"Ulysses"- the Triviality Through Philosophic/Literature/Historical Lenses
James Joyce undisputable masterpiece "Ulysses" possesses one unique quality- it takes ordinary people and ordinary events and puts them under the prism of deep, complicated thoughts and contemplation. Very often, those thoughts depart completely from the quotidian triviality and reach higher-level topics that are suitable for ancient philosophers, literary critics, and history professors. In that way, Joyce proves that there is no such thing as everydayness.
At the very beginning of the first chapter "Stately, Plump" there is one very ordinary event described: after shaving Buck Mulligan, one of the protagonists of the story, encounters his friend Stephen Dedalus and the two men start a conversation about their names. At first, Joyce uses simple words to describe Mulligan's actions: "Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him by the mild morning air." Such a scene can be acquainted everyday everywhere. At first, the readers unacquainted with Joyce's style will think it will be another prosaic urban novel. This can be also jidged from the almost childish conversation the two men have about their names. However, when Mulligan talks about his name, he uses allusions to the Greek philosophy and poetry:"My name is absurd, too: Malachi Mulligan, two dactyls. But it has a Hellenic ring, hasn't it? Tripping and sunny like the buck himself. We must go to Athens..." Here, it becomes clear that every man in this world is not simply a man but a mini-poem, a mini-world bathed in philosophy. The names exists for a reason and makes us a piece of literature.
Another instance where the quotidian turns into the classical is in the second chapter "Mr." where the half-Jew Leopold Bloom standing at the corner by the city theatre. To the uncritical eye, it may seem that he is another ordinary fellow killing time or minding his own business. While standing on the corner, Bloom starts thinking about his friend Mrs. Bandman Palmer who is impersonating "Hamlet." Once the name "Hamlet" comes to his mind, he starts contemplating on this Shakespearean classic play and even questions its veracity: "Male impersonator. Perhaps he was a woman. Why Ophelia committed suicide? Poor papa!" In his mind, he is leading a dispute with Shakespeare himself about the true identity of his protagonist. Bloom is triggering a mental chain reaction with the "What if.." clause put forward. He believes that Hamlet might have been a woman. This is ironic because in Shakespeare's days even the female roles were played by young boys. Bloom doesn't seem sure about it, either. He is questioning Shakespeare while waiting on a street corner.
In his mind, Bloom bestows historicism and depth even to the trivial act of shredding an envelope. Whereas to many people this act could be as common as breathing or blinking, for him these myriad pieces of paper could constitute a cheque for a hundred pounds. While thinking this, Bloom recalls a history incident related to money: "Lord Iveagh once cashed a sevenfigure cheque for a million in the bank of Ireland....A million pounds, wait a moment. Twopence a pint, fourpence a quart, eightpence a gallon of porter, no, one and fourpence a gallon of porter." Bloom alikens the shredding to this historical event and even makes mental calculations. He also relates the insignificant to the significant, the present to the past, the specific to the general. His action of shredding is not just a single action that will remain in the past. It bears historical veracity.
"U;ysses" can be viewed as an ordinary novel bathed in an extraordinary light. It proves that nothing exists or happens just because. It also gives deep background to the everydayness and defies triviality.
Rayadim has posted an eloquent comment on the "ordinary" Leopold Bloom. He is one of the most interesting and extraordinary characters in all of literature, I think. Joyce as Rayadim notes follows his travels through Dublin on an ordinary day, recording his everyday ruminations about Dublin, friends in a bar, at a funeral, Molly, Gerty, his father, his son, Rudy....
Why are the modernists interested in "the ordinary" or topics that are traditionally though "small" or "trivial"?
Since Modernism accentuates on two important aspects- rejection of a high ubiquitous authority and the power of shaping one's own environment, it praises the ordinary, in a sense. People tended to believe that everything that happens around us, from the everyday act of shaving a beard or shredding an envelope, is conducted and navigated by God. Also, they tended to believe that nobody can escape his/her destiny and that only the Almighty is in control of our life.
The Modernists, on the other had, refute that notion. First, they rejects the existence of a super-power that controls our deeds and shapes our future. They rather allege that the world is the way it is due to our own behavior, actions, and decisions. The character Bloom is a perfect illustration of that creed for he is not a Christian, but a Jew. On the other hand, he is not even a true Jew because his mother doesn't share the Jewish faith. Therefore, Bloom doesn't belong to any religious group but is more broadly socialized. Since he is living in the predominantly Catholic Irish society, he can be perceived as something like an outsider. Yet, his deep contemplative thinking suggests that he is not bothered but rather proud of it. He also shows that all the prominent figures in our history were people just like everybody on the streets of Dublin. In fact, Shakespeare's Ophelia was nothing more than his friend, the actress- performing to make ends meet. He also proves that the Bank of Ireland is a Bank of Ireland just because millions of Irish citizens, ranging from Lord Iveagh to ordinaries such as Bloom, invested their papery cheques into it. Those cheques, on the other hand, will quickly lose their values once they are shredded into pieces by any ordinary person and thrown into the river.
When Bloom is being fired upon, there is not prayer about his soul but rather about his kidneys. According to the modernists, once a person dies, he doesn't really depart to a different realm but his organs, including the kidneys, are decomposed and turned into dust- dust that can be found on any ordinary Dublin street.
The great and powerful is great and powerful because trivial people and events make it look that way.
At first I found Telemachus disorienting with its largely blurred dialogue between characters, and its largely blurred distinction between scenes. Orienting myself, however, I found that the characters were rather extreme with each other—shouting at each other at what seemed to be inappropriate times, often nonsensically. They seemed almost parodies of “characters.”
I noticed a large number of references to “other works of literature” throughout, as well as references to other outside non-literature based media/instances as well. The opening reference to the Catholic Eucharist is a good example (seen through the shaving kit). Later, the reference to Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Acquinas’ “fifty five reasons he has made to prop it up.”
The pacing is also something I sense. It’s rather quick, actually. With very little time for contemplation from sentence to sentence, the fragmentary nature of what the characters are experiencing in dialogue with each other generates a further disorientation on the part of the reader. Which, again, is a result of the rather absurd or surreality of some of the language used, as in later in the Proteus section:
“A seachange this, brown eyes saltblue. Seadeath, mildest of all deaths known to man. Old Father Ocean. Prix de Paris: beware of imitations. Just you give it a fair trial. We enjoyed ourselves immensely. Come. I thirst. Clouding over. No black clouds anywhere, are there? Thunderstorm. Allbright he falls, proud lightning of the intellect, Lucifer, dico, qui nescit occasum. No. My cockle hat and staff and his my sandal shoon. Where? To evening lands. Evening will find itself.”
Do you hear the echoes of Milton's PL and Lycidas in the quote David offers above? Why allude to Milton in this way? What does the Miltonic trace and the comparison do for the representation of Stephen?
And Rayadim notes that Bloom is not a "true Jew." What then is his cultural, religious identity? Why does he harken back to thoughts of his father Virag. Who defines who we are? How does "identity" emerge?
Barack Obama in Dreams of My Father has spoken of the fissures of race that make up the American experience, and his decision to choose an identity though bi-racial by birth. Who told him who he was in terms of his identity? Account for inward and social definitions.
"Ulysses"- the Triviality Through Philosophic/Literature/Historical Lenses
ReplyDeleteJames Joyce undisputable masterpiece "Ulysses" possesses one unique quality- it takes ordinary people and ordinary events and puts them under the prism of deep, complicated thoughts and contemplation. Very often, those thoughts depart completely from the quotidian triviality and reach higher-level topics that are suitable for ancient philosophers, literary critics, and history professors. In that way, Joyce proves that there is no such thing as everydayness.
At the very beginning of the first chapter "Stately, Plump" there is one very ordinary event described: after shaving Buck Mulligan, one of the protagonists of the story, encounters his friend Stephen Dedalus and the two men start a conversation about their names. At first, Joyce uses simple words to describe Mulligan's actions: "Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him by the mild morning air." Such a scene can be acquainted everyday everywhere. At first, the readers unacquainted with Joyce's style will think it will be another prosaic urban novel. This can be also jidged from the almost childish conversation the two men have about their names. However, when Mulligan talks about his name, he uses allusions to the Greek philosophy and poetry:"My name is absurd, too: Malachi Mulligan, two dactyls. But it has a Hellenic ring, hasn't it? Tripping and sunny like the buck himself. We must go to Athens..." Here, it becomes clear that every man in this world is not simply a man but a mini-poem, a mini-world bathed in philosophy. The names exists for a reason and makes us a piece of literature.
Another instance where the quotidian turns into the classical is in the second chapter "Mr." where the half-Jew Leopold Bloom standing at the corner by the city theatre. To the uncritical eye, it may seem that he is another ordinary fellow killing time or minding his own business. While standing on the corner, Bloom starts thinking about his friend Mrs. Bandman Palmer who is impersonating "Hamlet." Once the name "Hamlet" comes to his mind, he starts contemplating on this Shakespearean classic play and even questions its veracity: "Male impersonator. Perhaps he was a woman. Why Ophelia committed suicide? Poor papa!" In his mind, he is leading a dispute with Shakespeare himself about the true identity of his protagonist. Bloom is triggering a mental chain reaction with the "What if.." clause put forward. He believes that Hamlet might have been a woman. This is ironic because in Shakespeare's days even the female roles were played by young boys. Bloom doesn't seem sure about it, either. He is questioning Shakespeare while waiting on a street corner.
In his mind, Bloom bestows historicism and depth even to the trivial act of shredding an envelope. Whereas to many people this act could be as common as breathing or blinking, for him these myriad pieces of paper could constitute a cheque for a hundred pounds. While thinking this, Bloom recalls a history incident related to money: "Lord Iveagh once cashed a sevenfigure cheque for a million in the bank of Ireland....A million pounds, wait a moment. Twopence a pint, fourpence a quart, eightpence a gallon of porter, no, one and fourpence a gallon of porter." Bloom alikens the shredding to this historical event and even makes mental calculations. He also relates the insignificant to the significant, the present to the past, the specific to the general. His action of shredding is not just a single action that will remain in the past. It bears historical veracity.
"U;ysses" can be viewed as an ordinary novel bathed in an extraordinary light. It proves that nothing exists or happens just because. It also gives deep background to the everydayness and defies triviality.
Rayadim has posted an eloquent comment on the "ordinary" Leopold Bloom. He is one of the most interesting and extraordinary characters in all of literature, I think. Joyce as Rayadim notes follows his travels through Dublin on an ordinary day, recording his everyday ruminations about Dublin, friends in a bar, at a funeral, Molly, Gerty, his father, his son, Rudy....
ReplyDeleteWhy are the modernists interested in "the ordinary" or topics that are traditionally though "small" or "trivial"?
Since Modernism accentuates on two important aspects- rejection of a high ubiquitous authority and the power of shaping one's own environment, it praises the ordinary, in a sense. People tended to believe that everything that happens around us, from the everyday act of shaving a beard or shredding an envelope, is conducted and navigated by God. Also, they tended to believe that nobody can escape his/her destiny and that only the Almighty is in control of our life.
ReplyDeleteThe Modernists, on the other had, refute that notion. First, they rejects the existence of a super-power that controls our deeds and shapes our future. They rather allege that the world is the way it is due to our own behavior, actions, and decisions. The character Bloom is a perfect illustration of that creed for he is not a Christian, but a Jew. On the other hand, he is not even a true Jew because his mother doesn't share the Jewish faith. Therefore, Bloom doesn't belong to any religious group but is more broadly socialized. Since he is living in the predominantly Catholic Irish society, he can be perceived as something like an outsider. Yet, his deep contemplative thinking suggests that he is not bothered but rather proud of it. He also shows that all the prominent figures in our history were people just like everybody on the streets of Dublin. In fact, Shakespeare's Ophelia was nothing more than his friend, the actress- performing to make ends meet. He also proves that the Bank of Ireland is a Bank of Ireland just because millions of Irish citizens, ranging from Lord Iveagh to ordinaries such as Bloom, invested their papery cheques into it. Those cheques, on the other hand, will quickly lose their values once they are shredded into pieces by any ordinary person and thrown into the river.
When Bloom is being fired upon, there is not prayer about his soul but rather about his kidneys. According to the modernists, once a person dies, he doesn't really depart to a different realm but his organs, including the kidneys, are decomposed and turned into dust- dust that can be found on any ordinary Dublin street.
The great and powerful is great and powerful because trivial people and events make it look that way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt first I found Telemachus disorienting with its largely blurred dialogue between characters, and its largely blurred distinction between scenes. Orienting myself, however, I found that the characters were rather extreme with each other—shouting at each other at what seemed to be inappropriate times, often nonsensically. They seemed almost parodies of “characters.”
ReplyDeleteI noticed a large number of references to “other works of literature” throughout, as well as references to other outside non-literature based media/instances as well. The opening reference to the Catholic Eucharist is a good example (seen through the shaving kit). Later, the reference to Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Acquinas’ “fifty five reasons he has made to prop it up.”
The pacing is also something I sense. It’s rather quick, actually. With very little time for contemplation from sentence to sentence, the fragmentary nature of what the characters are experiencing in dialogue with each other generates a further disorientation on the part of the reader. Which, again, is a result of the rather absurd or surreality of some of the language used, as in later in the Proteus section:
“A seachange this, brown eyes saltblue. Seadeath, mildest of all deaths known to man. Old Father Ocean. Prix de Paris: beware of imitations. Just you give it a fair trial. We enjoyed ourselves immensely.
Come. I thirst. Clouding over. No black clouds anywhere, are there? Thunderstorm. Allbright he falls, proud lightning of the intellect, Lucifer, dico, qui nescit occasum. No. My cockle hat and staff and his my sandal shoon. Where? To evening lands. Evening will find itself.”
- David Miller
Do you hear the echoes of Milton's PL and Lycidas in the quote David offers above? Why allude to Milton in this way? What does the Miltonic trace and the comparison do for the representation of Stephen?
ReplyDeleteAnd Rayadim notes that Bloom is not a "true Jew." What then is his cultural, religious identity? Why does he harken back to thoughts of his father Virag. Who defines who we are? How does "identity" emerge?
Barack Obama in Dreams of My Father has spoken of the fissures of race that make up the American experience, and his decision to choose an identity though bi-racial by birth. Who told him who he was in terms of his identity? Account for inward and social definitions.