A thought on Ulysses

I've never considered myself particularly good at English criticism, but since I took that Ulysses course somehow I feel the right to an opinion. Usually the source of immunity to denunciations of my analyses is to avoid symbolism. Not that I like symbolism much anyway. So consider the following and tell me if it's incisive or way off.

In the Ithaca episode, Stephen and Bloom follow parallel courses for the first half, then, at a climax, Stephen escapes to the night. Bloom's story continues for an equal amount of time, gradually fading into nothing. Into sleep. This arc of events actually mirrors a man's life as a whole, which is particularly apparent since the whole of Ulysses exposes the life of two men, one at the apex of action, and one fading into routine. Stephen, in his twenties, is constantly moving, creating, and experiencing. Bloom, in his forties, only notices the slighest of niceties in his life, and his greatest excitement is this young man, Stephen. The very layout of this chapter is precisely this arc: the first half exciting, and coming to a climax, the second half slowly and comfortably getting ready for bed.

All the same

I have a question. Is the apparent abundance of inconsistencies and contradictions that I face limited just to me? Or does everyone feel this way? Let me just list them, and we can decide if anyone else thinks this way.

First of all, I've been extremely depressed over what I call the end of Europe. This stems mainly from this article, but also from a number of commentaries I've heard on NPR. The simplest synopsis is that in two generations, native Europeans will be virtually wiped out, to be replaced mainly by Muslim immigrants who may or may not espouse the liberal tradition. If they don't, we face a much different future than most of us realize. I've heard that in one hundred years, a Europe under Muslim fundamentalist rule would be a threat far greater than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Pretty quick synopsis, so don't take it as news. You may see why this stuff would come up in the news, though. And I consider it pivotal. The thing is that, from what I've observed, most people don't think about this, or haven't noticed it, or anything.

Next point-- I've heard for years that Americans, in general, were fat and unattractive. Now I know why-- it's the cars. There certainly exists a solid minority to whom this does not apply, but the fact of the matter is that if you walk all day, you'll be skinny and attractive. All these years people have made me feel bad about this, but now, it's once again: did anybody notice?

So that brings me to this point: I really want to live without a car. Forever. And in America there are only a few places one can do this without being a tool. They are, so I've gathered, New York, Boston, Chicago, and possibly Washington, D.C. There are a few other places, but they are less major.

Then there's also Montreal, and there's also Europe. But remember what I said about Europe? What a tragedy. It's as if there is only one option left for me (New York), which is the one I'm taking anyway, but the city is tough sometimes, and unforgiving. Also, thinking about living there (and not living anywhere else, per se) really doesn't suffice for the moment.

There's one other point, and this one is up for the most debate. Does anyone consider who is watching them or who isn't watching them as much as I do? All the philosophy I've read has had this as its central issue, but never admitted it! Nietzsche was a lonely, lonely man, and he had to be. Sartre-- I think he chose to be alone. Me, I prefer it, but only when I choose it. And that's way too simple.