Are you suggesting his near blindness didn't interfere with his work?
P.f

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I 'read' through Finnegan's Wake once in the sense that I let my eyes rest
>successively on each word from page 1 to the end. I didn't of course make
>any sense of it from that cursory a reading. But a few lines here and a few
>lines there reverberated in my mind as I passed through, enough for me to
>take the word of those who have read it carefully and make large claims for
>it. Given that, it is hard to believe that his writing got interfered with
>by anything. It's quite a pile of impressive words.
>
>Carrol
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>Of P
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:39 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: How Eliot saw his letters.
>
>Well Ricard , I think the ducal coronet rests safely on the crown of your
>caput again. Poor old Joyce. He managed to escape Ireland and the Church but
>in the end he couldn't escape himself. I wonder which one of the 3 hindered
>his writing more?
>
>Peter
>
>
>Rickard Parker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:26:22 -0500, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm ignorant of the chronology here. Was this book published before or
>after
>>>it became generally known that Joyce's blindness was caused by syphilis?
>>>
>>>Carrol
>>
>>The book was posthumously published in the US and UK in 1958
>>(with a small 1957 pre-release). I read that it only covered
>>Joyce until he was 21.
>>
>>On Joyce's eye problems -- he had trouble all his life.
>>A simply laid out webpage with a chronology is at
>>   http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/eyesight.html
>>You should be able to read it easily Carrol.
>>
>>There is a PDF file at
>>   http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/200808/200808kaplan.pdf
>>with this:
>>
>>In the convivial, bibulous atmosphere of Dublin, so well
>>portrayed in the drinking scenes in Ulysses, Joyce took to
>>alcohol with enthusiasm. His consorting with prostitutes
>>resulted in several episodes of venereal disease. Joyce
>>always feared syphilis.3
>>
>>...
>>                                       
>>Syphilis - 'the great imitator' - can cause urethritis,
>>iritis, conjunctivitis, arthritis and, occasionally, peptic
>>ulcers. Dr JB Lyons, an authority on Joyce's medical problems,
>>did not believe that he had syphilis.7 Joyce had an episode
>>described as rheumatic fever in Trieste following a night
>>spent in the gutter after drinking. Aching joints were
>>prominent among his litany of complaints. His bent-over
>>posture, said to resemble a question mark, occurs with
>>ankylosing spondylitis. A more likely explanation for
>>Joyce's eye and joint problems is a sero-negative arthritis8
>>such as Reiter syndrome.9
>>
>>...
>>
>>7. Lyons JB. James Joyce's miltonic affliction.
>>Irish J Med Sc 1968;1:157-65.
>>8. Quin D. James Joyce: seronegative arthropathy or syphilis?
>>Journal of the History of Medicine 1991;46:86-8.
>>9. Paton A. James Joyce - a case history. BMJ 1975;636-7.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>>Of Rickard Parker
>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:33 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: How Eliot saw his letters.
>>>
>>>Not about letters but related.  Here is Eliot in his preface to
>>>Stanislaus Joyce's biography of his brother, "My Brother?s
>>>Keeper: James Joyce?s Early Years":
>>>
>>>       Curiosity about the private life of a public man may
>>>    be of three kinds: the useful, the harmless, and the
>>>    impertinent. It is useful, when the subject is a
>>>    statesman, if the study of his private life contributes
>>>    to the understanding of his public actions; it is
>>>    useful, when the subject is a man of letters, if the
>>>    study throws light upon his published works. The line
>>>    between curiosity which is legitimate and that which is
>>>    merely harmless and that which is vulgarly impertinent,
>>>    can never be precisely drawn. In the case of a writer,
>>>    the usefulness of biographical information, for
>>>    increasing and making possible a keener enjoyment or a
>>>    more critical valuation, will vary according to the
>>>    type of which the writer is representative, and the way
>>>    in which he has exploited his own experience in his
>>>    books. It is difficult to believe that greater
>>>    knowledge about the private life of Shakespeare could
>>>    much modify our judgment or enhance our enjoyment of
>>>    his plays; no theory about the origin or mode of
>>>    composition of the Homeric poems could alter our
>>>    appreciation of them as poetry. With a writer like
>>>    Goethe, on the other hand, our interest in the man is
>>>    inseparable from our interest in the work; and we are
>>>    impelled to supplement and correct what he tells us in
>>>    various ways about himself, with information from
>>>    outside sources; the more we know about the man, the
>>>    better, we think, we may come to understand his poetry
>>>    and his prose.
>>>
>>>       In the case of James Joyce we have a series of
>>>    books, two of which at least as so autobiographical
>>>    in appearance that further study of the man and his
>>>    background seems not only suggested by our own
>>>    inquisitiveness, but almost expected by the author
>>>    himself. We want to know who are the originals of his
>>>    characters, and what were the origins of his episodes,
>>>    so that we may unravel the web of memory and invention
>>>    and discover how far and in what ways the crude
>>>    material has been transformed. Our interest extends,
>>>    therefore, inevitably and justifiably, to Joyce?s
>>>    family, to his friends, to every detail of the
>>>    topography and life of Dublin, the Dublin of his
>>>    childhood, adolescence and young manhood.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>    Rick Parker