Post comments below.
(Don't forget to dig into the essay. Read closely. Read imaginatively.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Varsity Jacket by Megan L
Front
Varsity Jacket by Megan L
Back
Denise Levertov
"two by two in the arK of/the ache of it"
Amiri Baraka (formerly LeRoi Jones)
"there was no one there..."
Adze
Chuck. Chuck. Chuck.
John Wieners
Christmas star, christmas tree, mistletoe, and holly/(but mother under everything in festival paralysis).
Jeff Mangum (with his band Neutral Milk Hotel; Jeff is the one holding the angel)
The only girl I ever loved was born with roses in her eyes
William Shakespeare
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
"Returning, I had to cross before the looking-glass; my fascinated glance involuntarily explored the depth it revealed.... and the strange little figure there gazing at me...had the effect of a real spirit: I though it like one of the tiny phantoms, half fairy, half imp..."
Song of Myself by Walt Whitman
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable..."
Translations by Brian Friel
"I set out for somewhere but I couldn't remember where. So I came back here."
Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys
"I remember watching myself brush my hair and how my eyes looked back at me. The girl I saw was myself yet not quite myself.... What am I doing in this place and who am I?"
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
"Who knows, but that on the lower frequencies I speak for you?"
20 comments:
The part of the essay that seemed most convincing to me was the part that was structured around language, and how Stephen uses his language through his poetry, and Joyce through the novel itself. We talked in class about Joyce being a “wiser writer” because he uses the material that is language with power. He has control over the “slips” made in his writing, and they are intentional. It is through Stephen that the reader knows Joyce’s power. Though there is not a significant amount of Stephen’s writing that the reader sees, it is substantial enough to see that it has evolved. In the last entries that Stephen writes in the fifth chapter, there is substance and succinctness to his writing. It accents Joyce and how every word used is purposeful, whether it is highlighting the meaning of another word, or making a statement. This is why Stephen is so infatuated with The Count of Monte Cristo. The essay talks of his “fall from sexual innocence” as the closing pages of chapter 2. This however could be argued. As Stephen develops his lust for Mercedes, he begins his descent. When he gets to the red-light Nighttown district, he has his earlier fantasies in mind. He has developed these fantasies through literature. He certainly does not know what he is doing mentally, except living a fantasy. It is when his body succumbs to the inevitable that he physically loses his sexual innocence. I think that some would argue that he was naïve about Mercedes and romanticized it to a point where it clouded his judgment, but it was not until he physically experienced it that he was changed. It is hard to really know because we only have the narrator’s perspective and a small view into his fascination with Mercedes, however Stephen is not an innocent bystander, he knew what he was doing.
One of the points made by the essay that I found fascinating was when Dettmar asserts that "In the sermons of chapter 3, a poetic and rhetoric inventiveness is brought to bear that dwarfs anything our young artist himself musters." (Dettmar 21). Comparing Stephen's poems and writings to the priest's sermon, it seems that Joyce, at least, would have believed the sermons to be better because "Joyce's own practice insists on focusing on the actual details of a scene until they come starkly into view..." whereas Stephen merely captures the atmosphere. In Stephen's first poem, when he finally wrote the poem, "there remained no trace of the tram itself...nor did he and she appear vividly" (Joyce 61).
The power of the chapter 3 sermons lies in its specificity, especially in its depiction of Hell. Hell is described as cell where the prisoners are "so utterly bound and helpless that...they are not even able to remove from the eye a worm that gnaws it" (Joyce 105). As Alex R. pointed out, the sermons are even more powerful when they come to the description of spiritual pain. The priest says of the pain of conscience in Hell, “just as in dead bodies worms are engendered by putrefaction so in the souls of the lost there arises a perpetual remorse from the putrefaction of sin…” (Joyce 112). The priest is also very original in some of his phrases such as “…poured the poison of his eloquence into her ear…” Though this could be seen as an illusion to Hamlet, to my knowledge, it is an original phrase.
Stephen’s villanelle, in comparison, is very vague. He doesn’t give any specific details about how he feels about the woman he is writing the poem for, whether physically or mentally. Almost the entire poem is made up of cliques such as “Your eyes have set man’s heart ablaze” and “fallen seraphim” which is not far from “fallen angel” (Joyce 198). The vagueness of this poem leaves the reader (at least me) feeling detached from the poem.
Even in the very end of the novel, Stephen describes a poem he wrote before saying that it uses “vague words for a vague emotion” (Joyce 224). In his journal entry from the day before, we are able to read about the poem he speaks of and it is indeed vague but not in a productive way. He describes “…the silence of the city…” but doesn’t give any details that distinguish this silence or this night from any other (Joyce 224).
Today I brought up the quote “a portrait is not an identificative paper but rather the curve of an emotion” mostly because of my curiosity about its meaning. “Identificative”, or ID, like a paper saying “here’s Stephen”, identifying him and who he is. While “the curve of an emotion” is both an impression and a feeling from a feeling that can’t be explained. As a class we discussed that Joyce’s early version called “Stephen’s Hero” he identified more with Stephen’s character but then went on and wrote the “Portrait of an Artist” version and here is more critical towards Stephen, his old self. He looks and makes fun himself at a distance by being the narrator of the story and using Stephen as the character. I decided to bring this from the classroom on to the blog because I felt more awareness and understanding from having this conversation today and felt that the other blocks might appreciate the conclusion we came to about this quote. Sorry is this is just repetative to the rest of my D block homies, and Mr. Cook, but I really have nothing else in my brain.
Michael McGovern
We talked in class today about how on pages 27 and 28 Dettmar talks about how Joyce uses words such as “suck,” “queer,” and ‘forge” in order to create mystery about how they are intended to be used. We know that Joyce intended to create this mystery, because as Hannah said, Joyce is a “wiser writer.” As Dettmar points out, an example of this would be when Stephen says that he wants to “Forge in the smith of my souls the uncreated conscience of my race.” The word forge could be taken as Stephen creating a new language, or it could be viewed as counterfeiting a new language. I believe that Joyce inserted this mystery into the book in order to show Stephen’s control of language. As Dettmar pointed out on page 25, Stephen, like Humpty Dumpty wants a word to mean what he chooses it to mean. By having a word that can be interoperated in multiple ways, the reader can see that Stephen is acting just like Humpty Dumpty. He is using a word exactly how he wants to use it. While it is still unclear as to how Stephen is using that word, the reader knows that it has one specific meaning. These mystery words also show Joyce’s command of language. He is able to make the reader feel undecided on how to read the words in the book. He is causing the reader to think very hard about what he is writing just by inserting one word choice. This shows that Joyce knew exactly what he was doing while writing this novel and has a great command of language.
One of my favorite points that the author of the essay makes is in response to Joyce's comment about Portrait. "I seriously believe that you will retard the course of civilisation in Ireland by preventing the Irish people form having one good look at themselves in my nicely polished looking-glass". The author makes reference to the comment two more times while making the assertion that through Joyce's writing, in both Dubliners and Portrait, "We're never allowed simply to sit in judgement of their characters, but must instead recognize that their follies are our own." Joyce tries to get us to look in the mirror and study ourselves while reading Portrait, but instead people are infatuated with the language and the characters. "...we readers have tend to identify with, rather than criticeze, the aspirations and idealism of Stephen Dedalus--because his foibles are so nearly our own..." The essay reader mentions how the tone of Portrait also makes it hard to perform the "understated criticism". Is his Kunstlerroman a warning, lighthearted joke, or essay? Many different scenes argue each.
When I read how Joyce described Portrait as a "nicely polished looking glass", I thought of the scene where Stephen looks in the mirror at himself. The essay writer calls him a little Narcissus. The essay writer, when he writes about how people identify with Stephen rather than criticize him like Joyce intended, made me think about what Joyce's intentions were in this mirror scene. I think Joyce forsaw that the "Irish people" would not absorb the themes that he wrote of immediately, and may relate to the artist rather than study him or call him cliche. When he has Stephen look in the mirror, he is reflecting what he wanted the Irish people to do. He knew many would think that they possed Stephen-like qualitites, and made a joke of it by having Stephen (and therefore select readers) look in the mirror to seek themselves. A very bold hint to what he intended to be the purpose of the book.
xxiii
Dettmar is correct in his statement “the overarching structural irony of Portrait…has made the tone of the book so very hard for so very many readers over the years to discern. “ Speaking of difficulty discerning, he goes on to say “it’s a novel about a devotee of an anachronistic literary cult, written by a writer who has himself outgrown his infatuation with that same cult but who writes with a conviction that the only legitimate form of critique is precisely the patient and detached description found in Stephen’s epiphanies.” In simpler terms, according to Dettmar, Portrait is written about an author infatuated with language, but uncertain, and eventually arrogant, about his control over the language (the irony comes from the protagonist’s initial ignorance and eventual arrogance). The author of this said novel happens to be an ex-infatuate, but has graduated from this “cult” after outgrowing the obsession. I agree with Dettmar when he says that Joyce is the matured Stephen; or rather Stephen is the immature Joyce. However, what is so special about Portrait is that the critiquing of artists goes both ways: Joyce, as the author, critiques Stephen’s writing with “unspoken, merely implied” criticism, and Stephen’s own writing critiques and is in juxtaposition with Joyce’s by using a language Joyce has outgrown (but can still recognize): “the patient and detached” voice. Interestingly enough, Stephen’s detached patience is easier to identify with for the reader. Joyce’s narration is less simple to understand, and consequently more alien. I think Stephen is more often than not a “detached in-his-head” as opposed to Joyce who I perceive as a “detached observer”. Even though you’d think the latter was more approachable, Joyce presents Stephen as so identifiable (“because his foibles are so nearly our own”) that Joyce becomes the arrogant unapproachable jerk.
I found it very interesting when, on page 22, Dettmar writes about the literary snippets that join together to form Stephen’s identity as a writer. In class we talked about Stephen being an excellent mimic, and although, I have never read any Byron, etc…I agree. However, I disagree with Dettmar. I do not think that Stephen’s ability to mimic makes him a childish writer. There are only so many ways to convey a point. And while, I am sure I could write this blog entirely in haiku, a doubt it would be very effective. At times the most effective way to do something, is a way somebody else has used. Furthermore, I do not think there is anything wrong with learning from people who are clearly more effective at their craft.
On the same page, Dettmar asserts that Stephen looking into his mother’s mirror is narcissistic. I think that this could be construed as an act of reflection. I would assert that reflection prompts one to change the things they disapprove of and adds to one’s maturity. Dettmar also says that Stephen beginning and ending his poem (in his school work book) with the Jesuit motto is childish. However, isn’t Stephen following the rules? And aren’t adults expected to follow rules, no matter how silly they may seem?
I believe that Dettmar is being overly critical of Stephen, and much of what Stephen does is not childish, but the actions of an artist trying to grow and change.
An interesting point of this essay was the idea of language being like a “prison house.” When you try to use language as an art, as Stephen seems to want to do sometimes, it can not work out as well as you would hope. Dettmar believes that Stephen is looking for a “super-language” that would be “adaptable to the shifting shapes of the real.” This language does not exist though, and as hard as Stephen may try it can not be found due to the reality of language. Though, if it is looked at as it is, it should be enough for any artist to create art from, though Stephen’s personality seems to prevent him from seeing this.
This escaping from reality feeling Stephen has can be traced to his fantasies about being with Mercedes of The Count of Monte Cristo. He imagines himself in an “amorous tryst” with this fantasy character. Another example of Stephen’s avoiding of reality mentioned in the essay is in his first encounter with the prostitute. Though it is a real experience it seems he is not there at the same time, which is shown in the way the passage of the novel is written, and the way the event occurs. There seems to be a “veil of romantic fantasy” over the scene.
Chloe’s comment and the passage it references are very thought-provoking. But although I believe James Joyce does incorporate “understated criticism” of Stephen I think he does want the reader to identify with Stephen to an extent. Stephen’s struggle with language is very much his own. As one of the first modernist writers, James Joyce had to work to avoid inherited language: he and his peers had to essentially invent a new style of writing as a reaction to the old. This is one of the constant struggles of artists in general: to cast off the old clichés and develop a new style. In fact, I think all artists ultimately must at some point struggle with inherited styles. It is this struggle that allows artists to identify the styles which they are reacting to. Art is ultimately a pattern of invention, repetition and reaction.
There is ample evidence in Stephen’s final journal entries that suggest he is beginning to rethink his former assumptions about art: “The past is consumed in the present and the present is living only because it brings forth the future,” “Vague words for a vague emotion,” “What did he come here for to teach us his own language or to learn it from us,” etc. Stephen is developing. If James Joyce had wanted merely for us to scorn Stephen’s weak attempts at art he would have titled his novel A Portrait of the Failed Artist as a Young Man. Joyce wants us both to criticize and identify with Stephen: to criticize his self-righteous ideas of art but to understand that all artists must at some point fall into clichés. It is by falling into clichés that we learn to overcome them.
We’ve established that there are obvious similarities between Stephen’s character and James Joyce. Today in class we discussed how Stephen struggles with trying to write too much. We talked about “scrupulous meanness” versus a more artistic and spiritual type of angle. It is evident that Stephen struggles with accomplishing a work that evenly balances the two, as Joyce’s “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” is actually able to do. In comparing Stephen to Joyce, I think this must be the biggest difference between them. I’d like to further discuss this idea that originated in class today because I think it can better explain the author’s relationship to the main character, which is something that contains both obvious commonalities and speculated differences.
Rose Pleuler.
We've discussed in class plenty of times the similarities of Joyce's story and Stephen's story and to what degree Portrait can be considered an autobiography. Dettmar quotes Joyce as having said that the "conventions of autobiography" are dissatisfying and can only be presented to an audience in an "iron, memorial aspect." Clearly an autobiography being too strict for Joyce, it makes sense that he would go about writing the story of Stephen Dedalus instead of the story of James Joyce. As we've also discussed, Joyce often steps away from Stephen and tries to show the reader that Stephen is still naive and his writing childish. The way Joyce does this, I believe it shows Joyce writes with "a false confidence that betrays the real uncertainty of those early years." I'm reminded of our discussion, led by Ali, in D Block, about the phrase "the curve of an emotion." We discussed the value of the phrase primarily for the good sound of it, but what I initially thought of with that phrase was a learning curve. The difference in how Stephen Hero and Portrait were written shows that Joyce took the time to gain distance to better see how to explain the mind of a young artist - and in that time, he found himself embarrassed and, as said earlier, uncertain of his earlier years. It's as though Joyce chose to detach himself from Stephen to prove to the audience that he couldn't possibly be so naive. While it can be said that Joyce is arrogant in his trying to assert superiority to Stephen as an artist, I also sympathize with the insecurity that would provoke Joyce to write Portrait with such detachment from Stephen.
Brian Hand
What I found most fascinating in this essay was how Dettmar revealed the deceiving nature of words. Specifically, Dettmar explained how the words "belt", "greaves" and "forge" have hidden and sometimes paradoxical connotations that Joyce utilizes to explore the deceptiveness of language as well as to subtly mock Stephen. He writes that Joyce "works in accord with language's stubborn resistances rather than trying in vain to master them." This is most apparent in Stephen's "artistic credo" at the end of the book. We talked in class about how forge can be its own antonym. We also said how it is through this that Joyce is gently mocking Stephen's ignorant attempts to master language. However, Dettmar suggests that although its impossible to know for sure whether Stephen is aware of this equivocation in his proclamation, it is evident through other passages that he is aware of the paradoxical nature of language. Assuming that Stephen's mind is shaping the text as Dettmar says, then Stephen understands the contradictory nature of "belt"; belt is what keeps his hands in his pockets, and it is to hit someone. Similar contemplations of "suck", "queer, and "smugging" also suggest that Stephen knows of "language's inherent slipperiness." But it also seems as if Joyce is eager to construct a different kind of prison for Stephen, one that stands alone and transcends religion, family, and culture yet keeps Stephen grounded in a similar way. So it seems likely that although Stephen is aware that language is tricky, he may be unaware that reality cannot be perceived through language, and unable to free himself from language's limitations.
But there is a way to work with it as Joyce has done in Portrait. Assuming that Portrait of the Artist is the "handiwork" of Joyce and that he is "The artist...paring his fingernails," then he proves that it is possible to create art despite the limitations of language. (Joyce 191)
Meghan Ciaramitaro
XXI
Today in class we discuss many key points of this essay. The part that stuck out the most was the concept of the literature of the novel and within the novel (Stephen's work.) Stephen and Joyce have been compared many times, mainly because as Mr. Cook said today, this is "a novel about Joyce, but written about someone else." Joyce not only writes Stephen similarly to himself, but he gives Stephen the same unmodernized writing style that he has. In the essay, they talk about the writing style of Stephen. This is similar to Joyce because they both weren't ready for the time period they were writing in. Stephen was stuck in 19th century writing, while Joyce thought "twentieth-century literature ought to be accomplishing, that 'style of scrupulous meanness'" (xxi). The essay then continues to talk about the poem Stephen tried to write to E-C-, but was repeatedly unsuccessful . Although this may not be similar, it made me think of Joyce's "Stephen Hero," which failed as a novel. Could this just be a coincidence, or is Joyce portraying his feelings of frustration through Stephen?
One of the things I like most about this book is that even after finishing it, many attributes of Joyce's writing style linger in my mind, nagging me. One of the most prominent is the process of maturation Joyce creates for Stephen. Until I read Dettmar's essay I found it entirely weird that Stephen would visit a prostitute. As a reader, Stephen occurred to me as the sort of character who would question his physical, sexual, impusles before submitting to them. I remember feeling surprised, almost tricked, when reading the end of chapter two, because Joyce didn't prepare me for Stephen's actions at all. He wrote as if Stephen lost his virginity (innocence, purity, inexperience...) on a whim. Stephen did not even conciously experience the act. It was as if he observed it. When Dettmar wrote about Stephen's encounter with the prostitute he used the word 'fall' (-from sexual innocence to experience) and triggered an ephiphany in my brain. We've talked in class at length about the flight motif Joyce weaves through his text. The opposite of flying is falling, and the area in between is suspension. When the prostitute lent herself to Stephen he could have used her as a means of shedding a heavy layer of desire, curiosity and immaturity that comes along with being young, and experienced a variety of flight. But he didn't do that and he didn't do the opposite either. At that singular moment he hung weightless, merely consuming, not digesting. I think it's revealing that Stephen losing his 'purity' is one of the few times that Joyce chooses to leave him indifferent, not working towards or against flight.
Sarah Johnson
Dettmarr’s critique of Portrait was very…shall we say, illuminating. I liked most when Dettmarr discussed the process behind Portrait, and some of Joyce’s theories and thoughts. Joyce, who dislikes the conventions of the every-day autobiography, thinks that they are normally “narrated from the hindsight of maturity, and with false confidence that betrays the real uncertainty of those early years” (xvi). I love that Joyce points this out, and calls out everyone who ever wrote a flattering autobiography of themselves. And it also helps me understand the novel. Stephen is kind of like Joyce’s uncensored, unedited version of himself. I know that I would never, ever write a book including all of my stupid and foolish thoughts, even though I’m still having them here in my youth. I applaud Joyce for his boldness, and I think that is what makes Portrait so “discursive, formless, unrestrained,” and supplies all of those “ugly things, ugly words” as the critics describe it. This lack of restraint makes Portrait pure, and people relate to Stephen because he’s this detached, confused, anguished and brilliant teenager, searching for identity. We all love identity. Joyce’s attempt at this identity-finding is a “fluid succession of presents, the development of an entity of which our actual present is a phase only.” This reminds of an essay I once read in which the narrator was meeting one of his past selves, and then both realized that the present self was made up of countless past selves, who would all be a part of the future self. I think this is what Joyce is moving towards here, showing his audience and himself that being wild and reckless is a necessary part of every person’s youth (okay, maybe not prostitutes and sketchy stalker-poems, but…you know), and we should embrace it instead of pushing it away, because it will always be a part of us. Beyond the evident struggle with language (to be used as a tool to define identity), I think that Joyce is getting at something bigger, as Dettmarr points out. He is trying to convey the “curve of an emotion.” We aren’t just talking through language here, although that’s an integral part to the success of Portrait. Joyce taps into human emotion, makes us vulnerable by portraying Stephen as so open and prone to change. He’s so real, unlike characters in Jane Eyre which are so set in their morals and social classes and love stories. Stephen changes! Stephen is a human! Stephen is crazy, just like all of us! Joyce sends this screaming message but it comes out as a subtle whisper behind the labyrinth of words. The style is intense and unique, and that’s why Joyce is so successful here.
I wanted to talk about the controversy over the release of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man that Dettmar (also known as K Diddy) discussed in the beginning of his essay. “. . . A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man very nearly never saw the light of day” (Dettmar 13). Dettmar goes on to state that this controversy was in result of supposed obscenity and libel found within Joyce’s novel. Publishers were hesitant to release this book, fearing that they would be prosecuted. Having the fear at all exemplifies the differing morals of the early 20th century and present day. Today, reading of adultery will not shock even the most conservative mind to the core. However, at the time it was taboo to discuss.
I believe that Joyce’s decision to write so bluntly where others would sidestep difficult issues demonstrates his passion of art. We have already discussed in class how Joyce more than likely wrote this novel as a reflection upon his youth and the subsequent development into his literary genius. I believe that a vital aspect of retaining such artful qualities is to address even the most controversial issues, and speak one’s mind. Therefore, the fact the Joyce chose to write in such statements as a character referring to King Edward VII as “a bit of a rake” (Dettmar 13) clearly expresses his desire to withhold any censorship that may diminish the quality of his writing.
Joyce is able to demonstrate this idea clearly through his characterization of Stephen. Stephen, as well as Joyce, feels free to speak his mind, regardless of the expectations of the status quo. Stephen argues with his friends over who is the best poet in chapter two. His friend’s state that it is Lord Tennyson, the socially acceptable poet (or so approved by the government). However, Stephen believes that Byron is the best poet. Heron retorts, “. . . Byron was a heretic and immoral too” (Joyce 70). It is evident that Stephen appreciated Byron for his artistic ability, regardless of his acceptance with the church/government. Here we can connect Joyce’s desire to speak his mind with Stephen’s.
Sorry that this is a little late...I had to write it in school this morning because my internet doesn't work at my house. Anyway, about the introduction.
Dettmar asserts that 'Portrait' is "A novel about a devotee of anachronistic literary cult, written by a writer who has himself outgrown his infatuation with that same cult but who writes with a conviction that the only legitimate form of critique is precisely the patient and detached description found in Stephen's epiphanies (xxiii)." This "detached" narration is an important aspect of Joyce's literary style because, although Joyce criticizes Stephen, the "detatched" narration siphons out most of Joyce's overt criticism, ironically tending readers "to identify with, rather than criticize" Stephen and therefore miss Joyce's subtle criticism. However, the criticism is there, an upon closer inspection, the novel ultimately criticizes those readers who identify with Stephen Daedalus. Therefore, through his "detached description," Joyce criticizes Stephen, the reader, and the aspects of himself that his "portrait" possesses.
On pages 24 and 25 Dettmar talks about the difficulties language can cause. Language can be a problem when what we picture in our head is forced into words. Words have many usages and connections to other words that affect the way the reader interprets them. Dettmar points out that Joyce specifically uses words that we have to think about to decide on the meaning. In the end of the book he uses the words forging and artificer, and it is unclear what he meant exactly. It is assumed Joyce means form when he ways forge, but he could also mean imitate. Also, who the artificer is is unclear. In the intro Dettmar uses the example of the word “tundish” that Stephen and the Dean speak about. The word is a barrier between the two since the Dean has never heard the word and asks Stephen if it is Irish. That sparks the reminder in Stephen’s head that English will always be a second language to him. Stephen wants to be a master of language and this realization that words gets in the way with their changing meanings is frustrating for him.
I also like Chloe thought that it was very interesting how "in Portrait, Joyce seeks to hold up his finely polished looking-glass to us for our inspection...we're never allowed simply to sit in judgement of their characters, but must instead recognize that their follies are our own." How many of us have been "guilty" of zoning out in class, and thinking about "the roses" when we are supposed to be "debating"? As students, many of us have played a trick or two to escape class for a day (like Stephen's glasses trick). We understand as human beings how guilt (though hopefully not that of going to a prostitute) can wear away at our cores, even when we know what is right. People have moments where they want to and should step out of the social order but don't, and or they shouldn't but they do. Stephen is the kind of character who makes the same mistakes that every other human makes; in seeing that no human can judge him, because they know those same faults are their own.
While discussing portrait in class, we briefly touched upon the trite narcissism of many artists. "my intention was to write a chapter of the moral history of my country" .... "I believe that in composing my chapter of moral history in exactly the way that I have composed it I have taken the first step towards the spiritual liberation of my country"(xx). Upon reading these quotation I was immediately reminded of the infamous quotation from the very end of POTAAAYM; " I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race." (225). Each quotations, both that of Joyce himself and that of Daedalus, is an expression of the power that the artist feels he holds over the morality of being. The artist feels that his conception of life and spirit transcends that of the average person, and in this case, the Irish yokel. By saying that he wishes to create "a chapter in the moral history of his country" Joyce implies that he himself is better fit to hold the moral compass than the entire population of Ireland. When Stephen says "to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race" he intimates a similar notion: Stephen feels that the people of the nation into which he was born are ignorant, and that, for the sake/savior of his race, he must fashion within himself the the scruples that he feels every one else is so severely lacking. I feel that Joyce is the culmination of said stereotypic egotism when he says" I seriously believe that you will retard the course of civilisation in Ireland by preventing the Irish people from having one good look at themselves in my nicely polished looking-glass".(xx) What is refreshing about Joyce's remarks however, is that fact that they "stand as a healthy corrective to the common depiction of the modernist writers as disaffected aesthetes, unconcerned about the moral or political dimension of their work." (xx)
Post a Comment