[bitshiftfaced]

It has a reputation as "that book that most people don't finish." As someone who hasn't read it, I tried to find out why. Here's some reasons I've found:

1) Stream of consciousness. The reader must figure out whose mind they are in, if it's at all possible. Then they must deal with all of these tangent thoughts that would make sense to the character thinking them, but not to anyone else, including the reader, since they they don't flow from the previous context.

2) "References to various 19th century Irish intellectual debates that you could not reasonably be expected to understand unless you have a degree in the intellectual history of Ireland in the 19th Century or a closely related field." "Allusions it makes to obscure literature and Irish politics.

4) "Joyce makes reference to all kinds of works, from Dante and Nietzsche to Walt Whitman; obviously Homer’s Odyssey is important to be familiar with. So be familiar with the important works of British, Irish, and American literature, and with ancient canonical works. Oh, it will also be quite important to be somewhat familiar with Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and his life in general."

5) Changes writing styles throughout the book.

6) Uses words that many people don't know.

Knowing this, I believe I would be one of those people who stop reading less than half way through. From reading about why it was difficult to finish, I get the feeling that many people read it because it's difficult to finish!

I'm imagining reading over sentences not understanding what's going on or why what's being said is being said, even after looking up hundreds of words in the dictionary that I will never use again. I'm imagining spending many hours confused and lost, for what? To be able to say that I've read Ulysses?

But I could use an annotated companion book! Then I'd be able to understand what's going on, even if it takes twice as long to read. I wouldn't really get to brag about having read it the same way those literature professors can.

In that case, then the real reason for reading it would not be because it's a challenge. It would be out of appreciation for its modernist style and its underlying story. But I'm not really interested any either of those things, based on what I've read.

[versk]

Its funny because once you read enough of it to properly grok the working of the stream of consciousness style it becomes a joy to read, as easy to comprehend as your own internal monologue. Reading ulysses once you crack it is like trying on someone elses consciousness. Blooms is a nice consciousness to inhabit, Stephens less so, but both almost unbearably rewarding. Don't get too caught up in understanding every weird association that pops into and out of either characters head, although there is certainly pleasure to be had in doing a close reading with research, where by you get to fill out a characters own mental map. A book of untouchable genius

[m-watson]

I could not agree with you more, this book was when I learned how to let things slide some times and just push forward. I would just keep reading without conscious interpretation. Once I got into the general feel of the book, the story started falling into line with out me really trying.

[angst_ridden]

Agreed. And it's side-splittingly funny too.

[lanstin]

I read it in a book group and the humor and the humanity is what i recall now 20 years later.

We had one person that had read it in grad school and three guide books to explain stuff. Hard work but totally worth it.

[dundarious]

Having a “completionist” mindset (wanting to understand every reference and insight, and spending hundreds of hours to achieve it) is not the only way to read it, and draw meaning and enjoyment from it. I think a lot of people do “finish” it, but have barely scratched the surface — nevertheless, they enjoy it.

No harm in not enjoying it, or recognizing you’d be unlikely to, either.

However, there is a tendency among people using your logic (but coming to different conclusions so I’m not lumping you in with them) to end up disparaging almost anyone for reading Ulysses or Gravity’s Rainbow or even Infinite Jest.

[bitshiftfaced]

> No harm in not enjoying it,

In a way, I do assign a kind of "harm" to books that I don't enjoy. You must invest time into a book and give it a fair chance before you can write it off. What's at risk is potentially hours of wasted leisure time.

> Having a “completionist” mindset (wanting to understand every reference and insight, and spending hundreds of hours to achieve it) is not the only way to read it, and draw meaning and enjoyment from it.

I've actually read more than one account of people saying they just sort of accepted that they don't understand what's going on and just power through it. Personally, that doesn't seem like something I'd enjoy, but apparently some people do, so I won't debate that.

I do think there's something to be said for readability in general. Whenever the reader has to stop because something is confusing (and not because it's thought-provoking or important), this interruption tends to jolt the reader back out of the story and into "ok now I gotta look up this word" or "ok let me re-read this last paragraph because that sentence was very long and full of ambiguous pronouns." To me, this sort of thing is not enjoyable in any book.

[dundarious]

I think it’s a bit funny to judge it so forcefully along the axis of “readability”, especially with a huge bias towards “readability for a 2022 non-Irish audience outside the art scene” — you’re assigning “harm” to the book itself, so I no longer think you’re just giving your 2c about your experience. It’s famously and I’d say even canonically one of the most dense and quasi-academic pieces of literary fiction of its era — it’s not for everyone (I haven’t attempted it).

Even then, there are novels for all permutations of “readable (to me)” and not, and “good (to me)” and not. Fair enough though in the sense that I wouldn’t take a “barely readable (to me) but very good (to me)” novel to the beach.

[bitshiftfaced]

> you’re assigning “harm” to the book itself, so I no longer think you’re just giving your 2c about your experience.

Only to the extent in which I've defined "harm" (in quotations), which was to say that I don't like to invest free time into books that I probably won't finish.

In any case, while I do care about readability, it does look like I've stepped a bit too far over the line. Believe me, I have no desire in forming any sort of literary criticism against a book that many famous writers have said is great, especially having not read it.

[jprd]

Well said, and totally with you until Infinite Jest. Hanging your hat on that should haunt you like mentioning it within the same breath as Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow or even Blood Meridian.

Infinite Jest is the Jared Kushner of literary works. BEFORE the Saudi money for selling the PDB.

[dundarious]

They weren’t listed together because I think they’re all great. They each have something “difficult” or “pretentious” about them in the popular imagination, and people get criticized for “putting on airs” when seen reading them in public, people are classified as “oh, one of those guys...” if they have it on their shelf/nightstand.