Yesterday I read an interesting article in The New Yorker about Stephen Joyce, James Joyce's grandson, who controls Joyce's literary estate. Did you know that today, the 16th, is the 102nd anniversary of Bloomsday--the day in which the events of Joyce's Ulysses takes place? I had no idea. Stephen James Joyce (as he likes to be called) seems to be making life quite difficult for scholars to do anything, well, scholarly--in terms of Joyce's life and work. Apparently he has been accused of destroying letters (which he denies), refusing acess to Joyce's papers, blocking public performances of Joyce's work, and opposing any sort of new editions of Ulysses or biographies of Joyce or of any of his family. All in all he sounds fairly nasty to me. Per the article:
"Stephen has also attempted to impede the publication of dozens of scholarly works on James Joyce. He rejects nearly every request to quote from unpublished letters. Last year, he told a prominent Joyce scholar that he was no longer granting permissions to quote from any of Joyce's writings."
According to Stephen Joyce he is simply trying to protect the legacy of James Joyce and the privacy of the Joyce family. Of course I can certainly understand this. I, too, would hate the idea (if I were a famous author) of scholars digging through all aspects of my personal life. I would also probably want to only reveal those things important to my work and nothing that might be embarrassing. However, as a reader, I know when I am curious about something or someone I want to know every last detail. Certainly there are going to be personal or private matters, but those might have particularly important bearing on why an author wrote what he did. Stephen Joyce was quoted as saying that reading Joyce is not as difficult as scholars say he is. As a matter of fact he thinks that scholars have put off many readers who are afraid to attempt his work. Maybe he is right. Joyce, however, told one of his translators (once again per the article):
"I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality."
To me that sort of makes Ulysses sound difficult! Hmm. What all this boils down to...when I was reading this article I was thinking that there are not many books that I am afraid of reading or at least attempting to read, but Ulysses pretty much tops any list that I could come up with. As a matter of fact all of Joyce's work scares me. My fear is that I will read, and I will be totally and completely lost. Even with a book like Dubliners, which is short stories, I don't look forward to reading. If I did have to come up with a list, you could also add Umberto Eco (though I did buy The Name of the Rose recently in anticipation of attempting it), and to a lesser degree Shakespeare (though honestly here it is probably more a matter of laziness) and maybe even William Faulkner (though I did "read" The Sound and the Fury...and if Oprah can recommend him for her bookclub, surely I could read him with some degree of success, too, right?).
These are just small mental stumbling blocks. I mean it isn't as though I would be attempting to read any of these authors in a foreign language, right? Sometimes, though, some books even in English feel quite foreign! I decided this year to begin working my way through the Modern Library 100 Best Novels list. Although it will take me (probably) years to make my way to the top, I thought it would be as good a list as any to read from (I do like The Observer's list too, though), so I can be exposed to authors I may not have chosen to read otherwise. Joyce has three books on the list. Faulkner has three as well. I guess I will worry about those books when I get to them. The article also discussed the issue of copyright, but that topic is better saved for another day.