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 · 52m ago
What are some of the books that had the biggest impact in changing or developing your mind?
sivers · 3h ago
If you don't mind audiobooks, here's one way (well, two ways) to listen to Ulysses:
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.
thaumasiotes · 1h ago
What a surreal take. Poetry differs from prose in that it relies much more heavily on being spoken aloud.
gnulinux · 35m 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 · 5m 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.
phendrenad2 · 1h ago
Why not both? Listen and read along.
some_random · 3h 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 · 2h 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.
bachmeier · 10m 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.
gnulinux · 2h 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 · 2h 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.”
bluGill · 1h 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 · 2h 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).
adriand · 10m 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.
thaumasiotes · 46m 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.
rurp · 2h 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 · 2h ago
What classes assign Ulysses? Serious question.
wk_end · 2h 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 · 2h ago
And americans get in debt to do things like this?
dsr_ · 2h 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 · 1h 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.
wk_end · 1h 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 · 27m ago
As an American, I did the same. Step 1: Go to a public university where you can pay in-state tuition.
jackconsidine · 1h 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
WalterGR · 26m 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?
Homer’s Odyssey as a prerequisite is the main obstacle.
adamwk · 48m 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
biorach · 51m ago
You don't need to have read Homer
jahnu · 3h ago
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 · 2h 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 · 2h 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 · 1h ago
I would love to see her on stage. She did wonders with the Maarva character even though it was a very small role.
rjpower9000 · 3h 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.
gnulinux · 2h 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 · 35m 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.
i_hated_finegan · 1h ago
You made it three pages? I doubt I made it two.
jknoepfler · 3h 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.
sandy_coyote · 1h 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.
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 · 1h ago
Why this one?
zabzonk · 4h 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.
sombrero_john · 1h ago
Ulysses is the kind of book people read just so they can tell other people that they read it.
klodolph · 1h ago
I’ve never met anyone who has done that, this sounds like the kind of thing someone would say just to put people down.
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!
https://sive.rs/ulysses
It's meant as pure lyrical poetry. Reading it aloud is like dancing with your tongue instead of feet.
But neither perspective is "bizarre" or "surreal", just different takes.
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.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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'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?
told you I'd read it!
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.
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.