Upon reading Ulysses, and Finnegans Wake again, I have come across a theory of a lady named Carol Loeb Shloss in her 2003 book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake alleges that there were Incestuous relations between his daughter (supposed to have been schizophrenic) Citing various allsions to this proposed idea such as the incestuous relations in Finnegans Wake Which as you may know includes incestuous relations between a man and his daughter, supposing that this was drawn from reality, and other alleged evidence such as correspondence from Joyce proving that he wrote to Lucia in a language similar to that in Finnegans Wake.
I have not read this book, but before this, (although I admit to being terribly sheltered in regards to various nouveau trendy theories regarding dead artists and their work) I had never heard that. I have not read her book, and was wondering what your take on it might be, I'd love to know.

Wildness! Glad to see your posts again!
Here's an in-depth review of the book from the New Yorker. The reviewer, though generally lauding Shoss' work, is critical of her without-evidence inferences; including any incestual relationship between Lucia and her brother.
Seems she (Lucia) inherited bad eyes from her dad's side of the family and schizophrenia from her mom's side. Sounds like a good book, though, and I think the title is clever. I don't think I'll get around to reading it myself, not being a Joyce aficianado...

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/12/08/031208crbo_books

I made it through Ulysses and have listened to the audio lecture by The learning Company. Then, I read the original and came to appreciate what Joyce had really done. Now June 19 is always a special day.

Not too familiar with Joyce, but will say that I absolutely loved his novel, "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and his short story, "Araby". Great stuff!

Ah, you see I wasnt entirely sure it just wasnt another "Shakespere is a woman, Jesus was a woman too" theory that seems to float around Collegian "intellectual " circles.

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
Wildness! Glad to see your posts again!
Here's an in-depth review of the book from the New Yorker. The reviewer, though generally lauding Shoss' work, is critical of her without-evidence inferences; including any incestual relationship between Lucia and her brother.
Seems she (Lucia) inherited bad eyes from her dad's side of the family and schizophrenia from her mom's side. Sounds like a good book, though, and I think the title is clever. I don't think I'll get around to reading it myself, not being a Joyce aficianado...

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/12/08/031208crbo_books

Good to be back bralling!, also, thank you for the info!

I must admit I have never tackled either of Joyce's 'big' novels.
However, I have read DUBLINERS and think it's perhaps one of the best collections of short stories I've read.

If you're a lover of the short story form (as Bradbury fans invariably are), it really is a must-read --- along with Chekov, Raymond Carver, Arthur Conan Doyle, Henry Lawson (Australian writer, who Hemingway tipped his hat to in some letter or essay that I can't quite recall the source of), Katherine Mansfield, Tobias Wolff .... etc.

DUBLINERS probably won't be to everyone's taste, but the stories are just perfectly-realised snapshots of ordinary folk and their oh-so-real struggles, joys and tragedies. Highly recommended.

I have developed a love affair with James joyce.

Prickly,
To me, it seems that his work has an effect, something of a pandoras box! The fragile glass vessel that houses chaos and disorder that co-exist, exquisitely and minutely detailed of all earthly dualities, in that damged human condition, he seems to disregard this and push this of an edge, to watch shatter, as though he takes delight in the calamity that ensues! In my own personal being, it creates the same chaos, the same delightful chaos, or prickling thistles, that packs a punch directly to my solar plexus, or pumps my belly full of lead, that makes me feel, very much alive, that he, is very much alive. With such a high and pure awareness, that is almost unforgiving of every aspect of gravity, and that delightful chaos!

hah! i sound ridiculous! PLEASE DIREGARD THIS STATEMENT

Wild Gravity, how old are you?

That obvious?

biplane, let me guess. 14

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
biplane, let me guess. 14

How rude.

Just goes to prove, no female wants her age divulged no matter what it happens to be.

Not at all the case, Phil, and I certainly dont appreciate the sentiment, and at this point dont find humour in it
I am an adult.

It was the audacity of the remark in assuming I'm fourteen because of what I wrote.
I was only sharing my thoughts, and I'm sorry that they went misheard, because now I feel a great deal of embarassment, so much so, I think about simply removing the post.

Don't worry about it, WildG. I would have guessed "seventeen and crazy". (At the risk of being misunderstood, it's a F451 reference...)