-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Best version of Ulysses?
- Thread starter CattiGuen
- Start date
jaybe
Member
I used to mock people who claimed to have read and enjoyed this great book.
Pretentious prats are some of the words I used.
Then I picked up a copy at a boot sale, so I thought I'd try reading it before mocking anyone else.
It's The Bodley Head Ltd. and says This new edition entirely re-set 1960
It's a hard back with dust jacket, in excellent condition. Unread except for a bit the first page.
It cost me 10p.
Send me the postage you can have it.
I can now call Ulysses readers pretentious ******* prats with more confidence than before.
Pretentious prats are some of the words I used.
Then I picked up a copy at a boot sale, so I thought I'd try reading it before mocking anyone else.
It's The Bodley Head Ltd. and says This new edition entirely re-set 1960
It's a hard back with dust jacket, in excellent condition. Unread except for a bit the first page.
It cost me 10p.
Send me the postage you can have it.I can now call Ulysses readers pretentious ******* prats with more confidence than before.
Shade
New Member
10p is about 17 cents, Catti! Though you're right, the postage would probably offset the bargain price...
To be honest I don't think it matters a lot which edition you buy. Yes it has been re-edited but these edits tend to be things like changing "the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea" to "the snot-green sea, the scrotum-tightening sea." (To quote one of the famous lines from the book.) The book is so full of neologisms and wordplay that I doubt any but the most determined Joyce scholar would notice the difference between editions.
For myself I read about two-thirds of it a few years ago. If I'm honest I didn't get a lot out of it, though there were occasional passages of soaring brilliance. I'd hesitate to call anyone who enjoyed it a pretentious prat though... each to his own and all that!
To be honest I don't think it matters a lot which edition you buy. Yes it has been re-edited but these edits tend to be things like changing "the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea" to "the snot-green sea, the scrotum-tightening sea." (To quote one of the famous lines from the book.) The book is so full of neologisms and wordplay that I doubt any but the most determined Joyce scholar would notice the difference between editions.
For myself I read about two-thirds of it a few years ago. If I'm honest I didn't get a lot out of it, though there were occasional passages of soaring brilliance. I'd hesitate to call anyone who enjoyed it a pretentious prat though... each to his own and all that!
ions
New Member
I'd recommend the Everyman's Library Edition. Not for the edition but due to the quality of the book itself. The Everyman books are hardcover, printed on acid free paper, very well bound and have a thorough and interesting introduction. They're very nice books. I'm trying to collect all of Dickens in the Everyman editions because they're just so nice. This printing of Ulysses was first published by Shakespeare and Company, Paris, 1922. This reprinting is from 1997.
US ISBN: 0679455132
UK ISBN: 1857151003
The US price written on the dust jacket of mine is $25, $35 in Canada.
US ISBN: 0679455132
UK ISBN: 1857151003
The US price written on the dust jacket of mine is $25, $35 in Canada.
Doug Johnson
kickbox
Scott Turow's thoughts on Ulysses.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/112299turow-writing.html
(If you go to the library, it's highly likely that you'll find a dusty copy of Ulysses there.)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/112299turow-writing.html
(If you go to the library, it's highly likely that you'll find a dusty copy of Ulysses there.)
I just finished a seminar on Joyce...well, I'm writing my term paper...
Anyhow, I agree with the "everyman" suggestion. It's a reset edition from 1961 (I think) and is pretty close to the "original" 1922 publication. I would steer clear of the 1984 Gabler edition, which was a reset that scholars are still arguing about today. For more on that whole mess, I'd recommend looking at Bruce Arnold's The Scandal Of Ulysses.
As far as Ulysses readers being pretentious jerks.... I think because the book is so famous for its inaccessibility that lots of people who haven't read it toss its name around to make themselves look good at cocktail parties and coffeeshops. These people tend to be lame anyhow, and so the intellectual elitism/idiocy surrounding the novel continues. In the end though, Joyce's text, at least in a community of readers, is (pardon the phrase) cultural capital, and I believe we should encourage others to read it. We should read Ulysses in groups with annotations, flexibility and forgiveness, as well as the expectation that we'll never fully comprehend it.
Anyhow, I agree with the "everyman" suggestion. It's a reset edition from 1961 (I think) and is pretty close to the "original" 1922 publication. I would steer clear of the 1984 Gabler edition, which was a reset that scholars are still arguing about today. For more on that whole mess, I'd recommend looking at Bruce Arnold's The Scandal Of Ulysses.
As far as Ulysses readers being pretentious jerks.... I think because the book is so famous for its inaccessibility that lots of people who haven't read it toss its name around to make themselves look good at cocktail parties and coffeeshops. These people tend to be lame anyhow, and so the intellectual elitism/idiocy surrounding the novel continues. In the end though, Joyce's text, at least in a community of readers, is (pardon the phrase) cultural capital, and I believe we should encourage others to read it. We should read Ulysses in groups with annotations, flexibility and forgiveness, as well as the expectation that we'll never fully comprehend it.
ions
New Member
One of the least appealing qualities of man is to mock what we don't understand. Say this wasn't Ulysses but one of Hawking's most complicated theorems. Most of us are unlikely to understand it. It's quite innaccessable. Mustn't be very good then. If we had graduated our knowledge and ability where we could comprehend Hawking's idea maybe we'd see it's genius? It's ashame that advanced literature doesn't share, at least to a degree, this sort of respect.
Doug Johnson
kickbox
ions said:
Aren't you the guy that said, "Does this not sum up the intelligence of the average The Da Vinci Code reader? And I use the term reader loosely."
http://forums.thebookforum.com/showpost.php?p=187191&postcount=4
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
I can't really answer the original question as the copy on my shelves is a replacement for the second-hand version that was falling to pieces when I read it about 20 years ago.
Whilst I don't think that people who enjoy Ulysses can be lumped together as 'Pretentious prats' anymore than TDVC fans are necessarily 'idiots', there seem to be a number of reasons people read the book, "Wow! This sounds like just the kind of thing I enjoy" perhaps not being top of the list.
Personally I found Ulysses worthy rather than enjoyable, with only the occasional scene catching the eye, Bloom in the park, arguing about Shakespeare and politics in the pub and the famous soliloquy by Molly Bloom being the ones that still stick in my mind.
Whilst I can’t say that I enjoyed Ulysses it did lead me to later read ‘Dubliners’ which I thought was wonderful, and ‘Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’ which I also enjoyed. I suppose at some point I’ll get round to ‘Finnegan’s Wake’, but given its reputation I’ll do so more with determination to finish it than with a smile on my face and a song in my heart…
K-S
Whilst I don't think that people who enjoy Ulysses can be lumped together as 'Pretentious prats' anymore than TDVC fans are necessarily 'idiots', there seem to be a number of reasons people read the book, "Wow! This sounds like just the kind of thing I enjoy" perhaps not being top of the list.
Personally I found Ulysses worthy rather than enjoyable, with only the occasional scene catching the eye, Bloom in the park, arguing about Shakespeare and politics in the pub and the famous soliloquy by Molly Bloom being the ones that still stick in my mind.
Whilst I can’t say that I enjoyed Ulysses it did lead me to later read ‘Dubliners’ which I thought was wonderful, and ‘Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’ which I also enjoyed. I suppose at some point I’ll get round to ‘Finnegan’s Wake’, but given its reputation I’ll do so more with determination to finish it than with a smile on my face and a song in my heart…
K-S
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
jaybe said:
Charles Bukowski in his introduction to Ask The Dust said:
John Fante in Ask the Dust said:
Looks like I’ve found a couple of pretentious fops you need to remove from your list of favourite writers.
Regards,
K-S
Mari
New Member
"Wonderful" appears 25 times in the text of Ulysses.
Anyway, the 1961 revision is adequate, and very easily available. I agree that the Gabler should be avoided. I have a copy of the 1932 edition published by Odyssey Press. I prefer it because it was corrected by Joyce and some people close to him, so I feel that there is a personal connection there. Some Joyce aficionados say it's the most reliable version, but copies are rare.
Anyway, the 1961 revision is adequate, and very easily available. I agree that the Gabler should be avoided. I have a copy of the 1932 edition published by Odyssey Press. I prefer it because it was corrected by Joyce and some people close to him, so I feel that there is a personal connection there. Some Joyce aficionados say it's the most reliable version, but copies are rare.