Talk:Ulysses (novel)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• James Joyce reads from Ulysses.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BuySomeApples (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The first edition of the novel, published 2 February 1922

• ... that the penultimate chapter of James Joyce's novel "Ulysses" is formatted as a "mathematical" catechism of 309 questions and answers? Source: McCarthy, Patrick A., "Joyce's Unreliable Catechist: Mathematics and the Narrative of 'Ithaca'", ELH, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Autumn 1984), pp. 605–606, quoting Joyce in Letters From James Joyce. A famous example is Joyce's apparent rendering of the year 1904 into the impossible Roman numeral MXMIV (p. 669 of the 1961 Modern Library edition)
  • ALT1: ... that "Ithaca", the penultimate episode of James Joyce's "Ulysses", talks of urinary trajectories? Source: Hefferman, James A. W. (2001) Joyce's Ulysses. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company LP.
  • ALT2: ... that Episode 14 of James Joyce's "Ulysses" recounts the entire history of the English language through puns and wordplay? Source: Wales, Kathleen (1989). "The "Oxen of the Sun" in "Ulysses": Joyce and Anglo-Saxon". James Joyce Quarterly. 26. 3: 319–330.

Created by ColdSteelKing (talk). Self-nominated at 03:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC).

• Hi ColdSteelKing, this article was not newly created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to Good Article within the last week. It is not eligible for DYK. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On this (Blooms)day

There's still a week left to address the issues at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/June_16#What,_no_mention_of_Bloomsday? and rescue Bloomsday for the main page. Sparafucil (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

article doubled in size since January with added interpretive material

On 25 January the body of this article[1] was 5,982 words. On 20 June the body is 14,190 words.

Most of what has more than doubled the size of the article is the section I broke out from Plot summary into its own Interpretations section. It appears to be primarily devoted to presenting the reading of a scholar named Frederick K. Lang. (Although I can't find a CV or background on him, the press appears legit.)

Nevertheless, there are WP:UNDUE issues—in addition to the tremendous length.

Tagging @User:Quarkny, would you mind sharing a little bit about your project here? The amount of time and work you've put in is incredible — and I very much appreciate the attention to sourcing – but if this material can't be better integrated, seriously condensed, or broken off into another article, it will almost certainly be axed by future editors, which would obviously be a shame.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, there's a great deal of "Interpretations" text presented in an argumentative style as if it were encyclopedic fact. "Like Joyce, Satanists and Protestants have waged open war on the Catholic Church and made the Eucharist their primary target." Is that really the tone you want to take, Quarkny?

Patrick asked you for clarification in June. It's now the end of September, and you haven't answered, but instead you keep adding new opinionated text, even as recent as yesterday.

98.29.142.35 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with IP 98's concerns and would like major pruning, starting with the many uncited paras and claims. Especially the "Critical response[s]" section is a mess. The plot section is also fanciful - as said above, veering too far from description into interpretation, often without cites - and too long, and in such incoherent, stubby paragraphs. Seems very inter-cert standard English. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems your criticisms are aimed at me, Quarkny. It's not clear to me just what it is you're objecting to. I've made a few minor additions to the "critical responses" section. I don't understand what you mean by "mess." I haven't touched the "plot section," if by that you mean the episode summaries emphasizing the Homeric parallels. The whole of the "interpretations" is mine. I've also revised considerably elsewhere. When I came to the Joyce page, it was, to use your word, a "mess." As a Joyce scholar, I was troubled and offended. It is a far, far better thing that what it was. Around Bloomsday, ironically, I was told to condense the "interpretations." Which I have been trying to do. What you see as "incoherent, stubby paragraphs" is the result of my efforts to be as succinct as possible. I have no idea what you mean by "very inter-cert standard English." But I am aware it's an insult. At this point, I see no reason to continue "pruning." I'm proud of my pre-Bloomsday contributions. I regret having been talked into disfiguring them 2603:7000:9700:8D83:3F33:5EE5:10D4:467 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much experience editing articles about novels, but it is normal to provide the plot without citations. Skimming again what I've read more closely a few times already, I'm not seeing any obvious problems with "Plot summary". Some of the details included might seem weird, I think that's more because Ulysses is a weird book than because there is an issue with the summary overview of the chapters. Patrick (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been in touch with Patrick recently. I'm trying to incorporate his suggestions. Quarkny (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Religious Elements" section especially read like a thesis. Patrick if you agree, propose that this is rolled back. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ceoil, I haven't been following all of @Frederick Quarkny's revisions, but I was still concerned that "Interpretations" read too much like literary criticism, rather than a report on the critical consensus or ongoing debates, which is much more of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. A lot of the material, however, is quite good and would belong here in some form. The sourcing was also good. So I hope there's some middle way. What are you thoughts, Frederick? Patrick (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick,

I appreciate the courtesy you've shown me. I want you to know that I made a sincere effort at whittling-down my contribution. Ceoil's recent complaint, as unfair, obtuse and offensive as it may be, confirms my suspicion that I've ruined it in the process. I'll do so no longer. I won't simply replace what's there now with what was there originally. I will leave it intact, though I will add material I've wanted to include from the outset. I realize that my entire contribution might be deleted at any time, but I hope that meanwhile it will benefit new readers of Ulysses turning to Wiki for help. I hope that my work on the rest of the Ulysses page, and on the Dubliners and Portrait pages, won't also be in danger.

Thanks again for everything.

Frederick 2603:7000:9700:8D83:DC34:DAC3:7C58:12DC (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Frederick Quarkny (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Frederick, its not all or nothing here, but you are going too far in your current approach – dominating the articles with your POV. Patrick is a solid, knowledgeable, and respected editor, but from my point of view you don't seem to be really listening to him - or at least pretending to listen but then doing nothing. Given you are using yourself as a source, and the fervour of your user page, I'm not sure wiki is the place for you. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

themes section

I read the Interpretations section with a little more care this morning, and I am not seeing where it might belong on Wikipedia. A better venue might be Medium with a title along the lines of "A Reading of Catholic Themes in James Joyce's Ulysses". Perhaps, though, someone else will have a better idea.

In any case, thinking about what might be appropriately preserved for this article — which is also independently a general suggestion for improvement — I wonder if it might not benefit from a Themes section. This could include 1-3 paragraphs each on such major themes of Ulysses as Catholicism, national identity, the body, gender and sexuality, love, paternity, the vocation of the artist, the anxiety of influence—or whatever editors might want to contribute (until such a time as it, in turn, becomes too long and needs to be cut back or broken off into a child article). For it is in no small part because the novel addresses so many major dimensions of human life that Ulysses has attained the stature it enjoys today.

(For similar reasons, the article would benefit from a Literary Techniques section, upon which there is also a massive secondary literature. But I didn't come to this article with the intention of doing any serious work on it, and so I will leave off further suggestions.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, for anyone not aware, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style does have a section specifically devoted to works of fiction: MOS:NOVELS.

I would add that, in the case of Ulysses, a "Literary Influences" section would also be justified. An edit to the Homer material might allow some of the Hamlet material from "Interpretations" to be included here under its own subhead. Gifford's Annotations could also be cited in the section lead on the particular significance of the King James Bible, Blake, and Dante (2nd ed., pp. xvii–xviii). Perhaps some future editor would be inspired to elaborate.

I'll also note that this style guideline supports my suggestion of a "Themes" section, stating, In many ways this is the most important section of the page because it details the "meat" of the novel. We would only need two or three themes to justify the creation of the section, which could be built out over time by future editors.

(Attn: @Quarkny.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've started work on the Shakespeare section. I'll try to condense it by eliminating what's extraneous while at the same time demonstrating the importance of Hamlet to Ulysses. After The Odyssey, it's the literary work most relevant to Ulysses. The important parallels are between Shakespeare and Joyce, King Hamlet and Leopold Bloom, Prince Hamlet and Stephen Dedalus. But this is complicated by Shakespeare's relation to the prince and Joyce's relation to Stephen. I may have to put Aquinas aside for now, but the religious parallels (Father-Son) do help make sense of it all. Wish me luck Quarkny (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Good luck! In addition to MOS:NOVELS, by the way, you might want to read WP:WIKIVOICE and, if you have not already, the rest of WP:NPOV. For instance, you cannot, in general, claim to know what Joyce was thinking or how he related to his individual characters (or, cases where this is warranted, it's best to include in-text attribution to the author of the source).

A more succinct account of the importance of Hamlet, however, will be most welcome!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick,

What I have so far. As you see, I haven't integrated the citations from the original yet. I'll use the same sources, plus two additional.

Joyce and Shakespeare

After Homer's Odyssey, the literary work Ulysses parallels most closely is Shakespeare's Hamlet. The play is mentioned in "Telemachus." In the Library episode, Stephen Dedalus puts forth a theory of Hamlet based on 12 lectures, now lost, that Joyce gave in Trieste in 1912. Among the implied parallels with Ulysses are Shakespeare and Joyce, King Hamlet and Leopold Bloom, Prince Hamlet and Stephen Dedalus. The latter wears a “Hamlet hat” and his interior monologue parallels Hamlet soliloquies.

Shakespeare is represented in both the king and the prince, Joyce in both Bloom and Stephen. The king is the mature Shakespeare; the prince is Shakespeare as a young man. Bloom is the mature Joyce; Stephen is Joyce as a young man. Other parallels are Polonius and Mr Deasy, Claudius and Buck Mulligan, Claudius and Blazes Boylan—all three are “usurpers”—Hamnet Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s only son who died at age 11, and Rudy Bloom, Bloom’s only son who died after 11 days.

Ulysses also parallels events in Hamlet, though not exactly. The closet scene in Hamlet, where the prince confronts his mother and his father’s ghost appears, is paralleled by Stephen’s confrontation with the mother’s ghost in “Circe.”

How can I show this to others on Wiki?

Best, Happy 4th.

Frederick Quarkny (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Frederick,

The best ways to share a short draft is on the talk page, as you do here. For a longer draft, you can provide links to a page or section in you userspace. (What you write there will not appear in search results, but anyone can view it if they know where to look, i.e., if you provide a link or they look at your edit history.)

Since this has been here for a few days now without objection, I would go ahead and add it to the article. If anyone objects at a later date, you can discuss then. I often wikilink back to talk discussions (if they exist) in the edit description when I implement a change that has been discussed in talk. This is in no way required, however; I just think it encourages editors to discuss before reverting or making non-trivial changes.

Oh, and in case you don't already plan to, I would include citations directly to Ulysses for "Hamlet hat" and "usurpers" in addition to the secondary source(s) supporting the larger claim.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick,

I don't think I can condense the section further without rendering the prose even more skeletal or, worse, deleting significant material. I also don't see how I can make the section other than a series of my interpretations. Almost all the material covers areas neglected by other writers on Joyce or develops points they have made. To my knowledge, no one who has used my book or articles as a source has expressed disagreement. Neutrality seems out of the question. I'm still considering disguising my interpretations as themes, which I've done with Dubliners and A Portrait. But I'm sure I can do that successfully. I'm afraid of doing a major revision only to have it rejected. When you have a chance, please tell me what you think. As I remember, you once wrote that you had a solution in mind. Thanks

Frederick Quarkny (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for checking in about this. Things have been a little hectic for me, but here are few notes based on another reading of the article:

• Would "Joyce and Shakespeare" make more sense just below "Joyce and Homer" in the section above?
• I don't think we need most of the material on heresies. The main interpretive points that stand out to me look like they would make sense in one of the other sections. If additional background in Church history is needed, this could be placed in footnotes using the efn template that has already been added to the article.
• "Joyce and the Apostles' Creed" also seems to spend more time on Church history than probably makes sense for an encyclopedia entry on Ulysses.
• Could "Joyce and the Eucharist" and "Joyce and the Black Mass" be combined?
• How strong is the sourcing linking Joyce's and Freud's strong interest in sexuality? I was under the impression that Joyce found Freud's work rather reductive. This finds weak support in Ellmann's bio at pp. 340, 436, and 546 (and also in some passages of Finnegans Wake, but lots of reasons we can't use that as a source here!).
• Some of the material in "16 June 1904" also appears like it could be integrated into a "Eucharist/Black Mass" section.
• It looks not to have made Ellmann, but I believe it's uncontroversial that part of the significance that 16 June had for Joyce is that Nora gave him a handjob in a way that he found movingly generous. It seems weird not to mention this when so much of what Joyce does in his literary work is to challenge or deconstruct received categories of the sacred and profane or the high and the low.

If you can make revisions somewhat along the lines suggested that fits the standard MOS:NOVELS recommendation of a "Major themes" section, that would also be good. I think that it would be more likely to be retained long term in this form. Also, the existence of the section might encourage other editors to make their own separate contributions there. In no way would this approach commit you to surveying the literature to assemble something even provisionally complete.

I could help with some of the trimming and merging suggested above, but probably not this week. Let me know if you would like me to take a pass at it.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick,

Thanks so much for the detailed suggestions. I've already moved Joyce and Shakespeare to immediately follow Joyce and Homer. Both are in the subsection entitled Structure. Joyce and the Apostles' Creed argues for another structural device. Both Bloom and Stephen are Christ figures. Bloom is the Sabellian Christ, Stephen the consubstantial Christ. But that can only be explained through the Incarnation doctrines Stephen lists in "Telemachus." I'd like to have a Christ section to follow Joyce and Shakespeare, but I don't yet see how I can condense and simplify any more than I already have. I originally had the Black Mass under Joyce and the Eucharist, but thought the latter was too long. I'm considering your other suggestions as well, including setting up a Major Themes section. Thanks again.