She says James Joyce
has no balls,
but does that make him
any less of a writer???
No!
Indubitably,
categorically,
quantitatively
NOT.
The fact that
the old bugger
couldn't tell
a decent story
to save his sorry life,
now that would seem to be
the crux of the problem,
and not,
most definitely not,
his testicular inadequacies.
Erica Jong
had no balls either
(or so I have been told)
and Norman Mailer
had only one
(where the other one went
nobody knows),
but they could spin
some mighty fine yarns
when the mood struck them
for the pleasure of the masses
and to secure their place
in the pantheon
of literary giants.
To your missing balls,
we sing in praise,
oh illustrious James Joyce!
Balls forever gone,
never to return
in this life,
or in the next.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dude -- that was, like, soooo brutal!
ReplyDeleteI mean, like, me and my old lady had a little dude and a little dudette... Unless, like, my old lady was, you know, getting it on with some other dude.
Jeez, that would be a major bummer.
And, like -- Dude! What's the deal with all the harshing on my writing?
I mean, yeah, Finnegans Wake was waaaayy intense -- but I thought I wrote the stuff in Dubliners pretty good!
And ya gotta admit that "The Dead" was, like, just a totally bitchin' story!
I'm just sayin'...
Later days, Dude.
JJ
She never claimed that J.J. had no balls; only that he sucks balls. This vital distinction has has enormous implications for Joycean exegetical studies.
ReplyDeleteTo derive sustenance from balls is a perfectly acceptable pastime among all Joyceans, but none would ever volunterily be separated from their plums, rocks, bollocks, nuggets, Cracker Jacks, stones, kerbangers, marbles, tenders, cullions, bells, nutsack, bollocks, manjigglies, Man tonsils, Knackers, Cods, love spuds, hanging brain, or however else you would care to refer to the male pelotas.
Do try to be a bit more careful in your choice of any colloquialisms related to highly senstive parts of the male anatomy!