Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Ulysses
>
9. Scylla and Charybdis
Patrice wrote: "Kyle wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Maybe he feels guilty and inadequate because he can't satisfy her so his doting is a way of making up for it? Reparations"This is possible, but I think that raises t..."
I had that line mind as well... Can't seem to find it right now though. For some reason I read it a bit more ambiguously.
Thomas wrote: "There is a reason why Bloom is allowing Molly this affair, but I don't think it's because he is guilty or because he can't stop it. It could be that, like Odysseus, he has a plan..."Hmmm....now I'm wondering what's in store with even more interest.
Adelle wrote: "About halfway through.http://youtu.be/h97kbv4mbsc
;-) Just kidding.
But it's slow going :-)"
Ha! I had more in mind Mickey Mouse in Fantasia and those ceaseless buckets of water. I can't keep up!
Well, OK, that brings up something I was thinking about today, now that we're about a third of the way through this book and I'm kind of stepping back to assess where I stand at this point. I'll be honest: for me, it reads as pretty self-indulgent. Joyce was clearly having a lot of his own fun here. The book is packed full of personal references--not just literary and cultural references that other readers could get, but purely personal ones that we can only discuss now because someone has researched them (the real people turned into characters, for example). This Shakespeare chapter, while in some ways more enjoyable for me because I at least felt I was getting *some* of the references, also felt like the kind of show-offy academic conversations I've sometimes been privy to (and everyone knows when someone is doing it). Maybe Joyce was "showing off" in this way to mock others who were showing off more seriously than he is. But in the end, I'm not sure there's much difference. Also, much of the punning and cleverness is so masculine that, even when I can see its cleverness, I feel like "meh." Buck Mulligan's "Everyman His Own Wife" isn't exactly funny to me. I'm sure Joyce wouldn't care.I'll keep reading--there's great stuff in here, too, and I'm sure if I were to read again later I would see more and more. Also, the conversation here is wonderful as always. But I am not reading with reverence for Joyce and his "masterpiece." Which may, ironically, be exactly as he would want it.
To follow up this rant, here's a line I loved:"Every life is many days, day after day. We walk through ourselves, meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows, brothers-in-love. But always meeting ourselves." Shakespeare was his own father and his own son, and "all in all in all of us," and I wonder in what way this will become true about Stephen and Bloom as well.
Now, can someone tell me please what a French triangle is?And what is "Lapwing"?
Kathy wrote: "Maybe Joyce was "showing off" in this way to mock others who were showing off more seriously than he is. But in the end, I'm not sure there's much difference. Also, much of the punning and cleverness is so masculine that, even when I can see its cleverness, I feel like "meh.".."Joyce was a show-off, without a doubt, but he's mocking himself (as a younger man) as well as his companions in this chapter. In the episodes that follow he increasingly uses parody to propel the narrative, and I think that's what he is starting to do here. The Stephen of a Portrait is in the last chapter almost unbearably arch and pompous. But there is a slightly self-deprecating humor in the Stephen of Ulysses that suggests the bullock-befriending bard might be starting to get over himself.
Kathy wrote: "Now, can someone tell me please what a French triangle is?And what is "Lapwing"?"
A French triangle is a love triangle.
Lapwing is more complicated. There is an extensive note in Gifford's Ulysses annotated: First, it's a bird with an irregular flying pattern, like a bat. Next, it's an allusion from Ovid's Metamorphosis: Ovid identifies the lapwing with Daedalus's nephew who showed so much inventive promise that Daedalus grew jealous and threw him from the Acropolis. Athena saved the nephew and made him into a bird. But remembering his fall, the lapwing "flutters along near the ground and lays her eggs in hedgerows... ever fearful of lofty places." And when Daedalus is burying Icarus a lapwing looks out from a muddy ditch, claps her wings and utters a joyful note. And to top it off, there is a Hamlet reference (of course.) When Laertes challenges Hamlet to a fencing match, Horatio remarks: "This lapwing runs away with the shell on his head." [he is so newly hatched.]
Thomas wrote: "the lapwing "flutters along near the ground and lays her eggs in hedgerows... ever fearful of lofty places." And when Daedalus is burying Icarus a lapwing looks out from a muddy ditch, claps her wings and utters a joyful note. "Ah! In the version I know of the Daedalus story (I thought from my Ovid--I'd have to look) this is a partridge. So, is Stephen worrying here that he is behaving like that "lapwing," too green behind the ears, or perhaps about to be thrown by the others from the top of the Acropolis?
As for the French triangle, still not sure why Stephen is accused of "bringing [them] all this way to show [them] a French triangle." A bawdy bit that others would rather not discuss and that I've missed? (It is French, after all ;) )
Patrice wrote: "I'm reading Sirens now and "self-indulgent" keeps coming to mind, Show offy too, If he wants to make the reader feel stupid he's doing a great job. But it also makes me annoyed."Well, I call it like I see it. But I'm open to changing my mind later...
Kathy wrote: "Ah! In the version I know of the Daedalus story (I thought from my Ovid--I'd have to look) this is a partridge. "The Latin is perdix, usually translated partridge. So the question is why Joyce changed it to lapwing...
This is a nice little essay on the subject, probably more than you want to know, but some interesting thoughts here:
http://www.mlmcclain.com/scribbler/bl...
Kathy wrote: "for the French triangle, still not sure why Stephen is accused of "bringing [them] all this way to show [them] a French triangle"
Well now... apparently there are whole books written on this. .. I couldn't go too far in, lest I learn too much.
So in a muddled, incomplete sense...here is some of what I learned.
The whole book can be viewed as a French Triangle. (Take the lemons of life and make it into art?)
A French triangle. ..yes...a love triangle. But of course there are love triangles in any country... an English Triangle, an Irish triangle..but that would simply be cheating/adultery. Calling it a French triangle puts a better spin on the matter. It might even be used whenone lies to oneself. .. oh, this is a GOOD thing ... as when Stephen ardently defends Shakespeare 's marriage to Anne Hathaway. He is a genius---not a mistake ---a genius doesn't make a mistake ---it is for the GOOD -the portals of discovery ---fuel his art... perhaps, too, Joyce ' s marriage to Nora. Therefore...joyce, too, a genius?
Bottom line: there is adultery/ outside relationships in the marriage... and one maybe says. yes, I am hurt here, but I am also another aspect of myself... that sees the GOOD / or positive about this. I don't know. Looks to me like lying to oneself...rationalizing. I thought that was why the Judah reference was there. He rationalized, too. And is that Bloom, too. Lying to himself? Thinking oh...this is not Molly cheating...there is a good about this. But...I see Bloom trying NOT to think about it.
Also...Mulligan had spoken of SD proving Hamlet and Shakespeare by algebra. But it's not algebra. It's geometry, ie, a question of relationships.
Well now... apparently there are whole books written on this. .. I couldn't go too far in, lest I learn too much.
So in a muddled, incomplete sense...here is some of what I learned.
The whole book can be viewed as a French Triangle. (Take the lemons of life and make it into art?)
A French triangle. ..yes...a love triangle. But of course there are love triangles in any country... an English Triangle, an Irish triangle..but that would simply be cheating/adultery. Calling it a French triangle puts a better spin on the matter. It might even be used whenone lies to oneself. .. oh, this is a GOOD thing ... as when Stephen ardently defends Shakespeare 's marriage to Anne Hathaway. He is a genius---not a mistake ---a genius doesn't make a mistake ---it is for the GOOD -the portals of discovery ---fuel his art... perhaps, too, Joyce ' s marriage to Nora. Therefore...joyce, too, a genius?
Bottom line: there is adultery/ outside relationships in the marriage... and one maybe says. yes, I am hurt here, but I am also another aspect of myself... that sees the GOOD / or positive about this. I don't know. Looks to me like lying to oneself...rationalizing. I thought that was why the Judah reference was there. He rationalized, too. And is that Bloom, too. Lying to himself? Thinking oh...this is not Molly cheating...there is a good about this. But...I see Bloom trying NOT to think about it.
Also...Mulligan had spoken of SD proving Hamlet and Shakespeare by algebra. But it's not algebra. It's geometry, ie, a question of relationships.
Ack! Just started this chapter and it's a nightmare. I'll have to slowly pick my way through this one.It seems as soon as we get inside mopeyheads head it all get very obscure and hard to follow. Bloom was so much less work!
Thomas wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Ah! In the version I know of the Daedalus story (I thought from my Ovid--I'd have to look) this is a partridge. "The Latin is perdix, usually translated partridge. So the question i..."
Great! Thank you Thomas. I'm actually quite interested in the Daedalus myth, so this isn't more than I wanted to know. But what a coincidence to have read that lapwing passage from both texts on the very same day! Those serendipitous connections really open things up for readers and fuel our curiosity. I love it when that happens to me.
Adelle wrote: "Kathy wrote: "for the French triangle, still not sure why Stephen is accused of "bringing [them] all this way to show [them] a French triangle"Well now... apparently there are whole books written..."
I love this idea that the whole book might be a French triangle, geometry, but I'm not sure I buy the connotation "good" with "French" since the English, at least, (not sure about the Irish) are notoriously disdainful of the French. I think the positive, romantic connotation of "French" is an American thing.
Nicola wrote: "Ack! Just started this chapter and it's a nightmare. I'll have to slowly pick my way through this one.It seems as soon as we get inside mopeyheads head it all get very obscure and hard to follo..."
As Mulligan says, Stephen is a impossible person. I wouldn't beat yourself up over it if you can't follow everything he says - I believe it was Thomas who said on an earlier thread that the Greek Daedalus found himself trapped in a maze of his own making. We see Stephen doing this to himself here. His arguments are are laced with erudite historical references, but lack any sort of logical framework. By the end of the episode, we realize the whole thing has been akin to a drawn out, convoluted joke with a anti-climactic punchline.
In short, I would actually not recommend picking your way slowly thru this chapter on your first read of the book - unless of course you enjoy the exercise. Otherwise, you can safely skim without worrying too much that your overall understanding of the book will be compromised.
Kathy wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Kathy wrote: "for the .." at #103.
For what it's worth.
"French". Not necessarily romantic. More like ... rationalized as to have some positive aspect.
I don't recall the nationality of the book's author. But he/she stressed the positivity. And that the "good"/or..."not tawdry".. the rationalization aspect is what is significant in that phrase. And, it IS the phrase used in Ulysses.
For what it's worth.
"French". Not necessarily romantic. More like ... rationalized as to have some positive aspect.
I don't recall the nationality of the book's author. But he/she stressed the positivity. And that the "good"/or..."not tawdry".. the rationalization aspect is what is significant in that phrase. And, it IS the phrase used in Ulysses.
OK, not to beat a dead horse, but John Eglinton says, "You have brought us all this way to show us a French triangle." The implication is that it's something ordinary or obvious or not worth the trouble of having gone "all this way." It appears to have something to do with "the economy of heaven," in which "there are no more marriages, glorified man, an androgynous angel, being a wife unto himself." That sounds less like a love triangle than like--I'm not sure what... So while I love the idea of the book being some kind of larger French triangle/geometrical metaphor, I still don't get the initial reference to it, never mind a larger metaphor...
Kathy wrote: "OK, not to beat a dead horse, but John Eglinton says, "You have brought us all this way to show us a French triangle." The implication is that it's something ordinary or obvious or not worth the tr..."I've decided to read on and see how things fit together in the end. I don't think there is any correct reading. For a book to be transformative each reader makes a personal connection which might be different at different points in life. I'm trying to listen more than put the thousands of puzzle pieces together. Every reader reads differently though. This is a real challenge!
Kathy wrote: "OK, not to beat a dead horse, but John Eglinton says, "You have brought us all this way to show us a French triangle." The implication is that it's something ordinary or obvious or not worth the tr..."I think he is talking about Stephen's theory about Shakespeare's domestic situation:
--You will say those names were already in the chronicles from which he took the stuff of his plays. Why did he take them rather than others? Richard, a whoreson crookback, misbegotten, makes love to a widowed Ann (what's in a name?), woos and wins her, a whoreson merry widow. Richard the conqueror, third brother, came after William the conquered. The other four acts of that play hang limply from that first.
Stephen maintains that the French triangle is formed by Shakespeare, Ann, and Shakespeare's brother Richard. Stephen argues this from Hamlet: if the ghost of Hamlet's father represents Shakespeare himself, then Shakespeare is accusing his wife, Ann Hathaway, of adultery and his brother Richard of being the other component of the triangle.
As for the implication that it is "ordinary" or not worth the trouble, Stephen emphasizes at this point that Eglinton is unmarried. I take it that Stephen thinks this is why he is unmoved by his theory.
Isn't it ordinary simply because the triangle is (outside France, maybe) considered to be the most common social structure in France (though only slightly less common elsewhere)?I could imagine having this conversation with my wife:
me: Let's watch this French movie tonight.
she: What's it about?
me: Well, it's French.
she: Oh, two boys and a girl then?
Prejudices are comfortable, problems are solved even before they occur.
I agree with Thomas' interpretation of the text, and my reading of it was pretty literal. I don't have the text in front of me right now, but I got the impression that it was a sort of like saying "hey, I thought you had some grand theory about Shakespeare, which we just listened to for an hour, and this all it boils down to"?I'm sure one could find all sorts of deeper meanings - Joyce often has several layers - but I feel like it starts here...
Thanks for the great synopsis, Thomas. It was also lovely to see the National Library of Ireland footage.
My take away was that Stephen put the positive spin in that triangle --that he stressed the positive: that Shakespeare could take the adultery ... and use it for a positive. For artistic, literary material/motivation.
Thanks, Thomas and Kyle. That makes sense to me. And then, putting a "positive spin" on the triangle, as Adelle says, brings us back to Bloom, it seems. That's what he's trying to do with Molly and Boylan.Wendel, you made me laugh :)
Patrice wrote: " I'm getting lots of personal connections, lots of insights, but I'm never sure that they are the "right" ones. But they are very meaningful to me. Maybe it's a ..."I think Stephen's analysis of Shakespeare reflects the reading of a brain detached from other sensibilities to which we tend to attribute "rightness" based on academic authority. Joyce seems to be implying Stephen's argument is mostly hot air, but many, myself included, try hard to trace the underlying logic. U. as a whole seems to defy Stephen's type of reading, however there is no shortage of them on library shelves. The brain is only one organ and I think reading Joyce is a whole body experience.
Well, I think I am finally through with this chapter after 3 readings and a dose of Heffernan between readings 2 & 3!!! My first run, I was drowning in words. Words I had to look up, words that were made up...I couldn't see the forest for the trees! Topics seemed to bounce around, I couldn't follow who was talking, just confused until I got to the part that Stephen starts espousing his theory about Shakespeare's plays. I really didn't catch all the Plato/Aristotle discussion, perhaps because I'm not very solid in those arguments. I found the comments by Kyle @56 very interesting and yet made me feel, as with many of the participants' insights, out of my depth. WHY can't I see these connections? I guess that is why I joined the group to learn from others and understand more deeply what we are reading.
Good for you for reading it three times! I can't manage more than one reading in the week, and if I grasp at one or two little straws from the haystack of each chapter, I figure I've found *something* to hold onto!
Chris wrote: "...I guess that is why I joined the group to learn from others and understand more deeply what we are reading. ..."Chris -- when Wendel writes as he did @76 of "Wandering Rocks" ( https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ), I stop worrying about understanding more deeply! We've been through The Magic Mountain with that man, and when he yells "what the ...", I know it is time to just tread water for awhile. [g]
I like that Susan: 'a whole body experience'!
Chris wrote: "Well, I think I am finally through with this chapter after 3 readings and a dose of Heffernan between readings 2 & 3!!! My first run, I was drowning in words. Words I had to look up, words that w..."Well, here's another way of looking at it - this is my third time reading the novel and I'm just staring to think I have a really good feel for it. I really wouldn't sweat it too much on your first time through. I'm reminded of the excellent preface to another monster of a book I read for the first time last year: "This is a book you are meant to befriend. It will be your lifelong companion. You will end only to begin again." Maybe you don't take it quite that far, but I will more likely than not be re-reading Ulysses again before too many years have gone by, and I'm sure I'll pick up on a lot more then.
The quote, by the way, is from William Gass' Intro to The Recognitions, by William Gaddis. That novel is not as stylistically avant-garde as Ulysses but in some ways even more beautifuly and infuriatingly complex. It also occurs to me that this would be a great one for a group setting like this...
Susan wrote: "Joyce seems to be implying Stephen's argument is mostly hot air wrote: ..."I think this is exactly right. Another piece we haven't brought out yet is Mulligan's irreverent little mock play - by which he rather elaborately accuses Stephen of jerking everyone around. And of course there is Stephen's flat out admission that he doesn't believe his own theory.
Hilary wrote: "I like that Susan: 'a whole body experience'!"Maybe the funny bone should be specifically called out among the body parts!
Patrice wrote: "Thomas, when it comes to SD Shakespeare theories I keep thinking of that cartoon that you posted some time back, on how easy it is to fool people with phony literary interpretations."One thing that I'm noticing this time around is how much parody there is in Ulysses. Sometimes it's explicit (to the point of absurdity) but other times less obvious, as in this episode. Stephen associates his views philosophically with Aristotle; he shuns idealism, the high-flown theory, the sort of thing he ridicules in this episode. Bloom's way of looking at the world is not philosophical, but it is "phenomenological" in a similar everyday/ordinary/practical kind of way. They are very different characters, but they share this similarity, and I would think that this is because their author thinks the same way. At times it appears that Joyce goes to extravagant lengths to show up any kind of speculation or idealism, and his choice of weapon is frequently parody.
Encouraging, Kyle! So true, Kathy! Haha, Susan! :-)
"Art has to reveal to us ideas, formless spiritual essences. The supreme question about a work of art is out of how deep a life does it spring. The painting of Gustave Moreau is the painting of ideas. The deepest poetry of Shelley, the words of Hamlet bring our minds into contact with the eternal wisdom, Plato's world of ideas. All the rest is the speculation of schoolboys for schoolboys."I wonder about Joyce's work of art, Ulysses, and "out of how deep a life does it spring"?
I really liked this: "He goes back, weary of the creation he has piled up to hide him from himself, an old dog licking his old sore. But, because loss is his gain, he passes on towards eternity in undiminished personality, untaught by the wisdom he has written or by the laws he has revealed." Wow!
At the end of Stephen's Shakespeare argument, Stephen says he doesn't believe the argument he has just posited. Is it that in taking the Shakespeare premise to its logical conclusion, Stephen has arrived at a conclusion with which he cannot agree, or has he realized that the process of rational argument does not offer a solution to the issues that confront him--quilt around his mother's death, the English/Irish relationship, and his artistic aspirations?
Thank you so much, Thomas, for your excellent introduction, without which I should have been totally at sea. As it is I am struggling to climb unto a life raft.I think that in this section Joyce must surely have been on some mind-altering substances. If not, then I'd need some such aids in order to comprehend this.
Nevertheless, comprehension aside, I find myself still strangely drawn to this work.
Hahaha Patrice, I totally identify with that. :-)
Patrice wrote: "Hilary, I also have been thinking about Joyce and alcohol. Faulkner is another one who writes this way and his sister once asked him if he was drunk when he wrote. His answer was "not always". ..."
According to his biographer, Joyce only drank in the evenings when his work day was over. No doubt he drank too much sometimes, to the detriment of his family and his meager income, but his writing was never at risk.
I think it's safe to say that his work was more important to Joyce than anything, even his family, so he is utterly in control of it. The deliberateness of his writing is what makes it work -- every detail matters. Even when the intent is to sound as if he isn't in control, such as when he is voicing the thoughts of a drunken Stephen in this episode, he is.
That's interesting, Thomas. I suppose I was thinking more of opioids than alcohol à la Lewis Carroll though I don't know that there is any evidence to say whether or not that was true of him either. To be honest, I was being more facetious than anything else.
Is it helpful to understand Stephen's use of entelechy?
Susan wrote: "Is it helpful to understand Stephen's use of entelechy?"Maybe... I guess it depends on what you mean by "helpful." :-) This is the passage, where Stephen contemplates repaying the pound that he borrowed from A.E. :
Do you intend to pay it back?
O, yes.
When? Now?
Well ... No.
When, then?
I paid my way. I paid my way.
Steady on. He's from beyant Boyne water. The northeast corner. You owe it.
Wait. Five months. Molecules all change. I am other I now. Other I got
pound.
Buzz. Buzz.
But I, entelechy, form of forms, am I by memory because under everchanging forms.
I that sinned and prayed and fasted.
A child Conmee saved from pandies.
I, I and I. I.
A.E.I.O.U.
Entelechy is a term that Aristotle invented, a way of being that is identified not by the completion of the goal, but by continual motion toward it. Here Stephen is thinking about who he was in the past -- "I am other I now." He wants to use this jokingly as an excuse for not paying back A.E. the pound he owes -- his molecules are different; he is not the same person who borrowed the money. But he is the same by entelechy, and by memory, and he knows this. This is all just a game to him. "Buzz Buzz" is from Hamlet, expressing boredom with Polonius and his platitudes. Here Stephen seems to be saying this to himself. Stephen is clever, but he is not impressed by his own cleverness.
What impresses me about this passage is the economy of the writing. In just a few fragments, barely a complete sentence, we see both the complexity and the futility of Stephen's frame of mind.
Ooh, I like your explanation, Thomas. I had forgotten this section, but now, lo and behold, I understand it. I can drop the "Buzz. Buzz." for the next five minutes I'd say. What a relief ...
Thomas wrote: "Susan wrote: "Is it helpful to understand Stephen's use of entelechy?"Maybe... I guess it depends on what you mean by "helpful." :-) This is the passage, where Stephen contemplates repaying the ..."
Thanks! Reminds me how much I'm missing! Is the sea a metaphor for change in this sense?
Susan wrote: " Is the sea a metaphor for change in this sense? "In what sense exactly? In the sense that the sea is in a perpetual state of flux, but at the same time eternal... if that's what you mean, sure, I think so. What's troubling to me about Stephen is that he seems to notice these things but he gains no wisdom or solace from them.
Thomas wrote: "...What's troubling to me about Stephen is that he seems to notice these things but he gains no wisdom or solace from them. ..."[Smile] But if Stephen is the young Joyce, could he have written Ulysses if he had {found either... from "them"}. Did the search needs must continue?
So true, Thomas. I like your spin on it, Lily. :-)
Adelle has picked up on some things that make Bloom seem suspicious as well.