Glueing, cohesive, bonding, focus, unifying elements:


The Ulysses reader must, first, bear in mind a series of conditions that Joyce imposed and it seems he wanted to omit or be that way. To get acquainted with them, one has to lean on all that and do a careful research for it to make sense. Scholars who have been trying to overcome this obstacle often reveal feelings of the sort which Richard Ellmann points out and I emphasised there in red and I quote here. One of the areas of Ulysses that has often been overlooked, however, is that of the various functions played by the passage of time and awareness of time in the novel. Ellmann just pointed the element of time at various instances of the work, but didn't contribute effectively to what he calls the decipherment of obscurities.

Bottom line is that for Joyce, time wise, there is no past no future; everything flows in an eternal present.
To Jacques Mercanton, on the structure of Ulysses, as quoted in James Joyce: The Critical Heritage (1997) by Robert H. Deming, p. 22

Time is a surprising element not only from the hard core fact that science candidly proposes as possible to travel in time, but that for human beings, time is one of the most mysterious element of our lives. It is worth to take a look on the article about Time concepts applied in Ulysses, specially those concerning the movie "The Vow", which seems tome the best way to face this device, or gimmick, which Joyce presents.

An obvious aspect is that the reader can deduct the time schedule just by reading the scenes, as many or most schollars already pointed out.


There isn't much to discuss, however, this item did not exist in Linatti's scheme and was added when given to Stewart / Gorman. To be honest, the impression I got after digesting tons of information is that Joyce, after feeling the reaction of most people, who at first thought Ulysses incomprehensible, later on, obscene, he must have realized that he had to do something in order the readers to understand that his intentions were serious. What he did was "dressing up" the presentation of Ulysses with these schemes, favoring the linguistic aspect, which is something suited to the taste of intellectuals. The real essence of the work, which is that he created an epic following established eternity molds, I can not quite understand why he try to hide that.


Another aspect to probably "linguistic ornament", which is what is the study element in this regard. Alice Rae and Charles Peake apply seem to agree and it can be also taken for all other chapters. According Peake, the reason there are no organs related to the first three chapters is because it takes place outside the city limits and reports the experience of a lonely young man.


Encyclopaedia Britannica, on Art, at Micropædia explanation level, or "Small Level", says:

Art (ars Latin for technical and / or ability) can be understood as human activity linked to expressions of aesthetic or communicative order, carried out through a variety of languages such as: architecture, sculpture, painting, writing, music, dance and cinema, in its various combinations. The creative process starts from the perception in order to express emotions and ideas, aiming at a unique and different meaning to each work.

In order to work objectively and achieve "Final Interpretant", which will have to be a complete idea, and above all faithful to the exposed by Joyce ideas, even though if he has done it so enigmatically, bordering on the mysterious. Unable to establish precise limits, we will have to make a commitment and draw a line that is impossible to be straight and clear, or rather, which could lead to an accurate and detailed map. What we can do is to know that the earth is round, that there are continents and seas, the land we walk on , we sail at sea and we fçy in the air. In other words, we will have a perfect coordinate system, but with a degree of built-in inaccuracy that was deliberately placed in this world created by Joyce. And deep down, it is his greatest charm ....

And it will not disrupt our objective! As very well has put John Gross, New York Times critic, back in 1954, and I quote:

No one can altogether ignore the elements of myth in "Ulysses," but most ordinary readers, as opposed to professional Joyceans, are probably content to take the book fairly straight, as a slice of life with mythological trimmings. And small wonder if they turn for guidance to what looks like the obvious starting-point, the quasi-official commentary by Stuart Gilbert. Amid the immense literature which has grown up around the novel, Gilbert's exposition stands out as something of an embarrassment. It was supervised as well as authorized by Joyce himself; under the circumstances, even the most dogged opponent of the International Fallacy would surely hesitate to set it aside. Yet what it reveals is uninspiring, and on the whole uninspired: a mechanical master-plan, with each episode allotted its presiding symbols like so many signs of the zodiac, and with the various underlying analogies--Homeric, physiological, et cetera--worked out in minute and often grotesque detail. An indispensable work of reference, perhaps, but also an interpretation of "Ulysses" which many admirers would be only too relieved to dispense with if they could.


The criteria used was to separate into two types: one, technical, under linguistic and other under McLuhan's ideas.