James Joyce. Even the man's name is alliteration!

Analysis:

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce centers around the life of Stephen Dedalus. The narration is frequently interrupted by stream of consciousness narration and never strays too far from the main subject(Stephen). Joyce's style is particularly unique, and therefore greatly confusing, due to his ability to convey Stephen's tumultuous journey of self-discovery, while simultaneously capturing the climate of the time. On page 232 Stephen describes three different forms of literary tradition. Initially I thought that the lyrical form, described as "the form wherin the artist presents his image in immediate relation to himself," was the form which Joyce decided to write this novel. However, it seems that the epical form:” the form wherein he presents his image in mediate relation to himself and others" is the true form of Portrait. In class some people agreed that Stephen comes off as a somewhat arrogant and selfish person. With a format that revolves around the growth of Stephen as a person, highlights his innermost emotions and turmoil, it's hard for ego to necessarily be separated from our perception of him. The novel introduces other characters but in relation to Stephen, and what emotions they evoke in him. His father is caught in perpetual reminiscence, unable to face the reality of his bankruptcy and the disintegration of his family. His mother is distraught over his disillusionment with the church. Stephen's siblings are barely mentioned throughout the entire novel. Essentially, characters are introduced in the context of Stephen's experience. It is for this reason that Stephen seems to be self-absorbed, and in a sense, he is. He does not do anything unless he has a particular drive to do so, as seen when he refuses to go to communion for the simple happiness of his mother.

Quote:

" Stephen walked on at his father's side, listening to stories he had heard before, hearing again the names of the scattered and dead revelers who had been the companions of his father's youth. And a faint sickness sighed in his heart. He recalled his own equivocal position in Belvedere, a free boy, a leader afraid of his own authority, proud and sensitive and suspicious, battling against the squalor of his life and against the riot of his mind. The letters cut in the stained wood of the desk stared upon him, mocking his bodily weakness and futile enthusiasms and making him loathe himself for his own mad and filthy orgies. The spittle in his throat grew bitter and foul to swallow and the faint sickness climbed to his brain so that for a moment he closed his eyes and walked on in darkness"(97).

This passage demonstrates the nature of the relationship between Stephen and his father. The passage illustrates the emotional turmoil Stephen is experiencing and his acute shame and disgust with himself. He describes the demons of his thoughts as filthy and mad and swallows the "bitter and foul" acknowledgement of his existence. Stephen's personal "darkness" contrasts the jolly episodes his father recounts, emphasizing the distance between them, despite their physical closeness. I found this passage particularly ironic because Stephen recalls his own days as a student at Belvedere, yet he feels incapable of confiding or relating to his father. Even after seeing the word "foetus" carved into the desk, a discovery that spurred somewhat of a revelation that he is not alone in harboring what he deems forbidden and disgusting thoughts, Stephen remains(if not more so) disenchanted with his father. This disillusionment, I think, comes primarily from the fact that his father maintains that he and his school friends were gentlemen and encourages Stephen to mix with said "gentlemen"(97). Stephen seems to feel that his father is a hypocrite, and therefore feels it is futile to even attempt to confide in him and instead retreats to his solitude.

Reaction:

There seems to be a pattern with the books we are reading lately in this class: they are the types of books that in order to experience the work to its full magnitude, I have to read it again, and again, and again. This first time through I found the reading frustrating and confusing. I tried to understand what was happening plot wise, while still trying to appreciate the language. I kept finding myself getting caught up in the structure and sound of the sentences(because Joyce's combination of words are incredible, especially his use of alliteration) to the point that I'd reach the end of the page blown away by the words, but completely ignorant of what was actually being said. I think that I would love this book if I read it a second time(and I plan to) because it would be a little bit easier to connect meaning and structure.