Any James Joyce fans? A question of sorts.

sloegin

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 18, 2003
Messages
71
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around his "lyric, epic, and dramatic" as literature's forms. I would consider them to be techniques, rather than form as a whole. Any thoughts or explanations?
 

Patrick Hayes

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Messages
146
Location
Charlotte NC
The Lyric, Epic, Dramatic as forms comes from Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man , This work is largely seen as a auto-biography of sorts. In it Joyce deals with evolution of the artist. The artist goes through three phases of work before reaching maturity as a artist. These phases are primarily determined by the artist's or author's emotional distance and involvement in the work.The below quote from the protagonist Stephen Daedalus of Portrait explains them fairly well.

"The lyrical form is in fact the simplest verbal vesture of an instant of emotion, a rythmical cry such as ages ago cheered on the man who pulled at the oar or dragged stones up a slope. He who utters it is more conscious of the instant of emotion than of himself as feeling emotion. The simplest epical form is seen emerging out of lyrical literature when the artist prolongs and broods upon himself as the centre of an epical event and this form progresses till the centre of emotional gravity is equidistant from the artist himself and from others. The narrative is no longer purely personal. The personality of the artist passes into the narration itself, flowing round and round the persons and the action like a vital sea.... The dramatic form is reached when the vitality which has flowed and eddied round each person fills every person with such vital force that he or she assumes a proper and intangible esthetic life. The personality of the artist, at first a cry or a cadence or a mood and then a fluid and lambent narrative, finally refines itself out of existence, impersonalises itself, so to speak."

This three phase model is often considered outmoded by modern critics and artists. Our art world has become very concerned with and enamored of the personal. How the artists feels and their intent. We speak of the ownership of experience and many feel that only the people directly connected with an experience are qualified to address it. It is often expected that the artist place them self on the page canvas or film. Few modern artist ever advance beyond this to where the art takes on a life of it's own and can speak for it's self. Under these conditions it is easy to understand how a model where the highest level is when the artist is "invisible" would fall out of favor.
Another difficulty with this is model is that you can not set out to write your Epic and then decide your next book will be your Dramatic work. Any author that tries this will end up leaving to much of them self to qualify for the form they seek. It is a model that can only be seen in retrospect by looking back over a artists body of work. Then you can see that this is where the books took over and the writer is telling the characters story not his own or having them act out his agenda. Thus the argument that these are not techniques because they can not be applied.. I would also argue against the use of the term Forms as well. I feel that as Joyce intended them they are best viewed as phases or periods in an artist's life.

Patrick
 

sloegin

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 18, 2003
Messages
71
Thank you for the replies.

I can see a artist's work as a whole put into those categories. Phases, makes sense.

The technique comment comes from me taking a part away from the whole and letting it stand by its self--chapter 14, of "Ulysses" struck me as an epic; chapter 18, struck me as lyrical; chapter 10, dramatic--as a whole it is dramatic.
 

Latest posts

Top