For anyone who is curious about Joyce but doesn't want to take on Ulysses, I would recommend his Dubliners collection of short stories, which is much more accessible and still a really good read. I would love to tackle Ulysses, preferably with a good companion piece.
jbm · 1h ago
I read Dubliners in CEGEP (Grade 12) and, while I didn't care for it much at the time, in retrospect it's impressive how I still remember the beats from "A Mother". Apparently the characters were based on people Joyce actually knew.
CalChris · 2h ago
Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man is also approachable.
jackconsidine · 6h ago
Happy Bloom's Day 2 days ago everyone [1].
I'm on my 4th attempt at Ulysses. It's just two dense. Too many niche references that only an educated early 20th century Irish citizen would understand.
[1] Ulysses took place all on June 16th 1904. Most of the book is stream of consciousness from Leopold Bloom. Bloom's Day is now a celebration of Joyce in Ireland
squishington · 44m ago
I remember listening to a Robert Anton Wilson talk, where he claimed that he had read letters that Joyce wrote to a lover. These letters were only released many years after Joyce's death. Apparently they revealed that Bloom's Day occurs on the date corresponding to Joyce's first ever sexual experience for which he didn't have to pay money (a hand job, for which he was very grateful). Wilson thought it was funny because the common narrative (and that supported by the church) was that the date corresponded to his first kiss with his girlfriend. But actually the church was celebrating a hand job.
WalterGR · 5h ago
> Too many niche references that only an educated early 20th century Irish citizen would understand.
Presumably there are dozens of companion references to explain those. Can anyone recommend some?
kej · 4h ago
I have this site [0] bookmarked in case I ever get around to reading it again. I like the use of hypertext so that you can follow the explanations you want and ignore others, and the inclusion of pictures and videos reminds me of the breathless anticipation of new multimedia experiences back when CD-ROMs started becoming common.
Just in case people consider this seriously, I just want to add my two cents: Ulysses although is prose, it's so much more of a poetry than prose compared many other novels. I personally don't think listening to someone's reading of Ulysses will be remotely similar to reading it on page. Some of the chapters are really almost entirely about discovering how to read this chapter. I don't necessarily think it's bad, just the same way you can listen to poetry by going to a poetry reading session, you can listen to Ulysses. Just note that it's going to be an entirely different experience than reading it, and it will likely forever bias your interpretation of the book. Just my humble two cents, I don't claim to know anything.
It's meant as pure lyrical poetry. Reading it aloud is like dancing with your tongue instead of feet.
phendrenad2 · 7h ago
Why not both? Listen and read along.
JadeNB · 3h ago
> Why not both? Listen and read along.
Have you done that successfully for any book? I've never tried, but it seems likely to me to be very difficult, unless you happen to read at exactly the narrator's pace.
reeboo · 2h ago
This is how I cured my dyslexia.
thaumasiotes · 6h ago
What a surreal take. Poetry differs from prose in that it relies much more heavily on being spoken aloud.
gnulinux · 5h ago
That's certainly your take on poetry, but not mine. It also may not be everyone's. I think everyone has a unique reading of each poetry, and thus reading and listening are different. There is nothing wrong with listening to poetry, it's just that I prefer to read first (find my own reading) then listen to others. I personally don't think I would have wanted to listen to Ulysses before reading it. Again, you may find it bizarre and that's fine.
soneca · 5h ago
I agree with GP that poetry is more suited to the spoken word that prose, not less. Ideally, by the author's spoken word.
But neither perspective is "bizarre" or "surreal", just different takes.
thaumasiotes · 4h ago
Poetry is literally defined by its characteristics when spoken. That's what "poetry" means.
JadeNB · 3h ago
> Poetry is literally defined by its characteristics when spoken. That's what "poetry" means.
Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poetry) tells me that its etymology is through "poet," which in turn means "author" or "maker," and that its meaning is "Literature composed in verse or language exhibiting conscious attention to patterns and rhythm." Neither of those things uniquely privileges its spoken experience. But it doesn't really matter what the etymology or meaning of the word is when discussing the best way to enjoy it, and it's at best useless to try to tell someone else that they're enjoying it wrong.
thaumasiotes · 1h ago
> and that its meaning is "Literature composed in verse or language exhibiting conscious attention to patterns and rhythm." Neither of those things uniquely privileges its spoken experience.
The patterns and rhythm only exist when spoken.
JadeNB · 46m ago
> The patterns and rhythm only exist when spoken.
Pattern can definitely exist in writing without being spoken. (Sometimes only in writing, and not when spoken; see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_poetry.) I would argue that rhythm can as well, though that's less of a slam dunk.
plemer · 4h ago
The best reading I've found is from Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), Ireland’s national public-service broadcaster. [1] It's treated more as a play, one part per actor. It's special - my closest other experience is watching Shakespeare.
Honestly, it’s not as strange a read as people make out. Read it twice. After the first time which was ok but not an amazing experience I then read an analysis/explaination and then I read it a second time which was obviously much easier and it was really great.
Finnegan’s Wake on the other hand… bailed after three pages.
2b3a51 · 7h ago
RTE produced a dramatised reading of Ulysses by actors. Still available for download. I found this helped me access the written text.
I've never read Finnegans Wake, but it made a lot more sense when I heard it spoken out loud, which I think was the intent. Here's Joyce reading it: https://youtu.be/M8kFqiv8Vww?si=YO69BX_KVEINr5mo.
I had the same sensation when I listened to Fiona Shaw performing The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot, who breathes completely new life into it: https://youtu.be/lPB_17rbNXk?si=IBKeyTnu0KCZ2r_U. (She's an amazing actress, truly one of the greats.) The poem is supposed to many types of voices talking, so you lose a lot of meaning if you just read it like a poem (even T. S. Eliot himself reads it quite poorly!).
eszed · 7h ago
Fiona Shaw is one of the greats. I've been lucky enough to see her on stage a couple of times.
For those of you who don't recognize her name, she's Maarva in Andor, and some minor character (I don't remember) in the Harry Potter films - neither of which roles get even close to challenging her range and power.
atombender · 7h ago
I would love to see her on stage. She did wonders with the Maarva character even though it was a very small role.
segfault99 · 4h ago
Anyone seen Jorn Barger lately?
rjpower9000 · 8h ago
I had a similar experience. I finally got around to reading Ulysses when I had some downtime between jobs and pushed my way through it. I ended up referring to https://www.ulyssesguide.com/ as I went along which helped substantially: the extra context and discussion made me appreciate the novel more.
I came to the conclusion that while I didn't necessarily _like it_ per se, I had to acknowledge how absurdly talented Joyce was, and that there was some justification for being in the top books list. My feeling was that the lack of enjoyment was a fault of the book but more that I didn't have the background to appreciate it. Though there were also some chapters where most people agree Joyce was just trying too hard and it shows.
i_hated_finegan · 6h ago
You made it three pages? I doubt I made it two.
jknoepfler · 8h ago
I (too) had a similar experience! On the first read I felt like I was barely scratching the surface but could enjoy just enough of the lyricism and imagery to slog through, but definitely didn't "get it". Then I read it with a bunch of fellow book nerds and put some effort into unpacking it and had a blast.
It definitely repays sustained attention, if literary fiction is your jam.
gnulinux · 7h ago
It's definitely not the hardest "arthouse" novel (or whatever you call it), I found Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon so much more harder, and Beckett's Three Novels (i.e. Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable) was likely the most difficult text I attempted to read in my life. Even then, I think it's still pretty difficult for an average Western reader in 2020s, our literacy attention span and interest is very low. People should definitely attempt it though!
squidsoup · 5h ago
Pynchon's "California" novels (crying of lot 49, vineland, inherent vice) are much more readable, and arguably enjoyable. I found Gravity's Rainbow pretty inscrutable.
sandy_coyote · 6h ago
I tried reading it once, but hearing excerpts of this book read aloud really unlocked it for me. In the right hands (mouth?), it's hilarious.
segfault99 · 4h ago
Jingle.
Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway makes for a nice stream of consciousness study in contrast.
everybodyknows · 1h ago
Colorful gossip: It's been reported that Woolf disapproved of the morals of Ulysses.
zerr · 6h ago
Homer’s Odyssey as a prerequisite is the main obstacle.
jfengel · 4h ago
You have to be familiar with it to appreciate the connections, but you don't need to read it. A good summary will do fine. Even the Wikipedia page is good enough.
tianqi · 5h ago
However, the Odyssey is much easier to read than Ulysses.
adamwk · 6h ago
It’s not a prerequisite though. Nor is Hamlet or any of the other works referenced. Very little will be missed if you haven’t read the Odyssey. It’s a book that stands alone on its own. Like anything else, Ulysses is inspired by other works, but you don’t need to catch every single reference or allusion to enjoy a book or movie
Finally read it this year and so happy that I did!
Although a lot of that reading was skimming haha. I think that's good for a first reading though. You get a really good idea of the overall pacing and chapter-to-chapter variety that way.
TurkishPoptart · 6h ago
Why this one?
zabzonk · 9h ago
Those of a more light-hearted temperament might prefer Ellman's book on Oscar Wilde. But Joyce is himself very adequately described and amusingly so.
bbarnett · 3h ago
Better to read about Ulysses in Ilium by Dan Simmons, a scifi book. Best if read without knowing the plot.
In the 1970s I made the mistake of satisfying one of my general ed requirements by taking a one quarter class which covered _only_ Ulysses. The professor had done his PhD thesis on Ulysses and knew the page numbers (both in the edition he was using and the paperback version the students bought) of random passages even when a student came up with a question that was tangential to the immediate expected discussion.
It was quite a challenge writing the term paper (which was most of the grade) knowing it would be evaluated by this professor. My attempts were mediocre and in exchange I received a well deserved mediocre grade (some sort of "B") in the class (sort of a "Ain't that cute that uqual tried so hard and wrote so many pages of related but nonsensical BS but at least he came to class" grade).
It's safe to say that I will NEVER again read Ulysses!
da02 · 6h ago
What are some of the books that had the biggest impact in changing or developing your mind?
dekhn · 4h ago
The Odyssey, Moby Dick, Fire Upon the Deep.
JimTheMan · 8m ago
I'm interested in the why for each, if you've got the time to write it out.
freejazz · 5h ago
So you wont read it again because you had a professor that dedicated his career to the book and it made you feel insecure? That seems unfair. Give a shot, free of pretension.
plemer · 5h ago
Unhelpful
redavni · 5h ago
Dude has a mildly traumatic experience in a high pressure environment at which he pushed through, and you respond with toxicity and name calling? This is not OK behavior for an adult. Do better.
freejazz · 4h ago
What name did I call? That just was a fair description of how he said he felt. But seriously, we're calling getting a "B" a mildly traumatic experience? I'm bowing out of this conversation. Thanks!
nchmy · 1h ago
FWIW, i see nothing wrong, whatsoever, with your comments. The white knight, however...
rfrey · 3h ago
Your comment read as accusing the og poster as being too insecure to deal with someone else's expertise, and of being pretentious. Probably not how you meant it to read, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who read it that way.
some_random · 8h ago
Ulysses to me is a really good example of a book whose reputation has been sabotaged by being assigned in class, that was where I first read it and while I was ambivalent to it most people seemed to hate it.
Spivak · 8h ago
I think high schools / universities do their students such a disservice assigning books that students don't have the life experience to understand. Like they can read the book and analyze it sure but they're going to hate it and be bored out their minds because the experiences being portrayed aren't relatable (yet).
No high schooler or undergrad is going to understand a book that talks about being trapped in a life they don't enjoy by the choices they've made that's meant for a reader in their 40s.
gnulinux · 7h ago
This is extremely true. Reading Dostoyevsky as an adult was like finding a long lost treasure in ancient scrolls. I never understood what's the point in High School. Some of the classics are really classics because they're so much about humanity at large, and unless you're a literary prodigy like Rimbaud or whatever a lot of human drama won't make sense to you in high school--maybe even then. Schools really blew it out of proportion by assigning books like Crime & Punishment, Ulysses etc to 16 year old kids who are essentially overgrown toddlers. I think kids should still attempt to read these books in High School (learning comes from challenge) but creating the entire curriculum based on these adult books does them a disservice by not answering the "why do we give a shit?" question.
Really, same thing goes for most other disciplines. So many kids learn 4 years of algebra without having the slightest clue that this all is building to something called "Calculus" that they don't understand what it is.
cosmic_cheese · 7h ago
> So many kids learn 4 years of algebra without having the slightest clue that this all is building to something called "Calculus" that they don't understand what it is.
That specifically at least could be improved greatly by just reworking classes to include plenty of hands-on practical application so it’s not so abstract. The pervasive thought during that period of my life was, “why am I learning this” and nobody wanted to bother answering except with the non-answer, “you might need it someday.”
JimTheMan · 6m ago
Motivation is the root of all learning in my opinion.
Every class should start with a why~!
nchmy · 1h ago
I wholeheartedly agree. It wasn't until my late 20s that I realized that literature is actually a deep reflection of real life, rather than just some story that someone made up. eg Animal Farm is not about farm animals...
Surely it wasn't my fault for being so dense. Age was, of course, mostly responsible. But probably also just poor instruction - surely if a teacher had actually explained this, it would have gone a long way to opening my mind and likely re-orienting my life.
Likewise with most other subjects - I spun my wheels learning French from age 10-15, because it was just an exercise in memorization rather than understanding. I learned Spanish in my 30s without even "studying", just by virtue of better understanding grammar at that point, and just focusing on trying to express ideas rather than worry about conjugations, spelling etc...
The school system really does not do a good job.
gausswho · 5h ago
Calculus is advanced mathematics and absolutely not the end goal of algebra. It used to be taught at university level but its utility to other sciences (and toys of war) got it shoehorned into the high school curriculum at the expense of other maths and logic.
So many high school students tragically treat it as a litmus test, bounce off it and as a result suspend their dreams of higher education. It is the epitome of sacrificing education for occupational goals. If you don't intend to pursue applied science it is almost worthless forced masochism.
Disclaimer: I have a bachelors in pure mathematics.
BobaFloutist · 4h ago
I don't know, I'm finding Calculus ties a lot of earlier math together. The quadratic equations that I thought were a weirdly specific thing to spend so long drilling (ok so parabolas can describe kinematic arcs, what's the big deal?) come up again and again in differential equations.
The relationships between area and volume of various objects I spent geometry trying to understand make much sense as integrals.
Trig, logarithms, exponentials, infinite series, they all come into themselves when you start applying them to analysis. It just all sorta clicks once you start to thread them together.
bluGill · 7h ago
We (as society) don't assign algebra or Calculus for the fun of it. We assign it because they are so useful in a lot of different careers (mostly in engineering). However it is really hard to find a simple and realistic example of why you need to spend the next 6 years learning that before you have done the math so you can see how it works on a real world problem.
eszed · 7h ago
I have a background in education, and I agree with you so hard.
Another related mistake educators make: assigning material that could be relevant or interesting to high school students, but then not giving them the sorts of experiences that will make it so. I was a nerd (and, in fact, skipped high school English), so when my classmates were reading Chaucer and were (predictably) bored to tears by The Knight's Tale (it's all about Virtue, right?), I led an impromptu study hall session on The Miller's Tale (it's a long series of scatalogical jokes), and what do you know?, they a) enjoyed it, and b) were more willing and able to give The Knight's Tale a go.
Don't even get me started on reading Shakespeare without, you know, experiencing it as a play first (or, indeed, ever).
jfengel · 4h ago
I am a Shakespeare actor and director, and I find it insane that they give students plays to read. Reading a play is a skill unto itself. Even more so for an Elizabethan play.
The actors are doing so much interpretation work for you. It is an enormous effort. Let them.
There is much value in reading Shakespeare, but you have to learn how, and you won't get there just by having an unabridged text thrown at you.
adriand · 5h ago
It’s disheartening to see this happen in real time. I raised my kids to be readers but the habit ultimately didn’t stick. My son got assigned Frankenstein in his Grade 12 English class and I hoped for the best but he was bored to tears by it. I read a page or two and I could understand why - the language is outdated and there’s little for him to relate to. Meanwhile there are plenty of modern novels by great writers to choose from where I think the reading would be easier and the stories would be immersive. Tom Wolfe and Jonathan Franzen come to mind, or Margaret Atwood, or Ursula K LeGuin. I’m reading We Do Not Part by Han Kang right now, which won the Nobel - it’s a great example of an ideas-driven book with accessible language.
Yizahi · 4h ago
I honestly don't get western obsession with Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. People at r/books are going nuts in how they tackle these books, some even try to learn the language only for that feat. Like, just what do you think even applies to humanity at large from those authors? Let alone the "treasure" angle? Incomprehensible for me. I read them in school and unlike some of my classmates I actually did read them fully. Today I wouldn't touch any of their books with ten feet pole voluntarily, unless I will find a need of a huge dose of depression plus cringe spread out on a thousands of pages. Which is unlikely.
nchmy · 1h ago
Do you think it might be possible that youre missing something/missed something in your youth?
thaumasiotes · 6h ago
> So many kids learn 4 years of algebra without having the slightest clue that this all is building to something called "Calculus"
But... that's not something they should think. It's not something that's true. You learn algebra to solve certain types of problems. You learn calculus to solve other types of problems.
bachmeier · 5h ago
> high schools / universities do their students such a disservice assigning books that students don't have the life experience to understand
I disagree. If you read a book first, it can inform you as you go through your life experiences, and it can potentially have far more value to the student that way. The mistake in teaching these books in school is that the teaching is generally done with the assumption that students have already had those life experiences, making it a complete waste of everyone's time. At least that was how it was taught when I was in school.
socalgal2 · 5h ago
I think it depends on the book.
I'm actually thinking of movies though. I watched Casablanca in my early 20s and it did nothing for me. I watched it again in my 50s and cried so hard my whole body shook. The difference was life experience. I knew what they were giving up. Something I had no experience with in my early 20s
I suspect some books have a similar issue.
rurp · 7h ago
I agree with this so much. My parents got me reading books early and I regularly read now, but for the most part I hated school asigned reading. There were maybe three books I actually enjoyed throughout high school and college, with the rest being a slog to get through. After college I stopped reading for fun for years because I was burned out on books I didn't enjoy.
A lot of school asigned reading cements the idea that someone just doesn't like books because, well, they haven't ever liked anything they were told to read.
Encouraging people to read period should be the first goal with yound adults, and if they want to read something that academics sneer at then that's totally fine. Reading any sort of book has benefits, and those who develop a love for it will naturally seek out more challening and interesting books when they are ready for them.
asimpletune · 7h ago
What classes assign Ulysses? Serious question.
wk_end · 7h ago
Well, I had a third year university class that assigned it. But it assigned only it, for the entire semester, because it was a seminar devoted to reading Ulysses.
(This is far-and-away the best way to read Ulysses, FWIW)
kikokikokiko · 7h ago
And americans get in debt to do things like this?
dsr_ · 7h ago
Yes. A liberal education is supposed to prepare you to be able to learn anything else you need for the rest of your life; to do so, it must expose you to strange and odd things which are nevertheless considered valuable.
If you just wanted to learn Java, there are faster and cheaper methods.
lern_too_spel · 6h ago
The point of a liberal education is to help the student understand the world around them. Somewhere along the way, many colleges realized it was lucrative to convince people that the point of a liberal education is to engage in frivolous hobbies considered valuable by the people who share those hobbies, and millions of people with worthless "educations" are now suffering for it. That's what clubs are for.
gausswho · 5h ago
Out of many a frivolous hobby doth spring the rarest kernels of civilizational triumphs.
lern_too_spel · 3h ago
This is true, but society should not encourage young people to accumulate crushing debt to do hobbies.
ryandrake · 2h ago
Root problem seems to be employers should not gatekeep employment over a certificate showing you accumulated crushing debt to do academic hobbies.
gausswho · 2h ago
No arguments on the crushing debt. A strange peculiarity for the wealthiest economy on Earth.
wk_end · 6h ago
Well, I'm a Canadian. And I paid off the small amount of debt I picked up during university with my first couple of paycheques as a software developer.
WalterGR · 5h ago
As an American, I did the same. Step 1: Go to a public university where you can pay in-state tuition.
wenc · 4h ago
I didn’t. I did 3 STEM degrees and then made some money and went back to school to study liberal arts part time.
I think studying liberal arts after having life experience is so much more rewarding — not to mention affordable (assuming you’ve done something with your life).
The payoff of studying liberal arts in your 20s is very different from when you’re in your 40s (my age). The context is much more salient and the practical applications become more visible.
Morris Chang (chairman of TSMC) once wanted to be a literature major and he has mentioned how studying Shakespeare has helped him to understand human behavior and the human condition.
pomian · 3h ago
They chose that class. The syllabus stated what they are going to study. Having an expert in a subject explain something you want to understand, is what you pay for. There are many ways of expanding your knowledge. To each his own.
I'm on my 4th attempt at Ulysses. It's just two dense. Too many niche references that only an educated early 20th century Irish citizen would understand.
[1] Ulysses took place all on June 16th 1904. Most of the book is stream of consciousness from Leopold Bloom. Bloom's Day is now a celebration of Joyce in Ireland
Presumably there are dozens of companion references to explain those. Can anyone recommend some?
[0] http://m.joyceproject.com/info/aboutproject.html
Try reading just one copy :)
https://sive.rs/ulysses
It's meant as pure lyrical poetry. Reading it aloud is like dancing with your tongue instead of feet.
Have you done that successfully for any book? I've never tried, but it seems likely to me to be very difficult, unless you happen to read at exactly the narrator's pace.
But neither perspective is "bizarre" or "surreal", just different takes.
Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poetry) tells me that its etymology is through "poet," which in turn means "author" or "maker," and that its meaning is "Literature composed in verse or language exhibiting conscious attention to patterns and rhythm." Neither of those things uniquely privileges its spoken experience. But it doesn't really matter what the etymology or meaning of the word is when discussing the best way to enjoy it, and it's at best useless to try to tell someone else that they're enjoying it wrong.
The patterns and rhythm only exist when spoken.
Pattern can definitely exist in writing without being spoken. (Sometimes only in writing, and not when spoken; see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_poetry.) I would argue that rhythm can as well, though that's less of a slam dunk.
[1] https://www.rte.ie/culture/2025/0527/1146705-listen-ulysses-...
Finnegan’s Wake on the other hand… bailed after three pages.
https://www.rte.ie/culture/2025/0527/1146705-listen-ulysses-...
I had the same sensation when I listened to Fiona Shaw performing The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot, who breathes completely new life into it: https://youtu.be/lPB_17rbNXk?si=IBKeyTnu0KCZ2r_U. (She's an amazing actress, truly one of the greats.) The poem is supposed to many types of voices talking, so you lose a lot of meaning if you just read it like a poem (even T. S. Eliot himself reads it quite poorly!).
For those of you who don't recognize her name, she's Maarva in Andor, and some minor character (I don't remember) in the Harry Potter films - neither of which roles get even close to challenging her range and power.
I came to the conclusion that while I didn't necessarily _like it_ per se, I had to acknowledge how absurdly talented Joyce was, and that there was some justification for being in the top books list. My feeling was that the lack of enjoyment was a fault of the book but more that I didn't have the background to appreciate it. Though there were also some chapters where most people agree Joyce was just trying too hard and it shows.
It definitely repays sustained attention, if literary fiction is your jam.
Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway makes for a nice stream of consciousness study in contrast.
Although a lot of that reading was skimming haha. I think that's good for a first reading though. You get a really good idea of the overall pacing and chapter-to-chapter variety that way.
told you I'd read it!
It was quite a challenge writing the term paper (which was most of the grade) knowing it would be evaluated by this professor. My attempts were mediocre and in exchange I received a well deserved mediocre grade (some sort of "B") in the class (sort of a "Ain't that cute that uqual tried so hard and wrote so many pages of related but nonsensical BS but at least he came to class" grade).
It's safe to say that I will NEVER again read Ulysses!
No high schooler or undergrad is going to understand a book that talks about being trapped in a life they don't enjoy by the choices they've made that's meant for a reader in their 40s.
Really, same thing goes for most other disciplines. So many kids learn 4 years of algebra without having the slightest clue that this all is building to something called "Calculus" that they don't understand what it is.
That specifically at least could be improved greatly by just reworking classes to include plenty of hands-on practical application so it’s not so abstract. The pervasive thought during that period of my life was, “why am I learning this” and nobody wanted to bother answering except with the non-answer, “you might need it someday.”
Every class should start with a why~!
Surely it wasn't my fault for being so dense. Age was, of course, mostly responsible. But probably also just poor instruction - surely if a teacher had actually explained this, it would have gone a long way to opening my mind and likely re-orienting my life.
Likewise with most other subjects - I spun my wheels learning French from age 10-15, because it was just an exercise in memorization rather than understanding. I learned Spanish in my 30s without even "studying", just by virtue of better understanding grammar at that point, and just focusing on trying to express ideas rather than worry about conjugations, spelling etc...
The school system really does not do a good job.
So many high school students tragically treat it as a litmus test, bounce off it and as a result suspend their dreams of higher education. It is the epitome of sacrificing education for occupational goals. If you don't intend to pursue applied science it is almost worthless forced masochism.
Disclaimer: I have a bachelors in pure mathematics.
The relationships between area and volume of various objects I spent geometry trying to understand make much sense as integrals.
Trig, logarithms, exponentials, infinite series, they all come into themselves when you start applying them to analysis. It just all sorta clicks once you start to thread them together.
Another related mistake educators make: assigning material that could be relevant or interesting to high school students, but then not giving them the sorts of experiences that will make it so. I was a nerd (and, in fact, skipped high school English), so when my classmates were reading Chaucer and were (predictably) bored to tears by The Knight's Tale (it's all about Virtue, right?), I led an impromptu study hall session on The Miller's Tale (it's a long series of scatalogical jokes), and what do you know?, they a) enjoyed it, and b) were more willing and able to give The Knight's Tale a go.
Don't even get me started on reading Shakespeare without, you know, experiencing it as a play first (or, indeed, ever).
The actors are doing so much interpretation work for you. It is an enormous effort. Let them.
There is much value in reading Shakespeare, but you have to learn how, and you won't get there just by having an unabridged text thrown at you.
But... that's not something they should think. It's not something that's true. You learn algebra to solve certain types of problems. You learn calculus to solve other types of problems.
I disagree. If you read a book first, it can inform you as you go through your life experiences, and it can potentially have far more value to the student that way. The mistake in teaching these books in school is that the teaching is generally done with the assumption that students have already had those life experiences, making it a complete waste of everyone's time. At least that was how it was taught when I was in school.
I'm actually thinking of movies though. I watched Casablanca in my early 20s and it did nothing for me. I watched it again in my 50s and cried so hard my whole body shook. The difference was life experience. I knew what they were giving up. Something I had no experience with in my early 20s
I suspect some books have a similar issue.
A lot of school asigned reading cements the idea that someone just doesn't like books because, well, they haven't ever liked anything they were told to read.
Encouraging people to read period should be the first goal with yound adults, and if they want to read something that academics sneer at then that's totally fine. Reading any sort of book has benefits, and those who develop a love for it will naturally seek out more challening and interesting books when they are ready for them.
(This is far-and-away the best way to read Ulysses, FWIW)
If you just wanted to learn Java, there are faster and cheaper methods.
I think studying liberal arts after having life experience is so much more rewarding — not to mention affordable (assuming you’ve done something with your life).
The payoff of studying liberal arts in your 20s is very different from when you’re in your 40s (my age). The context is much more salient and the practical applications become more visible.
Morris Chang (chairman of TSMC) once wanted to be a literature major and he has mentioned how studying Shakespeare has helped him to understand human behavior and the human condition.