Blamires' "The New Bloomsday Book" is an incredible scholarly achievement. Line by line he gives us all the background needed to understand the context and direction of Ulysses. With detailed references he also provides all the information necessary to delve even deeper into Ulysses. Blamires' work is both accessible to the reader and invaluable for any further study of Ulysses.

A question that did come to mind in reading Blamires was what is the distinction (if any) between providing information/context on a work and interpreting a work. Blamires does both.

In all honesty, I lack the expertise, intellect, and/or credentials to credibly challenge Blamires' interpretations of Ulysses. Yet, I do begin to chafe when Blamires begins to "interpret" and provide the "meaning" of sections. One could say, reasonably, that if I don't want interpretation, don’t read a "guide". I accept that charge.

However, that does leave me with another question. What is the validity of "interpreting" works of fiction? And, is a novel meant to be decoded or simply experienced? Is the author simply dressing up for show her/his theories and/or perspectives in the wardrobe of elaborate prose and plotting? Or, could it be that the author actually intends the ambiguity produced in their work as it reflects the ambiguity of life/experience? Do we do a disservice to the author and the work when we provide exegesis? Do we create the illusion of orthodox and heterodox interpretations of a work?

I lean to the position of experiencing the work. But I also realize that my extremely meager formal education in literature probably both supports and requires that position. ( )

One of the best of its kind. ( )

This was pretty helpful as a companion to _Ulysses_. It definitely cleared up things I didn't even realize happened. I don't always agree with his interpretations, but they were still interesting. ( )

Waste of time, even a cursory glance at Ulysses using your own res cogitans will give you the same insights this gives. Additionally it loves telling you things that happen 200 pages later making sure you get no satisfaction discovering anything yourself. This book carries the well worn trope of 'It's ok for a Jew to insult a black man for any derogitory reason but if Jews are genuinely critisised for doing anything at all, your brushed off with the misnomer anti-semitic. A plus for Blamires is that he doesn't descend into analysing things that aren't there and sticks fairly well to the text, but as I've already noted you will find reading Ulysses yourself will substitute for reading Blamires book. Life is short and you have only a limited amount of books you can read, don't make Ulysees or Blamires book two of them. ( )

A stupid book and totally unnecessary to reading Ulysses.
It transpires that Blamires is a priest, which doesn't disqualify him,
except that he seems to find religious reasons for a lot of Joyce's stuff, which is totally silly. ( )