Talk:Ulysses (novel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confusing sentence

"The first half of the episode is marked by an excessively sentimental style, and it is unclear how much of Gerty's monologue is actually imagined by Bloom."

This sentence is confusing. Perhaps it can be edited. I'm no expert, but why would one think that L. Bloom is the narrator in the first half of Episode 14? Isn't it more logical to think that young, sentimental Gerty MacDowell is the narrator?

Michael H 34 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The idea is that he could be imagining what she is thinking. GeneCallahan (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Should not the first part of Major themes dealing with the structure and titles of the episodes, appear before the Plot summary? There is redundancy now in the repeated list of episode titles. I propose to make that change; discuss if you object. Kablammo 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed change has now been made. Kablammo 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode 13 "Nausicaa"

I would like to know on what textual evidence the following claim from the "Plot summary" is based:
The first half of the episode is marked by an excessively sentimental style, and it is unclear how much of Gerty's monologue is actually imagined by Bloom.
For, as it seems to me, there's a clear break, marked by the style and motifs, between the part of the chapter that depicts Gerty's perspective and the one following Bloom's train of thought. --84.189.234.133 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (now logged in as --A. Nymous 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

The issue shouldn't be textual evidence, but secondary sources that make the same claim. My answer, unfortunately, is that I don't know what I was basing it on, although I'm fairly sure it was based on some critical work, and not made up by me. I've certainly read things suggesting that Gertie's monologue may be in Bloom's imagination. john k 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is to say, that Bloom is imagining what Gertie is thinking, and using that as fuel for his masturbatory fantasy. But this should certainly be sourced. john k 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Levin says of Joyce: "He is a sentimental lady novelist, gushing over Gerty MacDowell." Sexisim aside, could that be the source on which the first clause is based? Kablammo 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not the source I've read, but it's my understanding that the idea that the Gertie monologue is sentimental is widespread. john k 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The narration of the episode is problematic because the focus of the novel is more on the manner of presentation, the means of discourse, the style, and how these modes of discourse, complete with their own cliches and proscribed sentiments, influence daily life. The first half of the episode, while I would say is narrated from Gerty's perspective, is moreso a revelation of the cliched images that make up Gerty. She is, basically, a compilation of romance novels, and lady's advertisements. How she is picturing the situation is in these terms, reminiscing about her blouse, her hat, her stockings, and yes, her undergarments - all to properly slot herself into some kind of general romance novel plot scheme, with Bloom acting as that 'loneliest man in the world' for her to rescue. And Bloom, himself familiar with these cliches (he did purchase such a novel: Sweets of Sin, from a hawkers cart in "Wandering Rocks") perfectly fulfills his role, and feels guilty over it, thinking to himself that Gerty was 'thinking of someone else'. He is no more exempt from the cliches of the discourses, than Gerty. He is playing his part, as much as Gerty is playing hers. I see the narration as streaming through their alternate consciousnesses, but given that they are operating within a kind of stereotypical or cliched moment, their speech and thought is, to an extent, indistiguishable. They are, in a way, co-authors writing the same book, and as such their voices blend together to an extent that comes directly out of the the form of the episode.Myron Soloduk 69.11.44.218 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant that Gertie MacDowell is a grandaughter of the citizen?Stronnag (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Zurich allusions

I read an interesting article in a Swiss newspaper explaining that several of the place names in Ulysses are based on locations in Zurich (where much of the novel was written). How would people feel about my adding a sentence of two to this effect directly below the Dublin paragraph in allusions/references? Owen 10:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll put that in. Owen 10:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No I won't. I checked the facts and in fact the newspaper is all wrong. The Zurich references are in Finnegan's Wake. Owen 11:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary is too long.

The plot summary looks like it's 2 or 3 thousand words. That's ridiculous for a novel that was once described as, "Nothing happens. Then, nothing happens again". What is it, a synopsis or a rewrite?
What's wrong with, "One day in the life of Leopold Bloom, his wife Molly, and Stephen Daedalus. Bloom goes about his day's business, while his wife is committing adultery and Stephen is preoccupied with existential wrangles. By describing their conscious thoughts, memories and daydreams, the novel tells the story of the characters' lives, portraying a fairly representative sample of human experience."?
Then each chapter can be summed up in a dozen or so words. I don't see any reason for details like the precise time of day or Bloom's address, and there's definitely no need for references to Homer, like the one for Wandering Rocks!Sante Sangre 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your summary was offered for Beckett's "Waiting for Godot". agnus 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I know, but it was also applied to Ulysses. The point is, if a synopsis includes details of Bloom's lunch, why not every other detail as well? Episodes 8 & 16 (Lestrygonians & Eumaeus) have one-line synopses, while 13 & 14 (nausicaa and Oxen Of The Sun) have paragraphs of character interpretation and textual analysis! That is not a synopsis. Sante Sangre 16:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is too long in places, goes into trivia, yet fails entirely to mention to principal point of the last episode and its final phrase. Much of the trivia can be taken out, but the structure and an explication of the principal themes, tied to events in the episodes, should be preserved. Kablammo 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I whole-heartedly agree that it is too long. It is useful information, but it perhaps deserves it own article? I would not expect to find a five-page long chapter-by-chapter breakdown of a novel in a hardcover encyclopedia, I don't see that WP needs to be an exception here.

• A DISSENT - I do not think the plot summary in its current revision is too long. It is definitely longer than what would be acceptable for most novels, but Ulysses is not most novels. Joyce's writing techniques are an important part of what the novel is about, so a description of those techniques needs to be incorporated into any summary of the novel. Bootboy41 (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they should be incorporated into an article like Writing techniques used in Ulysses or something similar. This is an article about the book; a cursory summary of the plot, along with a few lines about the techniques involved, is sufficient. Esrever ^(klaT) 15:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Ulysses; asking for a "cursory summary of the plot" is like asking for someone to give you the gist of quantum physics. The book isn't about a strictly linear narrative. If you lose some of the little details then the book really will sound like "a day in the life..." story (hint: it's not). The reason that the first few chapters have a brief summary is that they are comparatively easy to understand. The later ones (like wandering rocks or circe) are really complicated, and these are the sections that scholars consider the most important. P.gandal (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Individual Chapter sections?

I'm new to editing, so maybe this is a taboo, but is there any reason why we shouldn't aspire to have individual sections for each chapter here? If any book warrants it Ulysses does; each chapter has its own formal variations, schematic properties and allusions. As is, I don't really feel that these brief synopses can accurately express what Ulysses accomplishes, nor that we can pile enough information in a single page to accomplish that. Timiciousknid 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be the best way of summarising the vastness of the novel. You can't do justice to Ulysses by trying to cram the whole thing into a neat little hundred-word summary, yet a long summary just becomes unmanageable. Plus this method has a precedent in the novel itself, with 'Wandering Rocks' functioning as an eighteen-epidsode 'summary' of the novel (with a coda at the end). Any volunteers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style folks don't like too many subheadings. But subsections would allow direct linking from other Wikipedia articles to individual chapter sections. I can think of at least one article where that would be useful. I'll do the change and we'll see what others think; it can always be reverted back. Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex?

Someone has been tampering with this. The following parts have been added by some jackass:

"Before seeing the boys out of the classroom,he has sex with them everynight because he knows that it is possible"

"his is perhaps why Joyce disembodies the narrative from the three main characters. SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX"

That was all I could find, but I didn't read every last word... Just thought you should know 83.71.35.139 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC) James Emerald

Yes, unfortunately vandalism is a continuous problem on Wikipedia. When people notice it they remove it. If you register as an editor, you can "watch" an article to see when edits have been made and keep one step behind the vandals. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias in this article

I can't help but feel this article is a tad biased. I know Ulysses is known for its greatness, but amongst many, even many academics, it's known as being hard to read, having little plot, and being rather - how should I put it - unpleasurable. I feel this article should at least REFERENCE these opinions, since Wikipedia tries to be as representative as it can be. Reading the book is quite an investment I believe, and is criticised by many - possibly more than any other book of its standing. Jph53 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the book is difficult to read is not a valid criticism. Joyce wrote it to be deliberately obtuse. You can't criticize something for failing to do something it never set out to do.P.gandal (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've removed the "spoiler" warning from the top of the plot summary section because it's superfluous. A section heading of "Plot summary" should be enough to tip off the reader that the section contains a discussion of the plot of the novel. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a spoiler warning on a piece about a just-released film could be useful to some. But Ulysses is not a thriller, nor does it have a surprise ending. Readers of this serious work are highly unlikely to have their experience "spoiled" by this page's disclosure of details of the "plot" (such as it is). Can we leave the tags off here, and confine the discussion of their utility to articles where the question is at least closer? Kablammo 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake

I changed the publication date of Finnegans Wake to 1939. (Don't know why it said 1927.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.111.41 (talk) 23:05, May 30, 2007

It's only a guess, but maybe that's when the first portions of Work in Progress were published? In any event, I agree with you that 1939 is right. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Publication history sentence

The last sentence concerning the longest sentence in the English language seems a bit out of place in that section. Should it be moved? Stan weller 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortened, and moved to episode 18. Kablammo (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Free State?

The box at the top of this article says that the book was published in the Irish Free State, which did not exist until several months after publication of the complete volume, and years after publication of the serialization. To be historically precise, it was published by a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This designation may be politically unpopular (with the Union flag suggesting that Joyce was "British" rather than Irish!), so we should perhaps avoid historical precision in this instance. I would suggest either removing the nationality altogether, or simply writing "Ireland" without the flag. Mtford 05:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is just plain wrong. According to its instructions, "country" should be "Country of original publication". That would either be the US, where Ulysses was serialized, or France, where it first was published in its entirety. My vote would be France. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that. I've changed it to France. Mtford 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out the field entirely, given the confusing layout of the infobox and the ongoing changes to the country field. See below. Kablammo (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

J Joyces " country of Origin"

The article on JOyce incorrectly states that he is French.

Joyce was Irish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.169.230 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is referring to the country of origin for the book... which is correct. It was published in Paris, France.66.31.169.230 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This infobox field continues to be changed, even though there is a hidden comment which states the field refers to the place of first publication. This is understandable as the national field appears after the author name, rather than after the publication information. I first removed the flag icon as it serves no purpose, and I now have removed the field entirely. There is no need for such information in an infobox, and the publication history is covered in the text. Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference format

This article now has two reference formats, with references given both in the text and in footnotes. (I believe I may have been responsible for the latter, in supplying cites in response to a cn call.) I propose converting all references to footnoted references, retaining the page cites to paginated media. Does anyone have any strong preferences for another format? The article right is not fully referenced, and it would be easier to convert now to a consistent format. Kablammo 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started the process of conversion to a consistent referencing format, with footnotes and sources. Kablammo (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Contention

"Joyce is often quoted as saying that one could recreate the city of Dublin, piece by piece, from Ulysses. Many scholars have noted that although this rather bold statement may have been true at or around Joyce's time, so much of the city has changed that this claim is no longer viable."

Joyce was saying that if his Dublin was gone, you could recreate it from Ulysses. How could this "have been true at or around Joyce's time," when in Joyce's time his Dublin was right there and did not need to be recreated? If this was not true later, it was never true!

his Dublin was right there and did not need to be recreated? Well no. Much of it had been destroyed several years earlier in the Easter Rising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.83.150 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Hoping I'm not taking the original Joyce quotation out of context:

'I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city suddenly disappeared from the earth it could be reconstructed out of my book.'

Joyce mentions nothing about 'his Dublin', and he does specifically state 'if the city suddenly diseappeared', so there would be a 'need' for recreation. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the content of the wikientry. It was a very simple statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.138.79 (talk) 12:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

---

No, but you've completely missed my point. The text says Joyce's claim is "no longer true" -- but of course Joyce never meant that you could re-create the Dublin of 2007 from his book! He wasn't a dolt. He meant the Dublin of that time. And that claim, if ever true, is still true.

GeneCallahan 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Joyce once said of Ulysses 'I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city suddenly disappeared from the earth it could be reconstructed out of my book.' The passage of nearly a century has changed Joyce's Dublin, but many of the places and landmarks featured in Ulysses may still be found"

Much, much better!

GeneCallahan 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright information?

I would like to request a summary of the copyright status for Ulysses in its various editions. I recall from some edition of Norton's anthology that the heirs wanted a lot of money for the privilege of printing exerpts, but that the editors were able to work around this by using the original, serialized version of the "Nausikaa" chapter.

Another question: I have a 1994 edition from Secker and Warburg (London). Is this the 1922 text?

Thank you, Dawud (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but the novel is in the public domain in the US. (I think it's worldwide, but I'm not sure.) The 1980s "corrected" version is still in copyright. You can find the public domain version at dozens of websites, several of which are linked at the bottom of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The original version of the text is, in fact, in the public domain in the United States, because it was published prior to 1923. The reference to the renewal of copyright in the text should therefore be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgrierson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo?

I think I came across a typo. In section 15- Is "his martial" meant to be "his marital duplicity"? Just wondering. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:21, May 1, 2008 (talk) 125.161.141.225

Yes, it's a typo. Thanks for pointing it out. In the future, please feel free to make any improvements you think are appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Amis?

What's so special about Martin Amis that his opinion of the novel deserves to be in the opening paragraph? Anthony Burgess, Vladimir Nabokov, and Jorge Luis Borges all felt the same way about the book. Isn't it enough to mention that it is first on the Modern Library's list? AshcroftIleum (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There also is unnecessary detail about the demographics of Eire, which lacks context. A more nuanced description of religious themes is needed, including Joyce's decision to have the Ulysses character (Bloom) be Jewish.[1]

Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing link is now broken, but I believe this is the article which I cited: Schwartz, Stephen: Ulysses and Us, The Weekly Standard, Vol. 9, No. 38 (June 14, 2004). Kablammo (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proteus Summary

The claim in the Proteus summary that Stephen mulls "various philosophical concepts (the most prominent of which is the issue of signifier versus signified)" is inaccurate. Nowhere in Proteus does Joyce mention Sausserean linguistics, nor does he bring up "signifier vs signified" in the chapter. The only philosophy he specifically references in the chapter is Aristotle’s "De Anima" (although even with that he only references it indirectly), which he folds into a self-dialogue about the relationship of sight/sound to reality.

Obviously, Sausserean linguistics is certainly relevant to philosophical issues in the chapter, and paralells can definitely be drawn between it and the ideas the chapter is dealing with (i.e. the reoccuring idea of the protean/shifting nature of language), but if people think this is relevant I think it would best be put in the "Criticism" section and sourced with relevant articles on the topic.

Given that Joyce never actually mentions "signifier vs signified" I think in its current state, this is an example of original research. So I deleted that specific paranthesis from the article. If someone wants to replace it with the relevant background on Aristotle, feel free (or I'll do it myself if I get the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarlo123 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Character descriptions

I have changed the description of Stephen Dedalus as written in the List of Characters section. The former described Stephen erroneously as "extremely religious as a child, but after his mother's death last year he struggles with issues of faith and doubt." It is clear in the novel that Stephen has major issues with his mother's death, but his struggles with faith and doubt can be found as early as A Portrait of the Artist, and weren't explicitly caused by the death of his mother - as she was alive in the earlier novel. - Mayneverhave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayneverhave (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Social issues section

I don't see how this section fits in with the introductory nature of the start of this article. It only confuses the reader at this point, and I'd consider the views expressed controversial. I suggest moving it somewhere else, ie, towards the end.Hohenloh (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain controversy

Not in one section does it explain WHY this novel is controversial in means of subject matter and events in the novel. I'd like to know what its' controversy was before I mean to purchase it. --Arcai 10-1-2008, 2:54 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.21.39 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the article:

In 1920 after the US magazine The Little Review serialized a passage of the book dealing with the main character masturbating, a group called the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, who objected to the book's content, took action to attempt to keep the book out of the United States. At a trial in 1921 the magazine was declared obscene and as a result Ulysses was banned in the United States. (Ulysses (novel)#Publication history)

That's the controversy in a nutshell. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's just part of the story. On a grander scale, many people, critics and other writers, were shocked by what was at the time graphic descriptions of sexual acts (ie, "Nightown") and thoughts (Molly's soliloquy) and lewd language. Nothing quite like it had ever been published before in English.Hohenloh (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

So the only reason is that Ulysess jerked off? If I forget that hypocrisy, that's all? Weren't there "pornographic" literature at that time? Or pornographic pictures of baroque ladies? Or is it Ulysses advertisement or mental masturbation of some "Kritik" ;) :) that literature "professeurs" so gladly gammon about? I tried to cull as much as possible, but if there is no reason, then that "controversy" must go!

Sorry for me being sarcastic, but since when are newspapers & cryptic criticism a believable source of information. There has been "always" ads and propaganda. 86.61.232.26 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay linked at bottom of page

I found this essay linked here: # http://litscholar.net/joyce_lawrence/joyce_lawrence.htm "James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence as Affirmers of Life" I don't see a great value to its presence on the page. Who put it up? The writer does not seem very distinguished. God knows there are plenty of essays by other Joyce scholars we could link to on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snewhouse9 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the many controversies concerning Joyce's text, one beauty seems to have been missed by all commentators. When I was a graduate student, the copy of Ulysses sold by booksellers and consequently used by us in our studies was the Hans Walter Gabler Corrected Text. Many of Gabler's "corrections" have now been discredited and The 1922 Text has been republished with nearly 250 pages of notes and an Introduction by Jeri Johnson.

However, one of the most ridiculous errors in the original text was missed by Gabler; nor does it attract any note by Johnson. In Molly Bloom's soliloquy, the robber cat has eaten the place. Evidently, this is ludicrous. But Molly has been thinking of buying fish for Friday and the obvious word for what the robber cat ate is plaice. This is borne out by the first translation into French (by Auguste Morel, published by Gallimard in their Folio edition). Joyce, himself, had a hand in this translation. There we learn that the cat ate "la...plie" or, in English (per Harrap's Shorter French/English Dictionary), the plaice. (Corrected, 629; 1922 Text, 715; Morel, 1102).--PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the mistake is Molly's. Gabler was not correcting spelling mistakes but transmission errors. Rc65 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to apply common sense to the esoteric world of Joyce scholarship is, at best, a hazardous venture. But, are you seriously trying to argue that James Joyce could not distinguish between place and plaice?--PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, she or he is attempting to argue that Molly could not distinguish between "place" and "plaice". It doesn't seem entirely implausible that Joyce is using Molly's mistakes to play with language here, but I agree of course that the object in question is in fact "plaice". 134.226.1.229 (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Chapter summaries

Some of these are probably too long, so I'll probably work on shortening them where possible. Any objections or recommendations before this happens? StevenEdmondson (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Good luck. I think it'd be shorter to Copy&Paste Ulysses though.
• I'd take just facts in one place. Joyce said it is cryptic book, so let reader decide about symbols he used ... after he read it :)
• Make blocks and reduce plot as much as possible. The ideas Joyce played with are most important, "highlight" them. 86.61.232.26 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode 3 - I just read this episode and the dog urinates on the rocks, not Stephen as the episode summary in this wiki article suggests. My source is the version available by ebook at the Gutenburg Project at Gutenburg.com, retrieved on or about August 15, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.152.105 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Zzyzx11 "temporarily" removed a list of mentions of the novel in other works and media by this edit. I say congratulations, and let's make it permanent.

There is room for a textual discussion of its influence in other works, and perhaps even in popular culture as a supposed example of erotic writing (which is ironic, given its nature). But a never-ending list of trivia does not belong. Kablammo (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely removing the list that shows the vast influence of the novel is wrong. I say compile a separate article of all this literary paraphernalia. A website has already collected a fascinating collection of contemporary postcards and other pictorial references related to Ulysses. It can be argued that Joyce himself, used trivia as an important aspect of his narrative magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladdydaddy (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost [tv series]

Lost is introducing both characters Leopold Bloom from the book and the book itself [Season 5 episode 6] into the mythology of the series, worth a mention in a new heading 'in popular culture' maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and added a new section 'In popular culture' with a small piece covering the introduction of both the book and it's characters in Lost tv series hope it is acceptable. Twobells (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a list of references in popular culture is little more than trivia. While there may be a place for the influence of this book on later works (even popular ones) there should be some context given, not a bare list of references. Such a list would soon overwhelm this article. Accordingly I am removing the new heading, but if anyone disagrees, discuss it here. Kablammo (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeric titles

"The original text did not include these episode titles and the correspondences; instead, they originate from the Linati and Gilbert schema."

The Homeric titles were in circulation since at least 1918 and used by almost everyone who corresponded with Joyce about Ulysses. The first schema was not compiled until 1920. Plus, why call the chapter "Nausicaä"? Rc65 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I am missing a paragraph on the reception of Ulysses (compare the German Wikipedia's short paragraph on reception). -Diggindeeper (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Character Summary

Simon Dedalus - Stephen Dedalus's father. Until his wife died, Simon Dedalus was a fairly successful man but since then his home life has been in disarray. However, he is still admired by others. Simon is a good singer and story and joke teller. He is a heavy drinker. Simon is extremely critical of Stephen. The character of Simon Dedalus was based on Joyce's father, John Joyce.

"Until his wife died, Simon Dedalus was a fairly successful man but since then his home life has been in disarray."

Anyone who has read Joyce knows this is not accurate; why did Stephen cease attending Clongowes? Why are Maggie and Boody selling articles of clothing? This poverty is not a result of Mrs Dedalus' recent passing.

The summary should be rewritten.

198.110.205.195 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)M Walther

Update: had a suspicion, now confirmed.

Compare the character summaries for this article with these http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/ulysses/characters.html

198.110.205.195 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC) M Walther

Unless it is shown that this source is derived from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around, the entire character section should stay deleted. While some edits have been made, it may be too difficult a task to unscramble the original copyright violation from the present text. Kablammo (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Near the bottom of the page

"Joyce deliberately allowed himself to be influenced by literally hundreds of other writers and their works during the composition of Ulysses." Isn't it considerably more straightforward and neutral in tone to say "Joyce has been influenced by literally hundreds of other writers and their works during the composition of Ulysses"? The 'deliberately allowed himself to be influenced' part seems like an unneccesary emphasis that Joyce was creatively in control of his project. I have not actually read 'Ulysses', though, so I may be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.63.150 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that is a strange way to word it. It is not so much a question of "influence" either. Joyce mined a vast variety of sources for a variety of uses in the work.Kablammo (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The section should be expanded or removed, don't you think? As it is, it doesn't do much. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't do much as is, but it was an important part of the work. It does deserve better treatment here (as does the work as a whole). Kablammo (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Allan Sherman

The overly-serious tone of this article doesn't really leave room for this, so I'll just quote it here: In his best-known song, Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh, Sherman has a line about the athletics instructor at Camp Grenada: "And our head coach / Wants no sissies / So he reads to us / From something called Ulysses". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

resemblance

please have a look 212.143.158.148 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one often can find articles worded identically to versions of Wikipedia articles, and your cite appears to mimic a prior version of this one. The question always is: Which is the original? If you have a publication date for your source it would help. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Geoff Wilkins website

Listed in External link section. Judging from my previous experience with him, this is probably nothing but unattributed reformatted content from here with a couple of non-free images lifted from all over the web, so someone with better knowledge of the subject might want to take a look. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis?

It strikes me as odd that, for the novel considered by many the most important in it's language, a book that owns it's own category on Wikipedia... there is virtually no analysis of the book in this or any of the 10 other articles (that I could find). Compare to Finnegans Wake. The present article contains brief description, synopsis, and publication history, with a (very) slight aside to "allusions". Again, compare to the far-less-well-understood previously-linked-to work. Anyways, I must admit I'm among the vast and sad majority who haven't read Mr James' work, so I'm rather unqualified to do it. Could somebody add some, tho? Just a little, maybe? Eaglizard (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: Ok I hadn't considered Molly Bloom's Soliloquy. That's something, at least. But not much) Eaglizard (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Linati + Gilbert/Gorman Schemata

It seems a little confusing to me to put the schema references into the chapter summaries. After all, there are already separate articles for the schemata which are linked to. The schema can be useful but they are not always helpful to the reader and can often give a very limited view of what the text is about, I think. Does anyone have any strong views about keeping them within the summaries? If not, I would strongly propose deleting them from here and keeping them as a separate article. Gravender (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I support your position of deleting them and was planning on making the same proposal. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections, but I would like to preserve a means of linking directly to the Nausicaa episode in United States v. One Book Called Ulysses#Background. Kablammo (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have deleted the schema references and it makes things read much more smoothly imho. The Nausicaa link still works! I would like to make a few further changes to the chapter episode summaries to make them more consistent and accurate. Clearly they have been battled over for these last few years and I am very loth to undo people's hard work, but there are still a few oddities and inaccuracies that I would like to try and address over the next few days. For example, it seems rather odd to mention superficial points like (in Hades) Bloom's pointing out the dent in Menton's hat, but not other details of the episode like Bloom's memories of his father's suicide. Gravender (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall many battles-- I think the article is little edited (other than vandalism reverts) because the material is intimidating. Feel free to be bold, and discuss here where you feel you should; things can always be restored if folks object. Kablammo (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Episode 9

Gravender, regarding this edit:[2] What about the paragraph toward the end, beginning with "-The wandering jew."? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean - 'He looked upon you to lust after you.' That makes sense. But it remains a pretty arbitrary thing to pick out of the episode, considering everything else. Even if Mulligan is suggesting that Bloom is gay, it is just an example of his obsession with sexuality I suppose. It's not really an important plot point which belongs in a synopsis! I think the solution probably is to cut out the whole of that last sentence. Gravender (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's really not important, and can be cut. Kablammo (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Couple of issues: John Joyce and part-Jewish

Any thoughts on these:

1: "This chapter is narrated largely by an unnamed denizen of Dublin, although his style of speech is heavily modelled on John Joyce, Joyce's father." There is no citation here, and this is a new one on me. John Joyce is obviously a model for Simon Dedalus, but the narrator of Cyclops seems like the wrong class to me? Can anyone explain where this came from?

2: "Leopold Bloom, a part-Jewish advertising canvasser". 'Part-Jewish' seems dodgy to me. Bloom's father Rudolf was Jewish and his mother Irish. Surely that makes him half-Jewish rather than part-Jewish? He also identifies himself in Cyclops and elsewhere as Jewish 'I belong to a race... that is hated and persecuted'. I would suggest either Jewish (which seems in line with general critical practice) or half-Jewish. Interesting article here which takes a different view. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravender (talk • contribs) 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For item 1, I've added a {{cn}} tag to the phrase to invite a citation. For item 2, it's more complicated: since his mother was not Jewish, according to traditional Jewish law, he would not be unless he converted. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloom did convert: in the Ithaca episode (13), one of the "catechism" questions is how many times were Bloom & Dedalus baptized. The answer for Bloom is three times: twice Protestant; once as Roman Catholic, when he married Catholic Molly. But Bloom is still of Jewish (racial) origin. (Stephen was baptized once.) 98.233.155.56 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiastic structure?

Because the Odyssey has a chiastic structure, does this book? Be nice to mention it, if true and a ref can be found. Student7 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said the structure of the book was chiastic. The novel begins and ends with Bloom in Eccles Street, but the structure, mood, form etc of the ending is radically different from the end. Gravender (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Info-box "Followed by" parameter

I've deleted "Finnegans Wake" twice (see here and here) but each time a well-intentioned editor has re-added it. That field is for books which follow each other in a series or are otherwise connected in some in-universe way; not the next work in the author's chronology. The author template at the end of the page provides such a listing. The Template:Infobox book and its film cousin both state this principle. I think it makes sense though am not entirely wedded to it. Are people reverting simply out of ignorance or this is another side? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wordsworth edition

Since the Wordsworth edition has been out for more than a year, references to it need updating, and it needs to be added to the listed of published editions. --Pfold (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ulysses (novel) and its critics

Literary critic and friend Edmund Wilson provides a brief but insightful overview of Joyce’s work in his 1931 Axel’s Castle:

“The first critics of Ulysses mistook the novel for a “slice of life”, and objected that it was too fluid or to chaotic. They did not recognize a progression: and the title told them nothing. They could not even discover a pattern. It is now apparent, however, that Ulysses from an excess of design rather than from a lack of it.” (This, in response to those critics who thought it had no “plot, progression or pattern.”) 787

Joyce, James. 1931. In Literary Essays and Reviews of the 1920s & 30s: The Shores of Light / Axel's Castle / Uncollected Reviews Lewis M. Dabney, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007) ISBN 978-1-59853-013-1

I wonder if a section on the "reception" (as referred to in on some wiki pages) would be worth developing? Wilson is but one critic whose essay is most insightful, and it's a contemporary evaluation of the work. 36hourblock (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Until Stuart Gilbert published his "chapbook" on the subject, nearly everyone was mystified, however intrigued they might be or to what degree they recognized the analogy. I doubt that anyone literate today, has totally figured the book out for him/herself. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ulysses and its critics

Literary critic and friend of Joyce, Edmund Wilson, provides a brief but insightful overview of Joyce’s work in his 1931 Axel’s Castle:

“The first critics of Ulysses mistook the novel for a “slice of life”, and objected that it was too fluid or to chaotic. They did not recognize a progression: and the title told them nothing. They could not even discover a pattern. It is now apparent, however, that Ulysses suffers from an excess of design rather than from a lack of it.” (This, in response to those critics who thought it had no “plot, progression or pattern.”) 787

Joyce, James. 1931. In Literary Essays and Reviews of the 1920s & 30s: The Shores of Light / Axel's Castle / Uncollected Reviews Lewis M. Dabney, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007) ISBN 978-1-59853-013-1

I wonder if a "reception" or "Joyce and his Critics" section would be useful here, or perhaps in James Joyce? 36hourblock (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I started working on such a section long ago but got distracted from it. Feel free to copy/edit/post. User:rsl12/UlyssesSignificance --22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article

The plot summary refers to Leopold Bloom as "Bloom" and Stephen Dedalus as "Stephen". Oughtn't there be consistency in whether the forename or surname is used?78.86.61.94 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If this were a bio or other article, I would agree. But, here in fiction, it seems normal to call the younger man "Stephen" as Joyce does. The "Daedalus" family name I suppose means something in Joyce's contorted analogy and would distract IMO from the summary because it is so unusual. Student7 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

National Library

If the National Library mentioned in Ulysses_(novel)#Episode_9.2C_Scylla_and_Charybdis is the National Library of Ireland the link should be changed. --YvonneM (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipelinked to NLI. RashersTierney (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall article

I just wanted to say that it's been years since I originally came to the article--though I'm unsure why discussions from the past have disappeared. It's come a long way and is not as overzealous as it once was. Keep up the good work, everyone. willsy 21:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You should find them above in the template at 'Archives 1 2'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How greatly do editions vary?

Some examples of differences would be a great addition to the article. What changes? Punctuation/layout? Words? Whole paragraphs? Characters/scenes?

For example: I have the French translation by Auguste Morel which says "First published 1936. (c) 1937, Gallimard, for the French translation". Now, if I want to read this translation and an English edition simultaneously (language exercise), is it really necessary for me to look for the 1936 English edition that was used as the source for the translation?

Or a hypothetical example: if I read the first 10 chapters of one English edition, and swapped over to a different English edition to read the rest, are the editions different enough to be noticeable? To be confusing? Gronky (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Popular cultural references

Should there be such a section ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not if such a section is a collection of trivia. If it well-cited and based on scholarly discussion of the novel's effect on popular culture, such a section would be a useful addition. But we don't need a list containing such items as the Allan Sherman song, references in popular music or shows, and the like, unless those things are discussed in context.

For the same reason we do not need a lengthy list of performances, readings, or adaptions. Kablammo (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No section on Analysis, or Critical Reception (past and present)?

This seems a major omission for a book so widely renowned yet so notoriously difficult. Softlavender (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I started working on just such a section, but got wrapped up in real life. Feel free to take what I started with and create the relevant section. --RSLxii 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Errors re: availability of first edition in Ireland

Sylvia Beach's record of sales for the first edition (now at the HRC) records numerous copies going to private buyers and to bookshops in Ireland. Rc65 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

never mind

--- on re-reading a few more times, deleted --- Wordreader (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Link to full text of Nausicaa

I added a direct link to text of this section so that readers could easily check for themselves why this section led to the suppression of the work as a whole. Possibly the editor who removed this misunderstood it was a link to a section only

• Full text (Literature Network)

There are already links to the complete text in the "External links" section which is where all external links belong. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible error re. publication date of the Roth edition

The article says that the first English edition was "the pirated Roth edition, published in New York in 1929," but E.M. Forster says, in the chapter on fantasy in his book Aspects of the Novel, copyright 1927, that the first English printing was a pirated version (presumably that same Roth edition). Philgoetz (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization

Unless someone objects, I propose to do the following:

1. Put much of the content of the first paragraph of the Censorship section into the Publication history subsection, leaving behind an appropriate transition to the Anderson/Heap prosecution

2. Move the Censorship section up to follow the Editions section, so the order will be Editions — Censorship — Literary significance and critical reception.

If there is no objection I will make those changes.

Kablammo (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Now done. Kablammo (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Modern Library rankings

Our article contains the oft-repeated ranking of Ulysses as "first on [Modern Library's] list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century". According to our article on Modern Library, novels were ranked by the following process:

The list was compiled via approval voting, by sending each board member a list of 440 pre-selected books from the Modern Library catalogue and asking each member to place a check beside novels they wished to choose.

Modern Library is an imprint of Random House, a publisher of the novel. Given this, and the methodology of the survey, I think it would be best to remove this ranking from the article. Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I decided to remove it without waiting for further discussion. Comment here with any objections, or other thoughts on the matter Kablammo (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's probably for the best. Now that I've read the process, the honor sounds more than a little self-congratulatory: "first among the books in our catalog". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with the explanation of a sentence

Hello and excuse me if I am misusing the talk page. I am translating this article into Greek and I can figure out what exactly He took the idiosyncratic rendering of some of the titles, e.g. "Nausikaa" and the "Telemachiad" from Victor Bérard's two-volume Les Phéniciens et l'Odyssée which he consulted in 1918 in the Zentralbibliothek Zürich means. Are the terms Nausikaa and Telemachiad not being used regularly in titling the episodes of Odyssey, so Joyce used a somewhat rare translation (with the terms Nausicaa and Telemachy respectively being more frequent), or the episodes are not titled at all in English academic works of study of Odyssey, unlike Greek that they use an informal titling. I guess it's the first, but can someone please make it easier to understand for me? Thanks a lot in advance! SucreRouge (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would highly recommend checking Annotated Ulyssess -- its a great book and does a really good job calling out some of the more obscure and challenging references in the novel. Sadads (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Media adaptions

I propose splitting the "Media adaptions" section to a separate article, linked under "see also". It tends to accumulate trivia, and there are no criteria for deciding what to include, and what to leave off. Kablammo (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest coming up with a criteria. Something like - the adaptation has to have a wiki page of its own and mention its relation to the novel? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, John. Does that mean we keep the current section, but prune it? Kablammo (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• pinging Malik Shabazz. Kablammo (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think John's (User:Jwy's) suggestion is a good one. Media adaptations that are too trivial for their own Wikipedia articles (e.g., abridged broadcast dramatization, 22-CD audiobook) are probably too trivial to mention in this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest/support pruning. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Stream-of-consciousness?

Isn't there a need for a more detailed discussion here of literary technique, especially stream of consciousness? Rwood128 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Structure

User:Malik Shabazz re the 18 episodes, my text, Bodley Head 1960 edition, third impression, has three numbered parts and other divisions indicated by a line part way across the page (printers presumably have a technical term). I do not find that in this text that "each episode begins low on a fresh recto page" (are you referring to the Gabler critical and synoptic edition of 1984?). This needs clarifying, I'll try and research this further and access later editions.

It would also be interesting to learn why Joyce decided on 18 episodes rather than following Homer's 24 Books–and why the three part division? Rwood128 (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A further comment. I do not find the fact that the novel is divided into 18 episodes clear in the the Bodley Head version. My impression is that Joyce set out deliberately to obscure that fact. I'm in the interesting position of having decided to re-read Ulysses after re-reading The Odyssey. Rwood128 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The following may help you understand why I made my "absurd" edit: "One of the many unconventional features of Joyce’s entirely unconventional Ulysses is the lack of chapter numbers or titles. Aside from three Book divisions clearly marked with I, II, and III, Joyce’s pages do not give the reader any way of naming a particular episode. A title schema drawn from Homer’s Odyssey has long stood in for this deficiency, at least for those who have studied Ulysses. But these names do not appear in the novel itself and are, therefore, useless Greek to the average reader encountering the novel for the first time" ("18 Nameless Episodes of 'Ulysses': A New Key" [3]). I suggest that this might well be added to clarify things. Rwood128 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Rwood128. I don't have the Bodley Head edition, but in the Modern Library edition (my "reading edition"), the beginning of each chapter is clear to the reader, although it is not indicated by a chapter number or name. The 1922 Egoist Press edition also shows clear indications of chapter starts—look at the beginning of "Scylla and Charybdis" on page 176.

I believe the Greek names for the episodes originated when Ulysses was serialized, although I don't know whether that was Joyce's idea or Margaret Anderson's. It seems clear to me that Joyce didn't want them in the book, and they don't appear (that I know of) in authorized editions.

I didn't refer to you or your edits as absurd, but rather the notion that the book's division into chapters wasn't clear in the printed text. As I wrote in my edit summary, that assertion was removed from the 2000 edition of the Oxford Companion, so evidently I'm not the only reader who disagrees with it. By all means convey that Ulysses is difficult to read and that Joyce went to lengths to conceal the Homeric correspondences (even "erasing" the episodes' titles that had previously appeared in print). But we shouldn't convey the impression that the reader can't even tell when one episode begins and another ends, which is demonstrably untrue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I didn't take the comment personally and now better understand your edit. The contrast between my Penguin edition of The Odyssey and the Bodley Head's (1960) edition of Ulysses is extreme. The Odyssey is clearly divided into books, each with a bold title heading. There are divisions in the Bodley Head (1960) text but they appear part way down a page and do not –to my eye–clearly indicate the beginning of a chapter. How are the episodes indicated in your Modern Library version?

I've just done a quick check of online texts of the novel. Some online texts use numbers [4] to indicate a new episode while others use *****. I'll research this further and make suggestions. Rwood128 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the Little Review title page [5]Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry User:Malik Shabazz for my stupid question re the Modern Library edition that had been already answered by you.

I have quickly checked various editions. As you say the Modern Classics edition starts each episode on a new page (at the top of the page). The Oxford Classics goes further and starts a new episode not only on a new page but part way down the page. Gabler's edition goes a further step and numbers the 18 episodes. I also saw an old Penguin Modern Classics edition that looked like it used the Bodley Head plates. I have not seen the 1922 text, on which the Oxford Classics text is based, so don't know if it was actually printed like this modern edition. The Bodley Head (1960) text is the furthest removed from the traditional way of formatting chapters.

My sense is that Joyce was trying to get away from the traditional chapter headings as far as possible.

Finally, I must say that I hate the unsubtle use of capital letters at the beginning of the three parts in the Modern Library edition. But perhaps Joyce originally requested this?

Rwood128 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It's funny that you comment about that, because when I saw the start of the book that you linked to in The Little Review, my first thought was "That looks strange without a giant 'S' at the beginning of 'Stately'", like so: [6]. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ulysses (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025031707/http://avinashv.net/2008/10/analyzing-ulysses/ to http://avinashv.net/2008/10/analyzing-ulysses/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable narrator

Someone removed the Unreliable Narrator with "what does this mean?" I was going to restore it as that's not a great reason to remove it, but when I clicked through the Category link to the Unreliable narrator page I discover it means a narrator whose "credibility has been seriously compromised," which I don't think is true of the various narrative voices in the book. If compromised at all, it is not "seriously." So I haven't reverted the change. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Although the Ithaca section might qualify - now that I read the article more closely... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

it is not mentioned in that page, and seems to be original research. In any event, such a categorization needs a reason for inclusion. Kablammo (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What made me wonder was this sentence here: "While describing events apparently chosen randomly in ostensibly precise mathematical or scientific terms, the episode is rife with errors made by the undefined narrator, many or most of which are volitional by Joyce." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

First edition on Antiques Roadshow

An unopened first edition, printed on Arches paper, was featured on Series 40 Episode 24 of BBC One's Antiques Roadshow on 23 September 2018. Book expert Justin Croft valued the book at £18,000 - £20,000. Croft estimated £100,000 for a good example of a signed copy. [7] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In 2009 number 45 of the 100 signed copies sold at auction for a record £275,000: [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:יוליסס.png

Any idea what the Hebrew legends say? Do we need a key for the three colored routes? Would it be possible to produce an English language version? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The file name is the name Ulysses, transliterated into the Hebrew alphabet.

The first legend, under R101, is Eccles Street.

The second legend, above the name Dublin and to the right of Parnell Street, is O'Connell Street. To its left is Henry Street.

Right above the blue line is Trinity College. Below it to the left is Grafton Street. Below that is St Stephen's Green. To the right of the green is Marion Square (or Circle).

These are all based on my reading of the Hebrew and my recollection of place names in Ulysses, and may not be 100% accurate.

I don't know what the numbers or the colored lines mean, but I suspect they were in the source map of Dublin. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we know the basis for permission to use the underlying map? The map originated on Hebrew wikipedia, and was copied to commons. Kablammo (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have raised this question at Commons.[9]. Kablammo (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

According to the Hebrew text, it's based on File: Open street map central dublin.svg, which is also on Commons. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I must admit, I thought the colored routes were in some way significant. What do they mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The original page on he.wiki might have explained that, but I think it was deleted when the image was moved to Commons. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I thought the red route, which goes from the Cabman's shelter, Butt Bridge to Bloom's home at 7 Eccles Street, might be a Joyce guided-tour tourist rote, even though it makes no sense in terms of the book's chronology. But the other two routes, in blue and orange, might just be bus routes for all I know, as they extend off the map on both sides. I can find nothing similar in a search of Google images. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)