what makes this such a pseud magnet?
It's big, it's bold, it's Irish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSicBFs7erE
>>25611932Same thing that makes Fermat's last theorem a math pseud magnet
You only need to be slightly clever, the bare minimum really, to make it seem you belong - seeing as how the book says pretty much anything and nothing too. It's both the pinnacle of creative freedom and the reason it is relegated to a showpiece on the shelf for friends and family.
um I literally ordered it yesterday... what's wrong with it
>>25612064Nothing. OP is filtered.
>>25612064shit dude how big is you vicobulary?
>>25611938Bish Bash Bosh
>>25611932If you can read Ulysses, then you're not a pseud. The book is literally a pseud filter. Guessing you're among the retentates ...
>>25612577define read
reputation
>>25611932Retards who haven't read it.It's genuinely not that fucking difficult. It's academic pederasts pushing this narrative that it's such, such, such a complex book that you need a whole library of Alexandria of references to get it. No. You don't.It's a story about the life of an average former student of that time and an average middle class man of that time. It's very down to Earth, and if you know the barest minimum of philosophy and European literature, you'll get Stephen. I suspect the reason why Joyce started experimenting heavily with language in the second part is to keep thing interesting, because the first part is more or less the same; and it's only with Sirens that thing start to get funky. The stylistic gymnastics are there to not slip the story into boredom, both for reader and write alike. It's a very relatable book if you aren't an ivory tower academic pederast, because it's fundamentally a book about average people: something academic pederasts can't get because they think they're above the average, so Ulysses remains this impenetrable text full of mystical riddles for them. Listening to academic pederasts speak about Ulysses is the same as listening to incels speak about women.It's called Ulysses for a reason. And back then, Ulysses was a story more or less every schoolboy knew. That should clue you in on the the supposed complexity of the book. And, iirc, it was quite popular at the time of release. Not bestseller tier, but also not it sold three copies to family either.If me, an English as Fourth Language retail worker who works with people for whom the concept of sobriety is alien in the shittiest part of a town in the shittiest part of Estonia, can parse normally through the Oxen Of The Sun, then you have no excuse. No excuse. Are you more retarded than a retail worker who stocks shelves for a living?
>>25613715It is difficult when you can’t even follow along with what is going on for dozens of pages at a time
>>25613715It's so funny when you guys try to pull the aw shucks it's just a normal relatable story :) shtick
>>25613768You mean you
>>25611932Nobody has read it
>>25613715>ns that thing start to get funky. The stylistic gymnastics are there to not slip the story into boredom, both for reader and write alike.>It's a very rela
>>25613854y would they
>>25613869if you read the book women might think you're smart and pay attention to stuff u say.
>>25613877You've tried this?
>>25613715You didn't understand the book. Ulysses is one of the most complex novels ever written. Clearly this was lost on you.
>>25614420How is it more complex than ASOFAI? Hard mode: give a coherent answer
>>25611932At least it's hard to spell so it's easy to filter the people that lie about reading it.
>>25614424
>>25614456Yup your retarded
>>25611932Great, you pulled me here with your choice of words.
>>25611932This is such a poor book, you can tell Joyce never had any real literary skill; he would go on to find some euphony with FW, here he does absolutely nothing of note, but the spooks pushed it big, lord knows for which ill gains...
>>25615050why did the spooks push it
>ITT midwits resentful they're not equipped to enjoy a work of art that's bigger and better than they could ever be so they dismiss it as nonsenseYou guys really expose and embarass yourself by doing this. Just say you didn't like it and move on. If you're not able to read it, you're not able to comment on it. It's like if you don't speak a language and try to read something in that language and you don't understand it so you dismiss it as nonsense, it was you that couldn't rise up to meet the work, not the other way around. Please please please get a clue. Put down the Brandon Sanderson and read better books.
>>25616298many such cases. resentful cowards are so afraid of being perceived as performative or pretentious that they'd rather live in moral and aesthetic squalor for the rest of their so-called lives
>25615050>i dont read but i want to fit in
>>25616298It's easy to feel superior with art where there is no way to prove you did understand it - moreover, acting like this book can be understood just tells me you understood nada, nothing, niente, sah-mat.
>>25616582You think art is something to be understood, and that's your primary mistake. Your goal with art is not to experience it but to "understand" it, so when you yourself fail to understand you judge it as an inferior work. You look at people that enjoy a work of art and resent them because you project your scale of the quality of art onto them, you think they too judge based on how something can be understood, and this is incorrect, but you apply this scale and resent them because you refuse to believe either that someone could value art outside of their understanding it, or that other people are simply more acute and more able to understand it than you. Even with the word "understanding,"there's multiple kinds of understanding, and I'm assuming you're talking about simple comprehension. Either way, you have an ego and an entitlement you bring to art which will prevent you from engaging with or experiencing great art in any lasting or meaningful way.
>>25614725>your
>>25616735stop taking bait you dumb niggeri hate that reddit shut down your stupid sub
>>25616618huh
>>25616618what the bloody fuck? i told you you're wrong for thinking the book can be understood. are you able to read mate
>>25617077the book cannot be understood
>>25617049I don't take advice from people who can't capitalise.
>>25617122Lol!
>>25616102I'd imagine to push a new view of the west, the same way they do gay remakes of classics today. But I don't know, I just know that Joyce was funded by the Big A.
>>25617122checked and based
>>25617122so fuckin based
>>25617122Haha.
>>25617122Why did you reply to yourself four times
Wow, great thread. Why is OP such a retard magnet?
read circe to the cat and it stayed put for a while so far so good
>>25616618Art is a vehicle for conveying intentionality and meaning. It can be obfuscated and it can be ambiguous, indeed it should be if the work is to ascend to a level beyond 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar', but it must be there. I spit on people who sit for an hour "admiring" a Rothko, I think you're all a bunch of narcissists.
>>25619090holy midwit alert. Please re-read my post until you can grasp why you've just brutally embarrassed yourself, this time there certainly will be "understanding" required on your part.
>>25619171I understood your badly-written ramblings pretty well, though not without effort since you're plainly ESL. Firstly, your platitude about "letting go of ego" is hilarious coming from someone who writes with such assertiveness. Have you let go of your ego, or is that not necessary when one is a Platonic gold-soul? Secondly, your great revelation about there being "multiple kinds of understanding" is not only obvious to any living, breathing human, but it undermines your whole point. The existence of "multiple levels of understanding" implies the presence of meaning, without which I contended that there cannot be art. Does the person to whom you were originally replying have to let go of meaning because Joyce needs to be appreciated as pure experience (your first apparent point), or does it need to be appreciated from a scholarly position of supreme knowledge? I was replying only to that first assertion. Now, your *original* point from the earlier post, to which I was not replying, was that non-appreciators of Jinbad the Jailer, Tinbad the Tailor, and Whinbad the Whaler had to please, please, please, please get a clue, and pick up a Brandon Sanderson book if they were unable to appreciate such a profound literary talent as James Joyce. To that, I say this: I had to go through the rigmarole of nine years at university doing three degrees; had to learn Latin, Koine Greek, and Middle English; had to be educated in the exact material that is apparently pre-requisite to pick up anything beyond Brandon Sanderson, and certainly the great James Joyce. Now, if I thought that Ulysses, Portrait, and Finnegan were all Emperor's New Clothes claptrap, how much more education would I have needed to understand the Irish fart-enthusiast correctly? Or is it, again, that I was born a Platonic silver-soul (at best) and can't aspire to such heights of artistry? Perhaps I should just let go of my ego and let the nonsense-words overwhelm me, that is the true mark of education.
>>25619338Holy fuck imagine writing all that and still being a midwit that poops his pants when he sees other people enjoying art he himself doesn't like
>>25619338huh
>>25619338Ohhh wait are you the jeet that viciously hates Ezra Pound and all modernist literature? Now this sperging and projection makes sense.
>>25619376At least I am widely recognized
>>25618617>he doesn't know how to detect samefagsEmbarrassing. Lurk moar.
>>25611932you do!
