« | Home | »

Radio Ulysses

Tags: |

On Saturday, for the 90th anniversary of Bloomsday, Radio 4 broadcast a seven-part ‘dramatisation’ of Ulysses, possible now that copyright in Joyce’s work has lapsed. The broadcasts were slotted into the schedule to coincide with the timing of the novel.

Perhaps to stress the real-time nature of the enterprise, everything was recast in the present tense. There were many other changes to the text, too, some required by the limits of the form, others more arbitrary. At the beginning of each section (which didn’t always correspond to Joyce’s episodes) an announcer set the scene and told us the time of day. For ‘Oxen of the Sun’, in which Joyce describes a birth in forty different pastiches representing the history of English literature, a narrator flagged the literary style that each section was a pastiche of (accompanied by the sound of a clattering typewriter, which drew attention to the ‘authored’ nature of the enterprise).

Several contributors to the discussions which topped and tailed the episodes gleefully admitted to never having read Ulysses, though that didn’t stop them giving their views on it: ‘rather rude’; ‘said aloud it works, it really does’. Lots of people were, unsurprisingly, keen to stress the ‘aural qualities’ of the novel. Niamh Cusak, who read ‘Penelope’, told Clive Anderson it was ‘a book that should be read out loud’. The broadcast left me with the opposite impression. Much of the sense of Ulysses depends on the interplay between sound, sight and meaning – the reader, like ‘Bald deaf Pat’, ‘seehears lipspeech’ – but imagining the sounding out of words isn’t the same as sounding them out.

Things that can be read often can’t be heard, so on the radio it was necessary to identify characters by name throughout. There were plenty of ‘he saids’. Ambiguities of voice and tone were resolved: ‘In a dream, silently, she had come to him’ became ‘and now, in dreams she comes to me.’ I’ve always read Stephen’s teaching manner in ‘Nestor’ as uninterested and disengaged, but on the radio he was sensitive and attentive. His discussion with the headmaster later in the episode was heated; I’ve always read it as at cross-purposes.

In The Mechanic Muse, Hugh Kenner wrote:

Though print is always and everywhere potentially ambiguous, fiction dominated by a narrator contrives to minimise ambiguity to the point of concealment. Joyce, as his work progressed, was at pains to maximise ambiguity, to throw back on us all the implications of the fact that the signs we decipher can be maddeningly mute.

Adapting Ulysses for the radio, where nothing can be mute, undoes all that. As Kenner says:

Joyce’s most radical, for that matter his most un-Irish act, was dispensing with the storyteller. He forces us to confront printed pages, and make what we can of them.

Comments on “Radio Ulysses”

  1. Simon Wood says:

    This is subtle. The radio adaption had a fair measure of the spirit of the book. You learned how dry and subtle Stephen Daedalus is, how loveable and bumbly Bloom is and how listenable to and generous Molly is, in some contrast to some of her in the book, going on as she does.

    I did “Ulysses” twice, once for S Level and once for University. If you’ve read “Ulysses”, examiners think you’re a genius. It is an excellent text for a student to choose.

    Radio 4’s text was technically not “Ulysses”, true, but it was a good advertisement for the book.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement