Is this any good? I never see it being mentioned in here. I just finished Dubliners and I'm not sure if I read this or skip it and read Ulysses.
The personality of the artist, at first a cry or a cadence or a mood and then a fluid and lambent narrative, finally refines itself out of existence, impersonalizes itself, so to speak. The esthetic image in the dramatic form is life purified in and reprojected from the human imagination. The mystery of esthetic like that of material creation is accomplished. The artist, like the God of the creation, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.
—Trying to refine them also out of existence, said Lynch.
here you go, the only worthwhile line in the entirety of the novel. now you can read Ulysses, as well as appreciate what he was trying to do in Dubliners.
I didn't like it that much. At difference of Dubliners or Ulysses, I find Portrait to have many lows throughout the book.
Some moments were amazing, but others were incredibly boring.
I still have to hear a convincing reason to the praise most people give to it - say for example, "Portrait is one of the best books of the past century". Very well may be many of them, but for the most part, at least here, a place with a considerable number of snobs, most of the praise it receives is because
rather than because of any literary qualities in comparison with the many books of the last century.
>uh this day I didn't go to school and some pedo talked to me
what am I missing here? I found the story funny, the prose nice, but I miss the point. Same thing with the story about the race and the french guys and the hungarian
Is it just supposed to be scenes from Dublin?
If you grew up anywhere in the poor to lower middle class income range, this book is probably going to be surprisingly impactful
tfw you see the parts you hate about yourself in college aged Stephen
Portrait is a foray into the kind of stylistic innovations that would be perfected, or at least significantly improved upon, in Ulysses. As a standalone work it has flaws, but they tend to get overlooked and the book overrated as a result of the subject matter; specifically, a book about an aspiring writer/artist and his turmoil/suffering does wonders when the readership on this board has a lot of overlap and similarities with the main character.
Dubliners does what it sets out to do basically perfectly, but has a very banal subject matter and lacks the stylistic flare in Ulysses, which leads to it being underrated by most casual readers.
Dubliners = The reason you started browsing 4chan.
Portrait = Your despair in being on 4chan and enjoying nothing, but seeing no way forward.
Ulysses = Your interests outside of 4chan rekindled by a new friend, and your pleasure in shitposting found, while browsing patrician boards daily.
You can read Dubliners and Portrait without much beforehand, but before tackling Ulysses, if you haven't tackled Joyce before with a basic appreciation of the essential greeks (and possibly the Bible), then you're fucked.
Fucking cracker of a book if you are into literature more per say then just decent stories and plot
The guy asking before about a few of the stories, a few of the stories you can deeply analyze such as the dead, while a few others are best enjoyed by giving you a general sentiment of life as a middle class Dubliner
The story about the race was quite good, the fellow inquiring before, the man has an epiphany, the epiphany being, DONT KNOW HOW TO SPOLIER SO QUIT READING IF YOU MUST, that his friends are dicks, rich toffs and aren't true friends
I read it for the first time recently, my first forray into Joyce and I loved every second of it. Some people are saying it has "boring" parts or just outright bad parts, but with no evidence. Which parts of the book are you guys talking about?
And what about it was boring? I thought the depictions of hell were endearing and frightful. Maybe my being brought up in Catholic School and actually having retreats (not nearly as melancholy and hellfire-induced as Portrait) helped me to identify with the scene and Stephen's feelings during it.
Not to jump to any conclusion, but do you generally dislike religion and maybe imposed your own feelings onto the scene? Or did you just think it was redundant in the sense that Dante already did it?