Books

Featured Book Review: Dubliners by James Joyce

Books Features

By Dan Schneider Apr 30, 2008, 10:54 GMT


Your Talkback on this Story

Note posts made on our older Talkback system will still show below. However, new posts can only be made via the new system (above). We will export the old comments to the new shortly. You can still comment as a guest on the new system but it also allows you to login using various social network and other accounts.

Other features coming soon.

Talkback

page: 1 

DanMay 5th, 2008 - 18:45:26

You have some glaring factual errors in your piece. Joyce was married once and in the Brenda Maddox biography of his wife Nora there is no mention of her admitting he died because of going blind. According to the Richard Ellman biography of Joyce he died soon after he had surgery for a perforated ulcer. Perhaps your professor hung to his tale not because he inspected Joyce's genitalia but the facts he read from well-documented sources, a practice you should learn from your old proctor.

Your claim of the 'fact that no two scholars have ever remotely come close to agreeing on the [Finnigans Wake's] aim, intent, and meaning in more than vague assertions and oblique claims' reveals more own sciolistic habit for transmuting assumptions into fact. A cursory reading of some of the major critiques of Finnigans Wake will show there is little debate over the work's aim, intent and meaning.

And finally, if Joyce didn't have anything particularly new to say, what's the point of re-reading him at all, let alone publishing a feature on him?

Report this comment

Missing the pointMay 10th, 2008 - 12:52:04

'A cursory reading of some of the major critiques of Finnigans Wake will show there is little debate over the work's aim, intent and meaning.'

That is exactly the point--because there is nothing to successfully debate over. Also, the reviewer was not saying that Joyce died from blindness, but syphilis.

'And finally, if Joyce didn't have anything particularly new to say, what's the point of re-reading him at all, let alone publishing a feature on him?'

Answer:

'But, he said it, at his best, better than most. It is the fact that Joyce attempts more than contemporary short fictionists, and that this collection is not a mere collection, but a narrative movement, or symphony, with a purpose, that makes the book glow all the more brightly in contrast to the dreck that populates today’s fiction.'

So it is not a wonder why no one has been able to 'show there is little debate over the work's aim, intent and meaning' in FW if such distortions are read in a mere review.

Report this comment

DanMay 12th, 2008 - 19:05:47

Joyce's wife (nor his biographers) never admitted Joyce died from syphilis.

If, 'A cursory reading of some of the major critiques of Finnigans Wake will show there is little debate over the work's aim, intent and meaning.' is exactly the point, then why did the reviewer say, '...no two scholars have ever remotely come close to agreeing on the [Finnigans Wake's] aim, intent, and meaning in more than vague assertions and oblique claims.'?

Report this comment

AlexMay 27th, 2008 - 14:08:36

This is a good review, although it seems a little careless at times. The reviewer for example didn't pay careful attention to Two Gallants. It is clearly stated that the girl is a servant. She is prompted by her Corley to steal the golden coin from the family she works for. Morally, she is not too far from a prostitute and he is not too far from a pimp, but this is not her actual trade

Report this comment

VJun 3rd, 2008 - 12:34:29

I think that your comment about Two Gallants is too harsh. YOUdid not pay any attention to the wonderfully developed character of Lenehan, who is completely lost without his sly friend, but also starts thinking about normal life and having family...

Report this comment

JanJan 11th, 2009 - 11:39:52

Distasteful review. Your interpretation of 'Two Gallants' is false.

Report this comment

rawaneApr 17th, 2009 - 16:43:08

I think that you have been a little harsh when you said that the characters in ivy day in the commitee room are not well developed, or I should say, not deeply developed,because with the little description we have, we can decide what kind of people is, for example: Mr.O'CONOR,or Mr.HENCHY.I mean that,almost all of the characters are uglyfied by JOYCE in IVY DAY,exept for Mr.HYNES, whose name is also nice.

Report this comment

page: 1 

Similar articles

Jess’s Book Pick for June: Mr. Bridge by Evan S. Connell
Jess’s Book Pick for May: The Philosopher and the Wolf: Lessons in Love, Death, and Happiness by Mark Rowlands.
Jess’s Book Pick for April: Mrs. Bridge by Evan S. Connell
Jess’s Book Pick for March: McTeague by Frank Norris
Jess’s Book Pick for February: Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser

Latest Headlines in Books

Bookmark and Share Share

Dubliners (Dover Thrift Editions)

Declared by their author to be a chapter in the moral history of Ireland, this collection of 15 tales offers vivid, tightly focused observations of the lives of Dublin's poorer ...more

  • US Release: 2008-04-29
  • UK Release:

Related Articles

Jess’s Book Club Pick for May: Dubliners by James Joyce

From Sites We Like

Latest PopEater News

Taylor Swift Mocks Kate Gosselin, Kanye and Joe Jonas on 'SNL'
Susan Boyle Coming to 'Dancing With The Stars'
Ten Celebrities Who Need To Join Twitter
Lamar Wants Khloe Kardashian Pregnant
PopEater Poll Results: How You Voted on Rihanna, Mariah, Anderson and Taylor

Latest Cinema Blend News

Script Reaction: Duncan Jones And Jake Gyllenhaal's Source Code
Lawrence and Foxx Resurrect Sheneneh And Wanda
The Slammin' Salmon Trailer: Broken Lizard Serves Up Funny
Moon Director Brings Jake Gyllenhaal Source Code
Weekend Box Office - Christmas Comes Early... Again

Latest Tech Herald News

Shamed Brit cop busted for stealing videogames
RTFM: Jailbroken iPhones get iRickrolled due to weak SSH access
Review: Motorola Droid
Facebook settlement means little in the long run
Naked Windows 7 vulnerable to Malware if left in default state
USA