Excellent and shiny description, Scrappy.

Wow, that's freakin' ignorant, Connie.

That's pretty harsh, Hec. People are allowed to have differing opinions on books. It doesn't make them ignorant.

If you've read Ulysses you'd know better.

I missed the part in her post where she said that she didn't.

Are you assuming that because she has a differing opinion on Ulysses that she didn't read it? That seems to imply that everyone who read Ulysses must love it, or at least have a value-neutral opinion on it. *That* is ignorant.

I'm with Steph.

I did read all the way though Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in high school, and didn't particularly enjoy it.

That's the only Joyce I've read, I think (or...is there a story of his that's about going to some sort of crowded open-air marketplace?). I loved it, though. I liked watching the language of the book change and evolve as the character did.

Wow, that's freakin' ignorant, Connie.

Wow, that's freakin' condescending, Hec. I don't like Joyce. I think it's gibberish. But thanks for your opinion of my intelligence.

That's pretty harsh, Hec. People are allowed to have differing opinions on books. It doesn't make them ignorant.

Anti-intellectualism is ignorant. It surely is. And that was the jist of her comment, not an opinion on the book.

I've been on page thirty of Ulysses for five years. And he's my peeps. I grew up a few miles from the Martello tower the book starts at. And I've done Bloomsday stuff. But it's way easier to read passages and enjoy them than it is to read the book cover to cover. Unless you have a bunch of free time and no commitments. IMO.

And if it takes four times reading an English sentence to finally say, "OK, I think that makes sense," I am not impressed.

I've enjoyed Joyce's shorter works. But I failed when I tried Ulysses. but I didn't fall asleep -- that was Henry James!

I suspect Joyce's novels are more like T.S. Eliot than Shakespeare. With Eliot and Joyce, you need a well-annotated version, a good teacher/guide, or in-depth knowledge of a number of scholarly subjects to really understand what's going on. With Eliot, and I suspect Joyce, it's the author using his classical education (with an added factor of Joyce trying to turn the written word into a more visible medium, and I know I'm not getting my point across, but that's the best way I can put it). Where Shakespeare was very accessible to the typical audiences of his day, but slang and general knowledge have changed over 500 years.

Anti-intellectualism is ignorant. It surely is. And that was the jist of her comment, not an opinion on the book.

Excuse me??? I'm anti-intellecutal? No, I'm offended, is what I am. I have resisted for years saying I think you're an intellectual snob in both literature and music, but I see I need no longer restrain myself.

Anti-intellectualism is ignorant. It surely is. And that was the jist of her comment, not an opinion on the book.

I disagree. You're reading FAR too much into her comment. A person can dislike a book/author without being "anti-intellectual."

This thread has seen this kerfluffle before, when someone expressed a negative opinion about a Great Work, and the opinion was extrapolated to be anti-intellectualism.

And yes, the kerfluffle I'm referring to is the one that was kicked off when I said that I didn't like Moby Dick. My dislike of one book out of all of literature was taken as an attack on intellectualism, which was patently untrue, just as it is this time.

You can't take one comment that Connie makes about one book out of the whole of literature and deduce that it's an anti-intellectual screed.

PLEASE don't lets go there again.