Standard Ebooks' 1,000th title: Ulysses(standardebooks.org)
standardebooks.org
Standard Ebooks' 1,000th title: Ulysses
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/james-joyce/ulysses
135 comments
Yes, it's a bit silly! The reason the score is so off is because we use the Flesch Reading Ease algorithm[1] to calculate it, which was designed for the US Navy to be able to score technical manuals. It works very well for most prose too... except highly modernist prose!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid_Reading_Ease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid_Reading_Ease
Thanks. Maybe a simple fix is: don't use it for fiction. Since that's not its intent.
It works just fine for fiction. Ulysses is a very special edge case in the pantheon of all literature, so it's no surprise it doesn't work well for this one case.
> It works just fine for fiction
how about some other well-known novels and their scores?
how about some other well-known novels and their scores?
You can sort their list by reading ease: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks?page=21&per-page=48&sort=r...
A lot of John Stuart Mill and John Dewey
A lot of John Stuart Mill and John Dewey
OK, I tried that. Among the hardest fiction:
Moll Flanders Tristram Shandy Gulliver's Travels Robinson Crusoe
Moll Flanders Tristram Shandy Gulliver's Travels Robinson Crusoe
The Sun Also Rises is easier than Winnie the Pooh. I can buy that.
How's it handle Finnegans Wake?
Ulysses has mostly "real" words while Finnegans Wake is largely made of portmanteaus. It'll be interesting to see the results!
I just ran it and got "segmentation fault (core dumped)". Is this one of Joyce's silly sentences he's famous for?
He was such a futurist, that Joyce /s
Got another 11 years to wait before that enters the US public domain, unfortunately.
As an end-user of Standard Ebooks, I've found it works pretty well on average.
Reading ease: each word makes sense. -25.1 points for no 4 words in a row making sense.
It's fairly easy... if you also speak French, Italian, Latin, and probably Ancient Greek. I don't and I know I missed a lot. I remember a lot of bilingual French/English wordplay through worked. He was multilingual and the puns/kennings are also.
That should read "a reading ease: Ulysses".
- "a reading ease of 74.9 (fairly easy)"
Yeah, that's a very unnecessary misuse of AI.
Is there an open-source human rating site for serious books, in how difficult they are to read—how tedious, how erudite, how much pain you have to go through to get whatever reward you think you get at the end? With Ulysses near the edge of one axis, Moby Dick demarcating another... Surely this is all common knowledge to bookish people, but, where do they write it down?
Yeah, that's a very unnecessary misuse of AI.
Is there an open-source human rating site for serious books, in how difficult they are to read—how tedious, how erudite, how much pain you have to go through to get whatever reward you think you get at the end? With Ulysses near the edge of one axis, Moby Dick demarcating another... Surely this is all common knowledge to bookish people, but, where do they write it down?
Hardly AI, just a simple Python function that implements the Flesch reading ease algorithm: https://github.com/standardebooks/tools/blob/effcf0f6db05729...
AI stands for “artificial intelligence” and I think an algorithm which decides how easy a book is to read qualifies as some sort of intelligence.
The input to the algorithm is literally three numbers: total words, total sentences, total syllables. If this counts as AI, then your thermostat or film camera feels pretty AI too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readabi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readabi...
Perhaps we could use AI to give us a score for how AI a given AI is
ChatGPT gives it a score of 0.
https://chatgpt.com/share/c1e700bc-7353-427e-a953-1e234f5e96...
https://chatgpt.com/share/c1e700bc-7353-427e-a953-1e234f5e96...
Good data point, but a little bit biased.
Right, and whether you call it "General AI" or "trivial Python script" my complaint stands–that it's a misfeature for the user, the novice reader user, the English-as-a-foreign-language user, who relies on a machine review that tell them reading Joyce is "easy English". That would seriously suck if that happened to someone, though I assume that's statistically unlikely (particularly given Joyce-is-difficult-English is a widely-known meme). It'd be an unpleasant experience, like being told glue is tasty on a pizza.
I *get* that my opinion is an unpopular and minority one, so I accept the downvotes and ridicule, fine. This is the minority viewpoint I hold, I stubbornly stand by; and the hill I will die on. That it's disrespectful to users to inject unvetted machine scoring into book reviews; it's a malfeature and should not be a socially accepted practice. Treat the human user with awed respect; where you can help them, help, and where you don't know, say nothing—don't let loose some talking Python script. The user doesn't know the limitations of your script; the user doesn't know the language you posted on your page isn't authoritative language and is prone to major errors.
I *get* that my opinion is an unpopular and minority one, so I accept the downvotes and ridicule, fine. This is the minority viewpoint I hold, I stubbornly stand by; and the hill I will die on. That it's disrespectful to users to inject unvetted machine scoring into book reviews; it's a malfeature and should not be a socially accepted practice. Treat the human user with awed respect; where you can help them, help, and where you don't know, say nothing—don't let loose some talking Python script. The user doesn't know the limitations of your script; the user doesn't know the language you posted on your page isn't authoritative language and is prone to major errors.
> That it's disrespectful to users to inject unvetted machine scoring into book reviews
Very, very far from being unvetted. This algorithm has been used, unchanged, for the 50 years since Flesch–Kincaid was developed. I've used this metric for my entire life as a rough indicator of difficulty, and it is widely accepted. But it's a limited metric: it has two factors for difficulty that generally rate text as more difficult if it has more words per sentence and more syllables per word. It's a good heuristic, but as with all heuristics, there will be edge cases, and Ulysses is one of them.
As I do with all critiques, I guess I'd ask you to make a better suggestion for Standard Ebooks. Given their resources, and the available alternative of "have a panel of diverse humans read every book and grade its difficulty", your position is dangerously close to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Is your argument that Standard Ebooks would be a better product if they didn't include reading ease metrics? If so, I respectfully disagree.
> Treat the human user with awed respect; where you can help them, help, and where you don't know, say nothing—don't let loose some talking Python script. The user doesn't know the limitations of your script; the user doesn't know the language you posted on your page isn't authoritative language and is prone to major errors.
I don't think this is fair. Reading ease has flaws, but is widely accepted (although seemingly poorly understood, despite its simplicity). The guy who runs readable.com (DaveChild) responded to a post on Reddit about reading scores a few years back (that thread was also filled with tons of misinformation about how this is some black-box AI algorithm that's making everyone stupid), but his comment was quite well-grounded:
> Readability scores are fairly crude, almost by design, because they were all created at a time when they had to be worked out without computers. But they do give a decent idea of the overall readability of a piece, and that helps you to see if your content is too wordy. They are not, by themselves, an indicator of quality. They are not a substitute for proofreading and editing. But they are a useful tool to have in your arsenal.
This is a balanced, practical opinion. Life is filled with proxy metrics that are flawed, from insurance risk and credit ratings to SAT scores and the ability to do whiteboard-coding. In context, I think Standard Ebooks made exactly the right choice to incorporate some measure of reading ease in their offering, even if it doesn't get it 100% right 100% of the time.
Very, very far from being unvetted. This algorithm has been used, unchanged, for the 50 years since Flesch–Kincaid was developed. I've used this metric for my entire life as a rough indicator of difficulty, and it is widely accepted. But it's a limited metric: it has two factors for difficulty that generally rate text as more difficult if it has more words per sentence and more syllables per word. It's a good heuristic, but as with all heuristics, there will be edge cases, and Ulysses is one of them.
As I do with all critiques, I guess I'd ask you to make a better suggestion for Standard Ebooks. Given their resources, and the available alternative of "have a panel of diverse humans read every book and grade its difficulty", your position is dangerously close to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Is your argument that Standard Ebooks would be a better product if they didn't include reading ease metrics? If so, I respectfully disagree.
> Treat the human user with awed respect; where you can help them, help, and where you don't know, say nothing—don't let loose some talking Python script. The user doesn't know the limitations of your script; the user doesn't know the language you posted on your page isn't authoritative language and is prone to major errors.
I don't think this is fair. Reading ease has flaws, but is widely accepted (although seemingly poorly understood, despite its simplicity). The guy who runs readable.com (DaveChild) responded to a post on Reddit about reading scores a few years back (that thread was also filled with tons of misinformation about how this is some black-box AI algorithm that's making everyone stupid), but his comment was quite well-grounded:
> Readability scores are fairly crude, almost by design, because they were all created at a time when they had to be worked out without computers. But they do give a decent idea of the overall readability of a piece, and that helps you to see if your content is too wordy. They are not, by themselves, an indicator of quality. They are not a substitute for proofreading and editing. But they are a useful tool to have in your arsenal.
This is a balanced, practical opinion. Life is filled with proxy metrics that are flawed, from insurance risk and credit ratings to SAT scores and the ability to do whiteboard-coding. In context, I think Standard Ebooks made exactly the right choice to incorporate some measure of reading ease in their offering, even if it doesn't get it 100% right 100% of the time.
I see several people calling this an edge case. That might well be, but how about giving us something to compare it to, in the realm of early- or pre-20th century novels?
- "Very, very far from being unvetted. This algorithm has been used, unchanged, for the 50 years since Flesch–Kincaid was developed."
I mean that the instance is unvetted: the machine score is generated automatically, and placed on the website automatically, and no human in the loop checks if it's reasonable or not. Not that the general algorithm is un-reviewed.
- " But they do give a decent idea of the overall readability of a piece, and that helps you to see if your content is too wordy. They are not, by themselves, an indicator of quality. They are not a substitute for proofreading and editing. But they are a useful tool to have in your arsenal."
This is very fair.
- "Life is filled with proxy metrics that are flawed, from insurance risk and credit ratings"
And a lot of them are very rightly illegal to score algorithmically in the EU (for important decisions), without manual oversight, because of the possibility of egregious and unaccountable machine error. The trend of abdicating human agency is not overall a wholesome one.
I'm coming from a place were I do read books (despite the fact I write HN comments like an illiterate stoned baboon, I'm trying my hardest really I am), and they come lovingly edited by obsessed people who put probably thousands of hours into editing each one, individually, with commentary essays that are up to 50-100 pages long, fastidiously crafted to guide the novice explorer. Standard Ebooks is neither a publisher not attempting to replace publishers. But: it's viscerally disturbing to me to see robots taking the hallowed place of human scholars in annotating—in this narrow example, scoring–books, and when they go badly wrong like this Joyce example, it's very upsetting, and makes me (irrationally?) think there's some terribly dangerous cultural normalization for replacing authentic human intelligence with fake, stupid, hopelessly lost machine imitations. And we'll lose many valuable things and our humanity in the process.
I sincerely apologize to anyone I've annoyed with this (I infer I've annoyed a lot of people). I'm just very upset with seeing fake machine stuff everywhere.
I mean that the instance is unvetted: the machine score is generated automatically, and placed on the website automatically, and no human in the loop checks if it's reasonable or not. Not that the general algorithm is un-reviewed.
- " But they do give a decent idea of the overall readability of a piece, and that helps you to see if your content is too wordy. They are not, by themselves, an indicator of quality. They are not a substitute for proofreading and editing. But they are a useful tool to have in your arsenal."
This is very fair.
- "Life is filled with proxy metrics that are flawed, from insurance risk and credit ratings"
And a lot of them are very rightly illegal to score algorithmically in the EU (for important decisions), without manual oversight, because of the possibility of egregious and unaccountable machine error. The trend of abdicating human agency is not overall a wholesome one.
I'm coming from a place were I do read books (despite the fact I write HN comments like an illiterate stoned baboon, I'm trying my hardest really I am), and they come lovingly edited by obsessed people who put probably thousands of hours into editing each one, individually, with commentary essays that are up to 50-100 pages long, fastidiously crafted to guide the novice explorer. Standard Ebooks is neither a publisher not attempting to replace publishers. But: it's viscerally disturbing to me to see robots taking the hallowed place of human scholars in annotating—in this narrow example, scoring–books, and when they go badly wrong like this Joyce example, it's very upsetting, and makes me (irrationally?) think there's some terribly dangerous cultural normalization for replacing authentic human intelligence with fake, stupid, hopelessly lost machine imitations. And we'll lose many valuable things and our humanity in the process.
I sincerely apologize to anyone I've annoyed with this (I infer I've annoyed a lot of people). I'm just very upset with seeing fake machine stuff everywhere.
re "unvetted" and difficulty thereof : there are already reviews of its difficulty elsewhere on the Web, e.g. from Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6752242 https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4827595524
1. Telemachus. Difficulty : 0 2. Nestor. Difficulty : 0 3. Proteus Difficulty : 9 4. Calypso. Difficulty : 5 5. The Lotus Eaters. Difficulty : 4 6. Hades. Difficulty : 3 7. Aeolus. Difficulty : 5 8. The Laestrygonians. Difficulty : 5
etc.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6752242 https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4827595524
1. Telemachus. Difficulty : 0 2. Nestor. Difficulty : 0 3. Proteus Difficulty : 9 4. Calypso. Difficulty : 5 5. The Lotus Eaters. Difficulty : 4 6. Hades. Difficulty : 3 7. Aeolus. Difficulty : 5 8. The Laestrygonians. Difficulty : 5
etc.
Who even mentioned AI here?
For anyone diving into Ulysses, I highly recommend checking out The Joyce Project [1].
It's filled with interactive notes that are very useful for understanding the linguistic and cultural references.
Here's my reading method that I found effective:
[1] https://www.joyceproject.com/
It's filled with interactive notes that are very useful for understanding the linguistic and cultural references.
Here's my reading method that I found effective:
1. Read a section on paper.
2. Go through the same section on the site.
3. (Re-)read on paper.
[1] https://www.joyceproject.com/
I'll say this, with the caveat that I never did finish the book due to unrelated reasons, this is an excellent method.
One may think "It's fine, I'll simply read the text and then, if I have questions, absorb some scholarly articles on it." Trust me, you will enjoy it so much more when you understand Joyce's intent and clever writing as it happens. You simply can't take it all in post-factum, too much would be missed.
One may think "It's fine, I'll simply read the text and then, if I have questions, absorb some scholarly articles on it." Trust me, you will enjoy it so much more when you understand Joyce's intent and clever writing as it happens. You simply can't take it all in post-factum, too much would be missed.
There also is https://www.ulyssesguide.com. It has episode guides, which explain what actually happens in each chapter (this can sometimes be difficult to decifer), the cross references to other chapters, and sometimes possible interpretations. I found that extremely helpful and would have missed a ton without even noticing.
Thanks for the link, this does make it more approachable!
Is the effort worth it?
If you're a fan of modernist literature or of literature as an at form, undoubtedly yes. If you're just interested in reading it because it is (justifiably, in my opinion) famous, then possibly.
It's a bit like reading and studying the Bible if you're not religious. Will you come out having read and studied one of the foundational texts in English literature, able to approach later texts with fresh eyes to the unending allusions it spawned? Yep. Will it be 'worth it', though, in a revelatory sense? That's up to you in the end.
It's a bit like reading and studying the Bible if you're not religious. Will you come out having read and studied one of the foundational texts in English literature, able to approach later texts with fresh eyes to the unending allusions it spawned? Yep. Will it be 'worth it', though, in a revelatory sense? That's up to you in the end.
It's certainly worth it, especially if you have some appreciation for the craft of writing, a love for words and the English language and the patience to take things slow and put the effort to really understand what you're reading. After the clouds clear and you can see what he is doing a monument reveals itself and there is this feeling of astonishment that a human was able to create such a thing.
The second half of the book (chapters 10 to 18 although page-wise it's more like two thirds) is especially satisfying. Each chapter is written in a vastly different style: imitation of music, a romantic novel, a play, the historical development of style in the English language, how a bad writer writes, a technical text, and a couple of others.
It's challenging and might not be satisfying if you're looking for plot (there is none). I suggest to read a chapter and then the accompanying text in https://www.ulyssesguide.com
The second half of the book (chapters 10 to 18 although page-wise it's more like two thirds) is especially satisfying. Each chapter is written in a vastly different style: imitation of music, a romantic novel, a play, the historical development of style in the English language, how a bad writer writes, a technical text, and a couple of others.
It's challenging and might not be satisfying if you're looking for plot (there is none). I suggest to read a chapter and then the accompanying text in https://www.ulyssesguide.com
FYI
> Standard Ebooks is a volunteer-driven effort to produce a collection of high quality, carefully formatted, accessible, open source, and free public domain ebooks that meet or exceed the quality of commercially produced ebooks.
I'm looking at doing that for calculus made easy by sylvanus Thompson but I need to overcome my lazyness first
> Standard Ebooks is a volunteer-driven effort to produce a collection of high quality, carefully formatted, accessible, open source, and free public domain ebooks that meet or exceed the quality of commercially produced ebooks.
I'm looking at doing that for calculus made easy by sylvanus Thompson but I need to overcome my lazyness first
Someone else has done something similar for that work: https://www.sunclipse.org/?p=3194 -- you might find either that what he's done is good enough to satisfy you, or that you can build on what he did.
That's great! Their motivation & updates seem very sensible.
Calculus Made Easy is a very nice compact book for university students who have started to forgot their high school training, and I will certainly point people in the direction of this project.
If you want the opposite of that: University students that come into college with strong calculus fundamentals, then I suggest "Calculus" by Michael Spivak.
I haven't used calculus in a decade, but I use things I learned from working through that book pretty much every day I write code.
I haven't used calculus in a decade, but I use things I learned from working through that book pretty much every day I write code.
That's a great news, thanks !
Standard Ebooks is a great resource. Consider supporting them https://standardebooks.org/donate
You can use Standard Ebooks tooling to create a white-label ebook skeleton if that would help you get started.
Ouch. Can't think of a more challenging one to work on. I can do most things epub now, but mathml is very much in the "no thanks now go away" category.
I'm so grateful that this is being done. Many free ebooks are high-quality content in a low-quality format.
Indeed, this is such an incredible and important project. Anyone who has tried to get free and/or public domain works in ebook format knows how bad the situation is. Some versions are good, but most are poor inputs processed through outdated and error-prone OCR. I'm extremely grateful to have even that, but the need for this project is very real.
I'll be supporting financially when I can, but until then if anyone involved is reading, please accept my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your noble efforts.
I'll be supporting financially when I can, but until then if anyone involved is reading, please accept my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your noble efforts.
Many paid ebooks are in a low-quality format too. I've bought Kindle books from real, well-known publishing houses that had obviously not had a single proofreader go through after their OCR. A motivated volunteer would've done so much better.
I agree. I stopped reading on the kindle years ago because I got so fed up with the terrible mistakes in the text. Not just spelling but also formatting. I love paper books. Having said that, Standard EBooks are very good.
I love the project, but it really does need a way to find the most popular books:
https://github.com/standardebooks/web/issues/298
https://github.com/standardebooks/web/issues/298
It seems like we need to trigger another import -- we only have 491 of their 1,000! But you can search Standard Ebooks books in Open Library. Here they are sorted by how many people have added them to their reading log: https://openlibrary.org/search?q=id_standard_ebooks%3A%2A&mo...
Or by rating: https://openlibrary.org/search?q=id_standard_ebooks%3A%2A&mo...
Or by first published! https://openlibrary.org/search?q=id_standard_ebooks%3A%2A&mo...
I created an issue to kick off another import: https://github.com/internetarchive/openlibrary/issues/9372
Or by rating: https://openlibrary.org/search?q=id_standard_ebooks%3A%2A&mo...
Or by first published! https://openlibrary.org/search?q=id_standard_ebooks%3A%2A&mo...
I created an issue to kick off another import: https://github.com/internetarchive/openlibrary/issues/9372
Thanks - that's really helpful.
You can use the openlibrary.org API to get the popularity (want to reads, rating counts, reviews) to get you started.
I was gonna comment on the sorting being less than ideal too. Only sort by release date (not publication date), author, ease, and length. Can't even sort by title.
Gutenberg.org is reporting the number of downloads; can't this be used?
Are these two organizations otherwise not on friendly terms, and able to exchange ebooks?
Are these two organizations otherwise not on friendly terms, and able to exchange ebooks?
We talk a fair bit! Gutenberg is the source for 95%+ of our productions, and personally I upstream any transcription issues I find.
What differs though is the mission. Gutenberg generally wants accurate digital translations of the original source texts, whereas Standard Ebooks tries to balance that out with better readability. Both are valid approaches, and there’s space for both of us.
What differs though is the mission. Gutenberg generally wants accurate digital translations of the original source texts, whereas Standard Ebooks tries to balance that out with better readability. Both are valid approaches, and there’s space for both of us.
Just curious... do you ever reach a consensus on a text that you decide to share between you?
Can you actually share the full .EPUB file, or do they object to the expanded size with bundled fonts and formatting, resulting in identical HTML but otherwise different content in the ZIP?
Can you actually share the full .EPUB file, or do they object to the expanded size with bundled fonts and formatting, resulting in identical HTML but otherwise different content in the ZIP?
It hasn’t happened before but never say never. What we do do though sometimes is contribute our own transcriptions to Gutenberg first, then use that as a base for the Standard Ebooks version.
Their tech stack is essentially a really weird really opinionated custom static site generator that makes improvements difficult. The build process is slow and troublesome.
I talked with them about adding an index of authors, and were open to the idea. I put probably 5 hours into getting it running correctly and figuring out how to get it to work. They then were at the time unwilling to restructure their data into a way that made it feasible due to how they have books are structured for multiple authors.
I've worked on hundreds of PHP apps over the last 20 years, and it's frankly one of the weirdest. It could benefit from even just a little SQLite db or something.
I talked with them about adding an index of authors, and were open to the idea. I put probably 5 hours into getting it running correctly and figuring out how to get it to work. They then were at the time unwilling to restructure their data into a way that made it feasible due to how they have books are structured for multiple authors.
I've worked on hundreds of PHP apps over the last 20 years, and it's frankly one of the weirdest. It could benefit from even just a little SQLite db or something.
Don’t read the book. Listen to it. I got a lot out of listening to a performance of the book, by Irish actors on RTE. It’s a lot more fun than reading the book. There’s a podcast for it:
https://www.rte.ie/culture/2022/0610/1146705-listen-ulysses-...
I have an audiobook read by an Irish narrator and while that's objectively great, the voice acting is top notch... a moderate to heavy Irish accent was rather extra unhelpful in the realm of any of it making sense for more than two minutes at a time.
That's honestly sacrilege unless doing so for accessibility reasons.
You boys and girls are doing an fantastic job. I read alot of the old classics thanks to you.
Me too! I just finished Ivanhoe and was just heading over to Standard Ebooks to find another one.
I have never loathed a book so much. I read every page out of a stubborn refusal to let it beat me, then put it high up on a back shelf so I'd never have to see it again.
It's not that there was nothing of value in it. Sure, there is! It's more that the return on investment just wasn't worth it. My experience was like walking through a desert to find a candy bar. Even if it's a good candy bar, that's way too much of a hassle to go through to get it.
I do hugely appreciate Standard Ebooks, though. Such a wonderful project!
It's not that there was nothing of value in it. Sure, there is! It's more that the return on investment just wasn't worth it. My experience was like walking through a desert to find a candy bar. Even if it's a good candy bar, that's way too much of a hassle to go through to get it.
I do hugely appreciate Standard Ebooks, though. Such a wonderful project!
"Oxen of the Sun" is, in a sense, the apex of English literature to me. The modernists had a knack for essentially believing that if they just tried hard enough and wrote with enough complexity, they could capture essential truths about existence, and this chapter is the height of Joyce's effort in that regard. It is a chapter both about and structured like the birth and evolution of language, incorporating a density of reference and linguistic type that is somewhat absurd in its breadth.
This is all to say that Ulysses is a book written for people who like the idea of a Rube Goldberg machine of literature. I happen to be one of those people, but there are brilliant literary scholars who hate the book.
This is all to say that Ulysses is a book written for people who like the idea of a Rube Goldberg machine of literature. I happen to be one of those people, but there are brilliant literary scholars who hate the book.
Everyone I know who loves it also has a scholarly level of knowledge about fiction so I suspect it has a lot of requisites to fully enjoy, like having to know a lot about american media to enjoy arrested development.
I've been wanting to give it another go since I didn't enjoy or finish it last time, and my favorite book of all time (Wolfes Book of the New Sun) took three false starts to really get into it.
I've harbored a wholly unsupported, yet persistent, notion that no one really likes Ulysses, but that it's become an "emperor has no clothes" situation, where those who decide which books are "great" picked it on a lark, and dared others to say they didn't like it, knowing that none would lest they appear as the rube who couldn't appreciate great literature, resulting in a lineage of thinkers who encountered the beast, read it in horror, then told their colleagues about how much they loved it because obviously it's the brilliantest work of English, all while secretly hoping they weren't grilled too closely about it.
I love Ulysses because of what it says about growing into middle age, facing irresolvable insecurities about yourself, and the solace against these that you can find in friendship—the way you can feel your soul sing when you find someone who wants to understand you. It's a very beautiful and humanistic book. I'm sorry that you weren't able to connect with it.
I confess a little envy of your enjoyment of it. I wanted to like it and wish I could've gotten as much out of it as you did. It just didn't hit for me.
I wish I could find a kinder way to put this but... Don't you think that sounds like something an Ayn Rand villain would do?
Having not read Ulysses, nor having ever moved in the kind of circles where many if any acquaintances had, I can't really vouch for whether it has any specific literary value. Not am I really that interested in finding out for myself, from what I do know of it. But the idea that there's some grand cultural conspiracy behind it sounds just a little bit paranoid.
I don't mean to attack you personally, I don't know you and if I had more time I'd write a more sensitive post. I just wanted to make the Rand connection because I see little mention of her villains when she's brought up, and your post reminded me of them so strongly!
Having not read Ulysses, nor having ever moved in the kind of circles where many if any acquaintances had, I can't really vouch for whether it has any specific literary value. Not am I really that interested in finding out for myself, from what I do know of it. But the idea that there's some grand cultural conspiracy behind it sounds just a little bit paranoid.
I don't mean to attack you personally, I don't know you and if I had more time I'd write a more sensitive post. I just wanted to make the Rand connection because I see little mention of her villains when she's brought up, and your post reminded me of them so strongly!
Hah, I could live with being a Rand villain. I suspect it’d be closer to a David Foster Wallace kind of subplot though.
I don’t actually think that’s what happened. However, if it came out that it did, I wouldn’t be entirely shocked. It’d be less “I knew it!” and more “huh, that explains a lot”.
I don’t actually think that’s what happened. However, if it came out that it did, I wouldn’t be entirely shocked. It’d be less “I knew it!” and more “huh, that explains a lot”.
Fair. People sure can act in that sort of way, for all sorts of reasons. We do what we can to navigate the social world we're part of, and if that means lying about having understood a word of Ulysses, then that's what we'll do!
For me, Joyce is the pinnacle of the English language. I can't say I understand too much of what is happening but noone writes more beautifully. I just love the sound of his words and the images he conjures.
> no one writes more beautifully
Whats this obsession with beauty in language among some English-first speakers? Aren't meaning, insight and import of more consequence than beauty? Every single time I hear someone wax poetic about beauty and elegance in things it immediately sets off my bs meter. If you haven't got much of anything substantive to say, you use flowery artifices to mask it.
Also non-English-first speakers, do you see this to be a very English-thing or is this sort of fixation if not fetish with beauty in language and other things present in your current day language too?
Whats this obsession with beauty in language among some English-first speakers? Aren't meaning, insight and import of more consequence than beauty? Every single time I hear someone wax poetic about beauty and elegance in things it immediately sets off my bs meter. If you haven't got much of anything substantive to say, you use flowery artifices to mask it.
Also non-English-first speakers, do you see this to be a very English-thing or is this sort of fixation if not fetish with beauty in language and other things present in your current day language too?
This is a bizarrely anti-English take. There's appreciation for the beauty of the language for literature/poetry in every language, as far as im aware. Look at Japanese poetry for one obvious example that takes appreciation
of beauty in language to its absolute extremes.
There's an entire genre -- poetry -- dedicated to expressing ideas in the most beautiful and elegant way possible.
I consider flowery artifices to be the opposite.
I consider flowery artifices to be the opposite.
Same thing in all languages I know well enough to read books in.
I can't at all explain how or why it works, but certain kinds of writing style have an almost magical effect on me. This feeling of well-rounded beauty, even when the content is barely relevant, is just amazing. One could maybe describe it as a kind of brain hacking, which is also what drugs do.
I can't at all explain how or why it works, but certain kinds of writing style have an almost magical effect on me. This feeling of well-rounded beauty, even when the content is barely relevant, is just amazing. One could maybe describe it as a kind of brain hacking, which is also what drugs do.
Maybe poetry is just not for you?
That’s completely fine, but hopefully you can take people’s word on that it can be very beautiful to them.
It feels a bit like saying “if you don’t have meaningful lyrics, why even sing a song”: Different people can appreciate different layers of literature differently.
That’s completely fine, but hopefully you can take people’s word on that it can be very beautiful to them.
It feels a bit like saying “if you don’t have meaningful lyrics, why even sing a song”: Different people can appreciate different layers of literature differently.
> Aren't meaning, insight and import of more consequence than beauty?
You are close to setting up a false dichotomy here. It isn’t those qualities or beauty, it’s those qualities and beauty.
I first experienced it when I read Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient. I was able to enjoy the book on the usual axes of plot, character, etc… but there was another level that had me rereading pages because every chapter, paragraph, and sentence felt perfectly constructed. Some of it I read out loud to myself because the rhythm of the words and sounds were musical. It is a great story, beautifully told.
That said, I’m not a fan of Ulysses and I’m sure a lot of people here would call me an uncultured rube for enjoying Odaatje’s writing like I did.
You are close to setting up a false dichotomy here. It isn’t those qualities or beauty, it’s those qualities and beauty.
I first experienced it when I read Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient. I was able to enjoy the book on the usual axes of plot, character, etc… but there was another level that had me rereading pages because every chapter, paragraph, and sentence felt perfectly constructed. Some of it I read out loud to myself because the rhythm of the words and sounds were musical. It is a great story, beautifully told.
That said, I’m not a fan of Ulysses and I’m sure a lot of people here would call me an uncultured rube for enjoying Odaatje’s writing like I did.
This happens in every language. I'm Norwegian, and there's an old Danish translation of Whitman I much prefer over the English original, not for ease of reading (Norwegian and Danish are close to mutually intelligible without much effort) but because the translation is beautiful.
I wish I could remember the edition.
There are books I prefer in one language or other. English tends to feel like it has a "darker" texture to me (no, it makes no logical sense) and so the same book - Lord of the Rings is an example I've read in both English and Norwegian - will hit me very differently emotionally depending on language.
Sometimes I'll read something just for the beauty of it. Other times I just want to get at the ideas.
I wish I could remember the edition.
There are books I prefer in one language or other. English tends to feel like it has a "darker" texture to me (no, it makes no logical sense) and so the same book - Lord of the Rings is an example I've read in both English and Norwegian - will hit me very differently emotionally depending on language.
Sometimes I'll read something just for the beauty of it. Other times I just want to get at the ideas.
For me, reading fiction is all about beauty. I liken it to listening to good music. It isn't really to learn anything "substantive." It is to experience a feeling or be transported to another place. In fact, I like to listen to (typically instrumental) music while I read as a sort of "soundtrack." I would liken reading a good book to watching an epic movie. I guess you might occasionally gain some insight into the human condition, but it isn't primarily an informational medium.
I feel the same way about reading beautiful language that I feel about reading a beautiful mathematical proof. It's not that it doesn't have substance, it's that the substance is put together in such such an elegant way that you don't just marvel at the content but also at its presentation.
It is very different, indeed possibly the opposite of a show off of cleverness. It is beautiful because it feels that it's just the right way to do it.
It is very different, indeed possibly the opposite of a show off of cleverness. It is beautiful because it feels that it's just the right way to do it.
As a writer, I think I can speak to this. I can certainly understand a non-native speakers frustrations with the complexity of english grammar, the enormous number of synonyms and colloquialisms, the variety of 'codes' and kinds of 'jargon' that must make learning and reading English profoundly difficult. Especially where the non-native speaker or reader's mother tongue isn't a romance language. I get that it must make certain forms of English - from the dense AAVE of the wire, to Elizabethan sonnets all but impenetrable.
However, I see this 'pragmatism in all things, including art' perspective quite a bit on hackernews, and rarely enough anywhere else. Most often concerning fiction, but also contemporary and modern art. I'm not sure if it's a neurodiverse perspective, or a philistine one, but I can confirm that it's missing the aesthetic function of art. i.e.: the pleasure many people obtain from creating and experiencing it. There seems to be a frustration that some people who don't or can't engage in producing or enjoying certain kinds of art have - that becomes a denial of the value of the work altogether. 'I don't get it, so there's nothing there to get'.
Specific to Joyce and the modernists is an absolute mastery of the complexity and nuance of a wide breath of kinds of English (and in Joyce's case numerous other European languages). To a native speaker with a strong grasp of language, and a love of words, reading Joyce or TS Elliot, or Yeats etc, is like listening to a complex piece of classical music. The use of reference, of meter, of onomatopoeia, the play with homonyms and antonyms, and at a higher level with the structure of stories and narrative traditions etc - all give the reader pleasure. In the hands of a truly great writer, like those above, they also serve to create layers of meaning in the way a koan or painting can contain complex fractal patterns of meaning. Reading a great writer, working with the nuances of language and narrative can literally lift the reader into a state of heightened consciousness. A place where new realisations about society, the self, the emotional depths and nuances of other people are elucidated in a way that's genuinely mind expanding.
It's absolutely fine if you don't find this in literature - whether in a second language or your own. It's naive to assume that it doesn't exist because you personally can't perceive it. Aptly enough - that's a contradiction many writers have explored. Our tendency to diminish the inner lives of others, or the worth of things we cannot appreciate. One piece that springs to mind is David Foster Wallace's essay 'This is Water' - https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/
However, I see this 'pragmatism in all things, including art' perspective quite a bit on hackernews, and rarely enough anywhere else. Most often concerning fiction, but also contemporary and modern art. I'm not sure if it's a neurodiverse perspective, or a philistine one, but I can confirm that it's missing the aesthetic function of art. i.e.: the pleasure many people obtain from creating and experiencing it. There seems to be a frustration that some people who don't or can't engage in producing or enjoying certain kinds of art have - that becomes a denial of the value of the work altogether. 'I don't get it, so there's nothing there to get'.
Specific to Joyce and the modernists is an absolute mastery of the complexity and nuance of a wide breath of kinds of English (and in Joyce's case numerous other European languages). To a native speaker with a strong grasp of language, and a love of words, reading Joyce or TS Elliot, or Yeats etc, is like listening to a complex piece of classical music. The use of reference, of meter, of onomatopoeia, the play with homonyms and antonyms, and at a higher level with the structure of stories and narrative traditions etc - all give the reader pleasure. In the hands of a truly great writer, like those above, they also serve to create layers of meaning in the way a koan or painting can contain complex fractal patterns of meaning. Reading a great writer, working with the nuances of language and narrative can literally lift the reader into a state of heightened consciousness. A place where new realisations about society, the self, the emotional depths and nuances of other people are elucidated in a way that's genuinely mind expanding.
It's absolutely fine if you don't find this in literature - whether in a second language or your own. It's naive to assume that it doesn't exist because you personally can't perceive it. Aptly enough - that's a contradiction many writers have explored. Our tendency to diminish the inner lives of others, or the worth of things we cannot appreciate. One piece that springs to mind is David Foster Wallace's essay 'This is Water' - https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/
To put it bluntly:
> Different strokes for different folks
Don’t you think you’re exaggerating? I would imagine there are fans of written language in every language. English isn’t special in this context.
> Different strokes for different folks
Don’t you think you’re exaggerating? I would imagine there are fans of written language in every language. English isn’t special in this context.
Not in the least bit.
Far too many of these supposed greats works of literature get an easy pass from uncritical also-rans of the world, who just want to move on in the name of different-strokes-for-different-folks without ever calling out the bs for what it really is. I'm not saying there aren't valid detractors of these works - there are - but far too often they're drowned out.
Far too many of these works hide behind the crutch of 'fiction' to spew utter hogwash without making an ounce of sense to the regular, impartial and non-dyed-in reader.
Far too many of these books - when coupled with a lackadaisical populace in general who are more concerned about seeming non-fussy - get that stellar mythical hallowed status and lore.
I'm not saying that there are not enough people who genuinely get entranced with these works (although if you run that through a fine comb your results may vary) - its that the gatekeepers of education seem to be entirely made up of these uncritical clowns who will nod away in affirmation, decade after decade in cementing the undeserved status of these works.
Far too many of these supposed greats works of literature get an easy pass from uncritical also-rans of the world, who just want to move on in the name of different-strokes-for-different-folks without ever calling out the bs for what it really is. I'm not saying there aren't valid detractors of these works - there are - but far too often they're drowned out.
Far too many of these works hide behind the crutch of 'fiction' to spew utter hogwash without making an ounce of sense to the regular, impartial and non-dyed-in reader.
Far too many of these books - when coupled with a lackadaisical populace in general who are more concerned about seeming non-fussy - get that stellar mythical hallowed status and lore.
I'm not saying that there are not enough people who genuinely get entranced with these works (although if you run that through a fine comb your results may vary) - its that the gatekeepers of education seem to be entirely made up of these uncritical clowns who will nod away in affirmation, decade after decade in cementing the undeserved status of these works.
I agree with your take on the literature. My point wasn’t in response to Ulysses or criticism of it, but of your statement regarding over-obsession with the English language.
I had the exact same experience. Struggled through it, searched hard for the genius that was supposedly exuding from the pages. I didn't see any of it and I don't remember a lick of the story. I was simply bored. Perhaps I'm not intellectual enough to "get it."
Same, same. I'm an avid reader. I don't shy away from complex literature. I also don't take great pleasure from overcomplication.
Computing analogy: It's like seeing that someone wrote "fizzbuzz" using a microservice architecture, quantum computing, multiple LLMs, and some custom hardware. Bravo! Cool that you pulled it off and made this monstrosity! I don't want to use it though, nor do I care to see the details of every bizarre choice, and I'm not impressed at the number of references to COBOL that you shoved into the diode layouts of the CPU you invented for it. I can see why other people would find it fascinating. I am not one of them.
Computing analogy: It's like seeing that someone wrote "fizzbuzz" using a microservice architecture, quantum computing, multiple LLMs, and some custom hardware. Bravo! Cool that you pulled it off and made this monstrosity! I don't want to use it though, nor do I care to see the details of every bizarre choice, and I'm not impressed at the number of references to COBOL that you shoved into the diode layouts of the CPU you invented for it. I can see why other people would find it fascinating. I am not one of them.
As I was reading I felt like my 'visibility' at any given time was only like 1-1.5 pages into the past. Sometimes less.
Meaning the context for what I was reading, my understanding, went back about that far.
So I basically experienced it as "word soup" with some identifiable parts in like the last page, that I could sort-of kind-of divine a narrative from, somewhat.
Meaning the context for what I was reading, my understanding, went back about that far.
So I basically experienced it as "word soup" with some identifiable parts in like the last page, that I could sort-of kind-of divine a narrative from, somewhat.
It’s a good one for ebook. Read it once and never touch it again.
Same. I actually took a course on Ulysses, taught by a guy who's been teaching it for 50 years. So that's about as ideal a reading experience as you can have.
Verdict: meh. Revolutionary for its time, maybe (100 years ago).
Verdict: meh. Revolutionary for its time, maybe (100 years ago).
100 years ago is very recent
“… with a reading ease of 74.9 (fairly easy)“
Fairly easy my foot!
This rating aside, thanks for a great project.
Fairly easy my foot!
This rating aside, thanks for a great project.
Yeah, our reading score isn’t always perfect. I had to fix it for the Mina Loy collection[1] I did as because it’s free-form poetry without many full stops it thought the sentences were so long that it awarded it a negative score.
I’ll look to see if there’s any obvious reason why this is being marked as fairly easy, but it’s probably an issue with the standard algorithm we use more than the code.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/mina-loy/poetry
I’ll look to see if there’s any obvious reason why this is being marked as fairly easy, but it’s probably an issue with the standard algorithm we use more than the code.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/mina-loy/poetry
00.0 must be the output of /dev/random
> This Standard Ebooks edition is based on a transcription of the 1922 Shakespeare and Company first edition, with emendations from pre-1929 errata lists and the second edition in its 1927 ninth printing by Shakespeare and Company. It does not track any one particular edition, but rather is a blend of pre-1929 editions that aims to contain what scholars might consider to be the most accurate version of what was printed before 1929. Therefore, various probable misprints have been retained that may have been corrected in post-1929 editions. Consultation of various editions of the book and the historical collation list appended to Hans Walter Gabler’s Critical and Synoptic Edition is advised before contacting Standard Ebooks about potential mistakes.
As someone who is fascinated with the textual history of Ulysses, this is going to raise some hackles.
As someone who is fascinated with the textual history of Ulysses, this is going to raise some hackles.
Their edition is based on this. That does not mean it is faithful to it. For instance, if they followed their guideline, their edition modernized the text with modern US typography and conventions. See https://standardebooks.org/contribute/producing-an-ebook-ste...
You are correct that we usually do that, however for Ulysses we made an exception and transcribed the print exactly, so there are no changes from the print edition. (Except for whatever pre-1929 corrections we brought in based on our research.)
I listened to an audiobook lecture about Ulysses, and that helped me understand the book better (at least through one professor's own opinions).
It took me six attempts to get through Gravity's Rainbow (and it was worth it). My record is still just about halfway through Ulysses before I put it down for a year or two. Still worthwhile.
It took me six attempts to get through Gravity's Rainbow (and it was worth it). My record is still just about halfway through Ulysses before I put it down for a year or two. Still worthwhile.
Looks very good, although I'm surprised there isn't a page in the book detailing the date of first publication, the name and artist of the cover image, maybe the date the copyright expired, and all that kind of information. (I was particularly surprised by the cover image attribution omission.)
Is this not standard?
Is this not standard?
Happy to find this website, nice to have soo much philosophy in 1 place.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks?page=1&tags%5B0%5D=philoso...
I just hate trying to google search to get an epub.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks?page=1&tags%5B0%5D=philoso...
I just hate trying to google search to get an epub.
I'm a huge fan of Standard Ebooks, but it's pretty funny that twice in both the subject line and in the body of the e-mail they sent out announcing this, they typo-ed "1,000th" as "1,00th", given their whole raison d'etre.
The 'introduction' mentions Hans Walter Gabler’s book 'Critical and Synoptic Edition' (in 3 volumes) that compares all the different editions and notes all the (often small) differences. I feel it typically a book that would be much more worth in digital form. (It would be nice if the author would allow it to be digitized.) If one would have the digital form of all the editions, it would be much easier to compare them. I am aware that this will be an enormous effort.
Another impressive ebook site is Global Grey: https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/
1. I think "fairly easy" badly mischaracterizes its difficulty. 2. I found Harry Blackmire, The New Bloomsday Book: A Guide Through Ulysses, very helpful.
> Standard Ebooks' 1,000th title: Ulysses
On that page I'm not finding that is the 1,000th title, and browsing around the site I can't find a counter either. I trust the OP who choose that title is right, but there is any title counter on the Standard Ebooks website?
On that page I'm not finding that is the 1,000th title, and browsing around the site I can't find a counter either. I trust the OP who choose that title is right, but there is any title counter on the Standard Ebooks website?
There is no counter online, but you can trust me (the S.E. Editor-in-Chief) when I say I used Bash to count them :)
Thank you!
This site works surprisingly poorly in Firefox (Mac). When I click a link, I usually get a blank page along with some CSP errors and have to refresh. No problems in Safari or Chrome.
I use Firefox on Mac and work on the site, and I have to say that I’ve never seen that. Something to do with an extension maybe?
Good call. It turned out to be React Developer Tools causing the issues.
Restart your browser? I use this site frequently in Firefox on macOS and have no issues.
Could they not have waited until 16 June to publish it!
I didn't know about this project but I'm really glad you're doing it.
How do you choose which books to do?
How do you choose which books to do?
Our volunteers pick what books they personally want to work on. Those books have to meet our collections policy criteria: https://standardebooks.org/contribute/collections-policy
[deleted]
"reading ease of 74.9 (fairly easy)"
"O, rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words."
"O, rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words."
Congratulations!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 268,481 words (16 hours 17 minutes) with a reading ease of 74.9 (fairly easy)
It's interesting when China introduced Ulysses years ago, publishers and reviewers often mentioned that how challenging the novel was. Often cited reasons included extensive use of stream of consciousness, long and complicated inner monologue, multiple languages and idioms used, and large vocabulary.
It's interesting when China introduced Ulysses years ago, publishers and reviewers often mentioned that how challenging the novel was. Often cited reasons included extensive use of stream of consciousness, long and complicated inner monologue, multiple languages and idioms used, and large vocabulary.
Well, Joyce did say that it was just a lot of jokes.
=========================
Episode 14 - Oxen Of The Sun
DESHIL HOLLES EAMUS. DESHIL HOLLES EAMUS. DESHIL HOLES Eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening and wombfruit. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening and wombfruit. Send us bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening and wombfruit.
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, hoyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa.
Universally that person's acumen is esteemed very little perceptive concerning whatsoever matters are being held as most profitable by mortals with sapience endowed to be studied who is ignorant of that which the most in doctrine erudite and certainly by reason of that in them high mind's ornament deserving of veneration constantly maintain when by general consent they affirm that other circumstances being equal by no exterior splendour is the .....