References of other books in fictional prose- Good or not so good?

[Borachio]

How could anyone know enough to criticize Ulysses?

I remember some guy based a PhD on a particular sentence in Ulysses which turned out to be a misprint.

No one understands Ulysses. I doubt Joyce understood it himself. I doubt anyone's even read the thing. Though a few people may have succeeded in moving their eyes over the text.

Actually, isn't there some obscure club that prides itself on reading it out aloud? People taking turns at the task.

But at least with Finnegan's Wake everyone is certain it's meaningless.

 

[JollyRoger]

Most critics of works like Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow are those who did not finish reading the work.

 

[Old Hippy]

Most critics of works like Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow are those who did not finish reading the work.

I once had a conversation about joyce and had to explain the significance of being in a pub at the time, called Molly Blooms...

 

[Kyriakos]

And so John stood tall on the hill, looking down on the city below. Memories of time spent with Sarah flashed in front of his eyes, as the dark clouds above slowly covered the moon.

He raised the contraption up to his shoulder, aimed, and pulled the trigger. A rocket exited with a fiery boom and made its way to the unsuspecting civilians below.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed!", he yelled out into the sky, as the nuclear mushroom cloud in front of him lit up the valley.

--

So I think if you work it into your story well enough nobody will mind. I didn't really do a great job, but I don't know any other quotes from a written text off the top of my head.

Was re-reading, and saw this...

 

[Atticus]

Most critics of works like Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow are those who did not finish reading the work.

Isn't that often a sign that there's something wrong with the work? Who quits a good novel halfway through?

 

[JollyRoger]

I guess you can say that it is a fault of the work that it is not easily comprehensible by the average reader, but I don't think that was what Joyce or Pynchon were aiming at. Ulysses is tougher today than when it was published because it has many references to the pop culture and political of the day (or maybe references 20-50 years before publication given the 1904 setting and 1922 publication).

I could write a work referencing all sorts of pop culture and political references from 1980 to today and my readers will get many of them a lot easier than the readers 100 years from now will.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why do you all have to be Katje Borgesius to Ulysses' Brigadier General Pudding?

Goddamnit man, I was eating when I read that.

Anyway, I think references mostly serve to enrich the reading experience. The allusions to Aeneid in the Divine Comedy were interesting, not to mention it provides with further material to read.

 

[Atticus]

I guess you can say that it is a fault of the work that it is not easily comprehensible by the average reader, but I don't think that was what Joyce or Pynchon were aiming at.

It isn't only about comprehension, you can just simply not like it.

One reason for that can even be that you do get the cultural references. Sometimes they can be tiresome, or you can get the feeling that the creators are fishing for liking with them.

Take for example Meet the Spartans, a movie that has well earned it's place as the IMDB's worst film. It's full of cultural references, and since it was aimed at younger American audiences, I didn't get much of them, but still, I think I can judge the movie on other merits. (Maybe because the references I did understand made the experience even worse).

The good way to make a reference is such that you don't have to get it. If you do, it's just a bonus, but if you don't, it's not a big deal.

 

[jackelgull]

I think referencing other works is perfectly fine to do. I often reference biblical stories like the Pharaoh and Moses to make a comparison.

(IE. Once he would rain down violence upon me, as mercilessly as God rained down his wrath on the Pharaoh).

Done right it can enhance the text, and if the story is in first person, gives greater insight into the character's back ground and personality.

 

[JollyRoger]

It isn't only about comprehension, you can just simply not like it.

Or for being a mountain that one failed to climb (the people I took a swipe at as "critics").

I can see where Ulysses seems ok for the first 2 chapters, then chapter 3 is tough. Then you get to some Bloom chapters and you get hope. Once you hit another Stephen Dedalous again for a chapter, its gets a bit more hopeless and the you even hit a tough Bloom chapter. My first read through, I almost gave up on the middle, but then it started getting fun once I gave up on not getting everything and just enjoyed some of the stunts Joyce was pulling. It was the first time I struggled with a work since my first exposure to Faulkner in high school.

I think Ulysses should be read without a detailed guide the first and third times. The second time, having Gifford and Blamires helps a lot. A lot of people would prefer not. To Bartleby or not to Bartleby, if you will.

The good way to make a reference is such that you don't have to get it. If you do, it's just a bonus, but if you don't, it's not a big deal.

You will get a lot out of Ulysses without understanding a good part of the references, though having a knowledge of the Bible, Hamlet, and the Odyssey would be very helpful. The experience is enriched by knowing the plotlines of certain 19th century works (plays and operas mainly) and the lyrics of a few songs (like the Croppy Boy to avoid your first big trip over a Bloom chapter). Being a Catholic helps as this Southern Baptist was clueless on all things specifically Catholic referenced.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think it helps that the first paragraph or so tests your knowledge of two dead languages, Homer, Xenophon, and now-outdated Catholic ritual.

 

[Kyriakos]

Joyce is imo an example of what to avoid in cases of references to other works.

Iirc i had read 5 chapters of Ulysses, and something like five words of Finnegan's wake

 

[Atticus]

Or for being a mountain that one failed to climb (the people I took a swipe at as "critics").
---
I think Ulysses should be read without a detailed guide the first and third times. The second time, having Gifford and Blamires helps a lot.

Obviously we have very different understanding of literature then. I think reading novel should never require a guide and that literature shouldn't be a mountain you have to climb.

You will get a lot out of Ulysses without understanding a good part of the references

I know, I read it when I was too young to understand it. I'm not arguing for this point because I didn't read it, or that I wouldn't have found it good. It's the more general point that only a failure to understand can be source of critique. I wouldn't have enjoyed Meet the Spartans even if I had understood all the references. Or as another example, would you consider not liking The Foutnainhead a failure to understand it?

Gravity's rainbow I haven't read, the boringness of Crying of a lot 49 persuaded me not to. I once was about to pick it up, but then thought: why wouldn't I rather read something by a writer I know to be good, or a one that I haven't read yet.