ulysses so obviously off of the Odyssey strikes me as somewhat gimmicky
You should have known that it's not merely gimmicky.

What is deep for you?

>What is deep for you?
Your mom's pussy

It's a gimmick to make it so fucking obvious. It shows a lack of taste. Most authors, modern and pre-modern, are much more subdued when it comes to referencing former works.

I think about pussy more when I read certain sections of Ulysses than I do anywhere in Woolf's books.
Therefore Joyce is better.

All I can think of is his anal obsession

>lmao ur mum!

The state of Veeky Forums, everyone.

Okay, show me an example of a subdued author who you think references previous works better.

What you too good for your mom jokes your highness?
Get fucked my dude

No, I just made a mistake and expected you'd be intelligent enough to express your thoughts.

How is that not expressing my thoughts?
If you had a brain for subtext you'd read plenty from that

Dostoyevsky, Thomas Mann, and Tolstoy come to mind out of books I've read recently. Arguably Kafka as well.

Why comment on something you haven't read? And no, it's not obviously structured "obviously off of the Odyssey". You wouldn't know it reading Ulysses. He had to explain it to a couple people. You really have no idea what you're talking about and I'm wasting -

I've read it

>How is that not expressing my thoughts?
You said nothing on the subject of literary depth, which was the sole point of the conversation, and started using yo mamma jokes instead. That leads anyone to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.

But I guess I just can't see the '''''subtext'''''.

Well, if you have read things they make use of, you can see that those guys refer to Shakespeare, the BIble, Goethe, Virgil, historical texts, and so on, just as easily you would see those same things in Joyce.

No one even noticed any parallels with Homer until Joyce literally drew charts for people and came up with some shitty names of chapters in Ulysses so that they could draw some conclusions.

The difference between the guys you mentioned and Joyce is that they don't deliberately riddle the text with references all the time and there is no obscure 4th century AD Samoan philosophers who wrote in extinct dialects of Ainu languages.

>they don't deliberately riddle the text with references all the time
that's what I've been calling tasteless this whole time. Joyce seems to treat references as an end unto themselves

Everything you've posted indicates that you haven't. If you have in fact moved your eyes across every line of every page, "kill yourself".

Thanks for the wonderful insight pal

>You said nothing on the subject of literary depth

I said plenty, I can't believe you have the gall to be talking about Joyce when you can't handle fucking internet posts. Maybe have a look at yourself here instead of fixating on how others match your "standards" of expression

why do both of them have such a weird face

>somewhat gimmicky

that's the fucking point

They were actually the same person

what the fuck do you know of taste you fucking pussy lol.

If you got Ulysses into your hands, without knowing about the link to Homer in advance and without the chapter titles (as Joyce originally wanted to publish it), i'd bet my fucking ballsack you wouldn't pick up on it.

Joyce said himself that not a single word in Ulysses is serious. By the way I don't see how this lack of seriousness is a fault per se: it's just an attribute of his art. if you think that this means that he was basically writing random obscure aentences, that would be wrong either, since all those quotes and allusions are deeply interwined (and there's a vast amount of literature to prove that, and we also know for a fact that Joyce planned carefully everything in documents that he never released, mostly tables like pic related), yet behind the, there is no pretense of an higher truth. The secrets all refer to the art their part of, they're not supposed to bring you to a higher plane of understanding a la Ezra Pound.

>antisemitic Jewish stereotypes?
I've never read Woolf, but if she did that I respect her.

10/10

I know I didn't and enjoyed the book a whole lot. I went into it knowing nothing except that it was held in high esteem. Learning about its links with the Odyssey and the thematic "structure" behind it was only a fabulous bonus.

Honestly, every time one of these "lol Joyce was shit Ulises was shit lol" type of threads arise it all seems to boil down to rabid contrarianism and complaining about not finding something on an author that is precisely what that author was not.

It's like complaining about the lack of tits and explosions in Walt Whitman's works.

who the fuck cares about the audience and the writer's taste