9. Scylla and Charybdis

[Everyman]

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 ..."

Great explanation. It reminds me of Heraclitus -- just as you are a different set of molecules but the same person, the river is a different set of water drops but the same river.

[Suzann]

Everyman wrote: "Great explanation. It reminds me of Heraclitus -- just as you are a different set of molecules but the same person, the river is a different set of water drops but the same river...."

Is it the memory that provides the continuity of new molecules? Is the newness not molecules in the physical sense, but a new consciousness?

[Everyman]

Susan wrote: "Is it the memory that provides the continuity of new molecules? Is the newness not molecules in the physical sense, but a new consciousness? "

That's a great question. Memory and how it makes us who we are, and the failure thereof sometimes, seems very much an issue in Ulysses, doesn't it? He, too, is very concerned with the physicality of life, but hasn't, so far ,asked how one molecule, in dying, can pass its information on to another molecule. It adds some fire to the argument that the soul is non-physical, or perhaps meta-physical, existing independent of the corporeal.

[Theresa]

Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I'm not sure that it's SD who is calling the librarian "Quaker". On re-reading it seems to be Joyce's narration.

Joyce (SD) is just full of hubris. at 1057 he says
"The playwright who wrote the ..."

It's an interesting question, especially given Stephen's conclusion that the son and the father, and the artist and the creation are "all in all." Though I wonder a bit if Stephen is entirely serious when he says that. It sounds to me like the Scylla might be falling into the Charybdis there. "

I just happened to be reading a number of shakespear's plays before I read this chapter. It almost seems like Joyce is lampooning shakespeare's delight in turning ideas on their heads (as he often does in the comedies) and twisting meanings and outcomes. The whole son is the father idea (or grandson) is a bit like that, it reminds me of how it is suggested in Macbeth Banquo's son Fiance is a grandfather of King James (the witches foretell that Banquo will be a father or grandfather of kings, this haunts Macbeth throughout the play). Shakespeare doffs his hat to his patron King James, and James Joyce does likewise to Shakespeare in this chapter? I dunno... :) It is all too much to take seriously sometimes. Joyce is really messing with my head.

[Thomas]

Theresa wrote: "Shakespeare doffs his hat to his patron King James, and James Joyce does likewise to Shakespeare in this chapter? I dunno... :) It is all too much to take seriously sometimes. Joyce is really messing with my head. "

Stephen's theory sounds serious, and it's certainly complicated, but Stephen himself doesn't take it seriously. On the other hand, the idea of fatherhood and paternity is a cornerstone of the novel, so the game-playing that Stephen engages in here is not meaningless. On one level his theory is just wordplay and not serious at all, but on another level fatherhood and what it means to be a father is the key to the novel.

[Theresa]

Thomas wrote: "On one level his theory is just wordplay and not serious at all, but on another level fatherhood and what it means to be a father is the key to the novel. ..."

Interesting, and good to know. Just enough to keep me curious about how it is going to end without giving anything away. Thanks