Like episode one, episode two, "Nestor", begins in the middle of the action; in medas res as one says in Latin. The word "action" should not be taken too literally here, because like "Telemachus" there's not a lot of action to be found in "Nestor". For the sake of not having to repeat myself for every blog entry, I suppose I should just say now that this is a recurrent characteristic throughout the book. Have I mentioned before that Ulysses is not an action book?
I had an argument in a hostel in Barcelona with this young Australian guy concerning the lack of action in Ulysses. According to him Ulysses was the worst book he'd ever read. When I asked him why he felt that way, he answered in exasperation, "because nothing happens!" I offered in defense that plenty is "happening" just not in the traditional sense in which we have come to understand "happening" in the novel. Mike (that was the young Aussie's name) wasn't buying it. The book was boring and dumb and overrated because nothing happened, and that was that. So, if you feel the need for speed, then get out of this kip now and go grab a copy of The Da Vinci Code. Ulysses is a book for thinkin' folk.
On with the program...
In "Nestor" we are still getting to know Stephen, and we are still getting acquainted with the various styles and themes of the book. Hopefully you have already noticed some thematic carryover from the first episode to this one, particularly evident should be the darkness/lightness dichotomy*. Joyce also introduces the Platonic/Aristotelian dichotomy which will weave its own thread throughout the book (weave, weaver of the wind).
* If this was not evident to you, you might want to give "Nestor" another looking over. You clearly weren't paying attention to The Dude's story, Donny.
While this episode is not particularly long, it continues, nay expands, the confusing usage of interior monologue (IM), vignettes and introduces the famous stream of consciousness technique (SOC). Many of the dialogues in this episode are interrupted by Stephen's thoughts. In terms of narrative flow this can make for choppy reading as you try to reconnect to the beginning and end points of dialogue. It can be annoying at first, but what you get in return is a richer narrative texture and a more intimate portrait of Stephen than you might experience through traditional third person narrative. The extended dialogue in the second half of the episode between Stephen and Mr. Deasy is peppered throughout with Stephen's inner thoughts, so much so that you can lose the thread of the conversation if you don't concentrate. But as this is the predominant style of the novel it is good that you get a strong dose early on.
Note on invented definitions:
Having already written in some detail in the Telemachus blog about IMs and vignettes, I should offer here a clarification: all the ideas in this blog concerning interior monologues, vignettes, stream of consciousness etc. are my personal assessments and should not be taken as definitive. In doing a little research into the terms interior monologue and stream of consciousness, I found that there are differing perspectives on what exactly these terms are meant to signify, none of which accorded exactly with my own ideas. Until I find something that I feel does a better job of nailing down with greater precision the significance of these terms I will stick with my own ideas since they are specific to Ulysses and Joyce's usage of these techniques. What I lack in broadly accurate terminology, I try to make up for with self-sufficient and consistent definitions that help you understand the text. Of course, you may feel free to follow whatever definitions make the most sense to you. Just as long as you understand how these various styles are functioning in the text.
Now, about that stream of consciousness...:
As I promised in the Telemachus blog I will now talk more specifically about SOCs (since they are now of relevance) and try to distinguish between them and IMs and vignettes. By my way of thinking, stream of consciousness is a type of interior monologue in that it occurs in the thoughts of a character and is essentially a oneway conversation (monologue) but I see SOC as more random and less directed than IM.
IM: "Cranley's arm, his arm" is a thought directed at a specific person in a specific situation making a specific association, I.e. Mulligan is associated with Cranly. The thought is triggered by Mulligan linking arms with Stephen the way Cranley once did. Stephen, in this case, literally thinks to himself "Cranley's arm, his arm".
SOC: "Fabled by the daughters of memory. And yet it was in some way if not as memory fabled it..." Here we have Stephen musing. A random, less directed thought is triggered by the situation.
Take the following passage as another example:
"That phrase the world had remembered. A dull ease of the mind. From a hill above a corpsestrewn plain a general speaking to his officers, leaned upon his spear. Any general to any officers. They lend ear"
I would say that the first sentence is more IM, and the rest is SOC. It's a somewhat fine distinction, which begs the following question: does it really matter? The simple answer is no. In the grand scheme of life nothing matters, we are all just tiny pimples on the ass of the cosmos. But I make a distinction. And because I make a distinction, I need to clarify for you, the blog-reader, what I mean when I use these separate terms.
Also, while I don't think it's vital that one makes a distinction, I do think the differentiation helps a great deal in understanding or interpreting meaning and attitude. For example it is, I would argue, important to know that when Stephen thinks "Chrysostomos" he is not merely musing, but directing a specific thought toward a specific person, for a specific reason. Without this understanding we miss out on some vital information concerning Stephen's relationship with Buck Mulligan (or at least his attitude about that relationship).
As far as vignettes go, I classify them (broadly) as a type of SOC (thus they also fall under the IM umbrella), but really, they're more like memories, or fantasies, or daydreams. I suppose you could say they are more visualizations or imaginings than monologues (remember our Scrubs example from the episode one blog).
In "Nestor" we find ourselves very much in Stephen's head, and I gotta tell ya' it's only going to get worse. So as you read or ruminate on the first two episodes I hope you are beginning to find it easier to separate out the different style/voice elements in the text. We have third person omniscient narrative, person to person dialogue (easily distinguished by dashes --), first person IMs, SOCs, and vignettes.
Warning: there are more voices and forms to come.
I hope these explanations are making things better and not more confusing. If they are let me know and I'll try to be more clear.
Randomage:
I was thinking, an interesting assignment for a book group or class on Ulysses: have each person highlight in different colors the different voices speaking at a given time in the text. In other words you would assign a color to each style of speech or voice and highlight in said color. Example: (Deasy direct quote in green; Stephen direct quote in light blue; Stephen IM in red; Stephen SOC in orange)
--I will tell you, he said solemnly, what is his proudest boast. I PAID MY WAY.
Good man, good man.
--I PAID MY WAY. I NEVER BORROWED A SHILLING IN MY LIFE. Can you feel
that? I OWE NOTHING. Can you?
Mulligan, nine pounds, three pairs of socks, one pair brogues, ties.
Curran, ten guineas. McCann, one guinea. Fred Ryan, two shillings.
Temple, two lunches. Russell, one guinea, Cousins, ten shillings, Bob
Reynolds, half a guinea, Koehler, three guineas, Mrs MacKernan, five
weeks' board. The lump I have is useless.
--For the moment, no, Stephen answered.
It's just a thought...
Some thematic elements:
To the list of themes, motifs and whatnot that I started in the episode one blog I will only add a couple of things. I already mentioned above the Aristotelian/Platonic dichotomy, so to these I will add: Western v. Eastern philosophical/religious orientation, depiction of the feminine and/or women in the text (this can also be seen as a masculine/feminine dichotomy which is connected to the theme of androgyny), and the immutable/changeable self.
Finally...
Lest we get wrapped up in technicalities, I would be remiss if I did not point out one of the most important aspects of Ulysses: the absolute beauty of the prose. As you work your way through Joyce's obscurities and difficulties, his... intrigues, his... backstairs influence... do not neglect to soak in the brilliance of his writing.
Raw notes:
Love the element of style where Stephen reads snatches of text from Deasy's letter. A bit surprised that Joyce clues the reader in on the fact that Stephen is reading the letter. "Stephen reads on"
Also, love how Joyce embeds thematic elements of the book in the letter.
- "All human history moves towards one great goal, the manifestation of god" ~ Deasy
- Western philosophy (consider the source) [compare "Hellenization of Ireland" ~ Mulligan]
- "A woman brought sin into the world. For a woman who was no better than she ought to be..." ~ Deasy
- Deasy seems to lay history's errors and sins on the shoulders of women - note the attitude, treatment, and role of women and "the femine" throughout the book.
- Continuation or changability of the self - are we the same people over time or do we become different people
- "As it was in the beginning, is now... and ever shall be... world without end"
No comments:
Post a Comment