A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce is written in a unique way. The fact that the book doesn’t provide quotation marks around dialogue kind of set me off guard for a minute. Becoming familiar with new characters was also challenging for me because they were often brought forth with little introduction (in my opinion) Perhaps it was Joyce’s creative language and puns that set me off guard. Regardless, I have enjoyed the story so far and I like the character of Stephen. Upon research about James Joyce himself, I have found many sources claiming that the character of Stephen Dedalus is somewhat of an autobiography of Joyce’s own life. Although there are many differences, there are many similarities that I have noticed as well. For example, James Joyce actually did attend the Clongowes Wood College that is presented in the book. Stephen Dedalus is educated by Jesuits at Clongowes Wood College and at first has a hard time adjusting there.
In Chapter 1 the young Stephen breaks his glasses and is thus “pandied” for his “lazy scheme.” There are some sources that say that this event actually happened to James Joyce in real life. However, there are other accounts of history that claim this particular event did not happen but Joyce was “pandied” for other events” Whether it happened in to Joyce in real life or not, it is interesting that he incorporates it into his novel. A passage that I found interesting is on page 48 in the novel. It describes how Stephen felt after he had been brutally punished after breaking his glasses.
“Yes, he would do what the fellows had told him. He would go up and tell the rector that he had been wrongly punished. A thing like that had been done before by somebody in history, by some great person whose head was in the books of history” (48). I could be wrong but I feel like the event that happens to Stephen is some reference towards the event with Charles Stewart Parnell.
Earlier in the chapter we see that Stephen’s family argues over the case of church vs. state involving Parnell at Christmas dinner. We learn that the case of Parnell, who was a priest is very controversial. He was charged by the Catholic Church. Stephen’s relatives argue over the church at Christmas dinner.
“-We go to the house of God, Mr. Casey said, in all humility to pray to our Maker and not to hear election addresses.
-It is religion, Dante said again. They are right. They must direct their flocks.
-And preach politics from the altar, is it? Asked Mr. Dedalus.
-Certainly, said Dante. It is a question of public morality. A priest would not be a priest if he did not tell his flock what is right and what is wrong” (27).
I think that the breaking eye glasses event and Stephen presenting his cruel punishment to the church and the discussion at Christmas dinner, highlights the fact that James Joyce himself had a rocky relationship with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church and the Church vs State was a very controversial issue in Irish Culture, especially during Joyce’s time. Maybe I’m drawing on coincidental events from the novel but I think that they relate to Joyce’s on personal feelings about the Catholic Church. Having been institutionalized in a religious environment in real life, it seems that he is very sensitive about the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, not to get all controversial talking about religion but I found it interesting on page 43 when Stephen was analyzing the order of the “highup people” in the church. “It was because he was allowed because a priest would know what a sin was and would not do it. But if he did it one time by mistake what would he do to go to confession? Perraps he would go to confession to the minister. And if the minister did it he would go to the rector….etc” (43). Now maybe I’m just drawing upon random things but this analysis could be used in the case of Parnell. If a state official makes a sin…isn’t there some sort of higher order he can go to within the state to take care of it…it’s almost as if Stephen is drawing the conclusion that in the case of Parnell the church is seen as the higher order….
Ok I’m going to stop babbling on. I’m not sure I’m making sense but just some things I have cooking in my head.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nicole
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that I wasn't the only one who was a little off put by the writing style, although the lack of quotations actually intrigued me a little. I wish I knew where the inspiration for this writing style originated. It certainly was a bit different than the others that we've read, but I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons we did read Joyce's book. It was nice honestly though getting to read something so different.
You also commented on one of my favorite scenes, the one between Stephen's family about Church and State. Its an age old debate and considering that I myself grew up in a catholic household, its an argument I've actually heard before.
I'm curious, when you said "I could be wrong but I feel like the event that happens to Stephen is some reference towards the event with Charles Stewart Parnell." I'm just having a little trouble relating the two in my own mind I suppose. And its completely okay to ramble, we all do it from time to time.
WS
Hey Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI’m glad to see that I am not the only person to find the format of the novel a little strange, but I have to say it was not the way in which he used quotes or gave little introduction to characters. For me it was the way in which he made unannounced leaps in time from present time to the past. I felt like every time I was beginning to understand what was going on he made another unexpected time shift. At first I thought that he was just messing with the reader and purposefully trying to confuse us, but I soon realized that is was his style of writing, through the stream of consciousness of Stephen that was making the reading more difficult to understand. This different style of writing would also explain the lack of introductions for new characters in the story, given that the story was told from within Stephen’s head and not a third person point of view.
I thought that you brought up a very interesting point in the passage in which you stated “In Chapter 1 the young Stephen breaks his glasses and is thus “pandied” for his “lazy scheme.”…Whether it happened in to Joyce in real life or not, it is interesting that he incorporates it into his novel.” I believe that Joyce incorporated this event into the story to emphasize the unjust punishment that was taking place. I found many cases of undeserved punishment being described in the novel from when Stephen was told that if he did not apologize for expressing his wishes to marry a Protestant girl “the eagles will come and pull out his eyes,” (4) to when the boys in Stephen’s class talk about the fact that they will all be punished because two boys were caught "smugging," or engaging in homosexual acts. None of these actions in my opinion are deserving of the ‘crime’ committed. I do not know what Joyce’s reasoning behind showing all of these cases of unjust punishment, was it to show what he personally went through as a child or did it have a greater purpose to unveil the corruption and unjustness that was taking place in Ireland at the time?
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteGreat blog...and I'm biased because I discussed some similar topics in mine this week, but still great blogging.
I liked the your quote from the book,
“It was because he was allowed because a priest would know what a sin was and would not do it. But if he did it one time by mistake what would he do to go to confession? Perhaps he would go to confession to the minister. And if the minister did it he would go to the rector….etc” (43).
To me this quote goes hand in hand with the section in the book when Stephen is approached by the priest to be "called" to the priesthood. Personally, I found the entire section very annoying.
"To receive that call, Stephen, said the priest, is the greatest honour that the Almighty God can bestow upon a man. No king or emperor on this earth has the power of the priest of God...the power of the keys, the power to bind and to loose from sin..." (Joyce 171).
And continues, "He would hold his secret knowledge and secret power, being as sinless as the innocent..."(Joyce 173).
So to me, this section is the most frustrating because of the intense amount of almost "self-righteousness" that seems to ooze from both Stephen and the priest. I guess it's a personal belief but the idea that another human being (divine intervention or not) can "absolve" me of my sins any more than I can myself in a personal discussion with God seems absurd and voyeuristic.
I'm not sure I completely understand your discussion with the comparison to Parnell either. I was thinking that perhaps you were saying that like priests can be held to a different standard such as being absolved by a higher up, so do State officials. Or maybe they have a lack of standards creating the double standard of "do as I say not as I do" (because I'm allowed to get away with it). Just some thoughts.