(U) Episode 2: “Nestor” ~pp 25-37.

What They Are Saying, Episode 2

In The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell shows in mythologies from the Navajo, through the Norse, beyond the Punjab and back around to the Polynesian how lessons of success under duress taught that quests in different cultures share the same steps. There are fourteen steps. I won’t suffer you through them all here. One of Campbell’s teachings is that these shared lessons preach the universality of human thinking. 

In modernity, these critical paths are individual rather than cultural. Every breathing human treads heroic paths, some without shamans’ support, to teach them ancient ways. My sister’s neighbor worked in The World Trade Center on 9/11. Her neighbor suffers PTSD daily. She drags herself from bed on days when the world is loud and threatening. It’s a heroic act. Marie does this alone, a modern hero. To a greater or lesser degree we are all on the path of Campbell’s hero (the call to adventure, refusal of the call, supernatural aid, crossing the first threshold, etc.). Individual heroism is the basis of Humanism, and Humanism is one central theme of this novel. 

The “how” of Humanism reflects in the Modernist School of Literature. It begins with historiography revisiting facts in light of the modern perspective. In Asli Molaci’s paper “Analyzing Elements of Modernism James Joyce’s Ulysses” it is said Ulysses is the exact opposite of a return home. That is true in the physical sense, but I might suggest that we revise the adage to “Home is where the art is.” Only the context of the Odyssey needs changing.

I have not found a definition of a school or period of art that I found entirely satisfactory. Modernism is said to have taken root during the Industrial Revolution. That connection ties nicely to the common man, but the gap between loom and literature is vast. Modernism is said to have political interests in most cases. That doesn’t work well with the two foremost Modernist writers, Joyce and Faulkner. We could stretch our context, saying that being apolitical is very political. Saying that might also be coy. 

Other features of Modernism include using vocabulary in non-traditional ways, creating portmanteau words and twisting nouns into verbs. Whatever measures are applied, they are irrelevant. What does seem to be important is that the plots, the context and the vocabulary better serve the stories of the everyperson in everylife treading the everyquest as an everywhere. Another helpful way to look at Joyce’s Modernism is the assessment of Richard Begam when analyzed by Michael Siegal (“IS MODERNISM REALLY TRANSNATIONAL? ULYSSES, NEW COSMOPOLITANISMAND THE CELTIC TIGER.” University of Minnesota Press, 2015).

The comparison might be parochialism versus Modernism, nationalism versus internationalism, or provincialism versus metropolitanism. Joycean and Modernist critics have traditionally held the local and the global in opposition. Begam’s challenge to this illustrates a similarity between the recent cosmopolitan turn in Joyce studies and the transnational turn in Modernist studies. It doesn’t seem that a reader could be both a Bloomist and a Nationalist. Bloom does seem to have at least a small scorn for provincial red-headed curates like Larry O’Flynn.

3 thoughts on “(U) Episode 2: “Nestor” ~pp 25-37.

  1. Hi Don, nice connection to forge with Columbanus, Stephen, and Joyce. Great series of questions in the Aristotle segment. As I read your work, I’m noting some papers you may or may not be familiar with. I’ll send you the details on Twitter, rather than here. I know you probably have oodles to read, still, they may be some use to your further analyses. Plus, you know what they say: Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body. I have a feeling I’m going to enjoy your blog and insights. All best, Mary.

  2. For the sake of my own education, I’m reading the novel (Alma edition) against the Little Review version (Yale edition). One fascinating change between the two versions: when discussing Sir John Blackwood in the novel, Deasy says he “voted for the union.” In LR, Deasy says he “voted against the union.” From what I’ve read, Blackwood promoted the notion that he voted for it but in fact voted against it. At any rate, no source (including Gifford) mentions this point. I’ve read most of the other books over the decades (I’m 70) but do not have them to hand. Any thoughts?

  3. It does seem to me that this brief chapter is all about confrontation: Stephen/students, Stephen/Deasy, England/Ireland, Greece/Rome, antisemitism/Bloom, Catholics/Protestants, reality/potentiality. Every exchange, whether actual or mental, is a challenge to see who will dominate or lose. Joyce was thoroughly confrontational, and this Episode 2 shows him yet again taking on history’s battles: one more of those and he is done for!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: