James K. Anderson

Self-important pseudo-profundity

Revisado: 05-12-18

This is honestly exactly the kind of teaching that made me quit lit classes in general. The guy goes on and on abut the supposed resonance and symbolism in Joyce when about 3/4 of the time he gives no plausible evidence at all that his interpretation is valid. Most of what he says is just a bunch of free-formed opinion delivered as fact.

I do appreciate the odd historical tidbit, and a small number of the ties he highlights between Ulysses and Homer's Odyssey. But mostly it just seems like he has a religious view of sorts, like something he's committed to _a priori_, and is just twisting his thinking and interpretations to fit.

I would be much more appreciative if he said: "Here's how it strikes me, personally. Here are the ideas it sparked for me, and the resonances I felt. Does any of that resonate with the class?"

At least at that point I could go, "Well this guys surely has a very well-developed imagination, and acute associative powers!" And maybe some of it would even provide food for thought at that point.

But especially when you are trying to teach young minds to think critically and engage with teh world about reality on a a deeper level, passing off pure opinion as received fact is no way to accomplish that.

Essentially, Ulysses is complex enough without layering on another stratum of idiosyncratic bullshit.

More hermeneutics would have been greatly appreciated. He does talk about history, and Joyce's personal life, and how those are reflected in the book, but like 80% more of that would have been good. And maybe some more insight into why people revere the work so much, why it's become such a modern classic.

So far (like 9 chapters in) all I'm getting on those scores is essentially, "Joyce wasn't afraid to talk about bodily functions"... Or "He said gross stuff when people thought that made the work automatically worthless." Those can't be literally the only points the guy is making, but I think it's telling that these were the only elements that really stood out in the sea of woolly-headed free association.

I have listened with fascination to several other offerings from the Great Courses. but this work has rendered it much less likely that I will trust their handling of literature in the future.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 4 personas

Written like bad fan fiction

Revisado: 04-16-18

This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

Not sure who else would enjoy this tbh. It's so overwrought and repetitive, full of unearned emotions, illogical conclusions, people acting out of character, needless exposition, boring repetition, boring repetition for no apparent reason, and boring, so boring repetition for reasons unknown....

Would you ever listen to anything by Cixin Liu again?

You'd probably have to pay *me* money to take a chance on this author again.

How could the performance have been better?

The narrator could have toned down some of the melodrama a little by reading passages with a more measured delivery, Instead he leaned into it, pushing the silly characterization and fake emotions to the point of ridiculous caricature.

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

There were quite a few ideas I wish had been explored with more integrity and rigor. I kept listening far longer than I wanted to because something would catch my interest and I'd be like, "where is he going with this??". But not of it ever showed signs of paying off.

Any additional comments?

Uggggghhhhh...

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

I give it 5 Stars if I could understand more of it

Revisado: 04-03-17

I have a feeling that shot and his Brethren, have something of inestimable value to offer us. However at this stage, I really have no idea how to assess what that might be. I kind of feel like a very precocious third-grader somehow introduced to James Joyce's Ulysses.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña