When is a typo not a typo? In the wor(l)d of Ulysses

Thus the unfacts, did we possess them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude —James Joyce, Finnegans Wake

As a copy-editor I try to abide by the typographic oath: First, do no harm. When you’re making changes to a writer’s text, whatever you do, don’t introduce an error. But at the risk of undermining that solid principle, there is an occasional exception.

Enter James Joyce.

Cover of OUP edition of "Ulysses", the 1922 text, with cover illustration by Richard Hamilton featuring black and white figures in quasi-Cubist styleThe length and complexity of Ulysses, and the difficulties of its publication, mean that many subtly different versions of the text exist. The first legal edition in the US, which became its standard edition for decades, was based on a pirated copy, for example.

Typographical errors arose inevitably from multiple sources; complicating things further is the fact that some ‘errors’ were deliberate but wrongly ‘corrected’ by printers or editors. And then there were all those rewrites and updates by the author while the thing was being serialised. And afterwards. Brenda Maddox, in Nora, notes that Joyce wrote ‘as much as one third of the final text of Ulysses in the form of corrections or additions in the margins of the proof sheets’.

So there is no ideal, ‘master’ text; in fact Joyce scholars fight over the best way to decide what this even means.

Oxford University Press’s 1990s reprint of the 1922 text of Ulysses, edited, introduced, and supplemented by Jeri Johnson, is a fine edition for anyone interested not only in Joyce’s mighty novel but in its fraught publication history. Appendixes and explanatory notes, ample without being overwhelming, supplement the work to great effect.

Johnson’s essay ‘Composition and Publication History’ nicely sketches the debate over authenticity and concludes that the 1922 text, though ‘botched’ and ‘error-ridden’, with over 2000 mistakes, ‘is also the least faulty’. Her introduction zeroes in on a couple of errors (and ‘errors’) to show how intricate the problem was for both Ulysses and the idea of error itself.

Leopold Bloom (Ulysses’ protagonist) reads a list, in the newspaper, of attendees to a funeral and sees his name misprinted as L. Boom – the initial L, contrasted with the forenames of others listed, underscoring its absence from the surname. Bloom is ‘nettled not a little’ by this ‘graphic lie’, this ‘bitched type’, but amused by other ‘nonsensical howlers’ in the newspaper’s account, such as its inclusion of Stephen Dedalus, who was not present at the funeral.

But the original French edition of Ulysses, Johnson notes,

mistakenly ‘corrected’ the fictive Dublin typesetter’s mis-set ‘L. Boom’, just as they mistakenly deleted the mistakenly reported ‘Stephen Dedalus’. Joyce correctly reinstated these errors in the Errata lists.

She goes on:

When earlier in the day, Bloom (this time in the guise, not of L. Boom, but of Henry Flower) reads Martha Clifford’s billet-doux, he encounters more ‘bitched type’: ‘I called you naughty boy because I do not like that other world. … So now you know what I will do to you, you naughty boy, if you do not wrote’. Her substitution of ‘world’ for ‘word’ teases the imagination: we notice, perhaps for the first time, that ‘world’ contains ‘word’ (plus a floating ‘l’ – the one gone missing from ‘Boom’?), the two being inextricably joined in this book.

Close-up of James Joyce, facing right, in hat and glassesOne of the chief ways world and word are joined, albeit by contrast, is through the novel’s two main characters, Bloom and Dedalus. Dedalus is a self-styled philosopher preoccupied by academic and metaphysical matters; he ‘transforms the material world around him through mental acts of speculation’, Johnson writes. For him, matter is fuel for mind: he seeks to ‘control the unruly material world through the distantiating transformative power of language’.

Bloom is more grounded in sensation and material stimuli; he ‘prefers the realized “here and now”.’ He enters the text eating giblets ‘with relish’, and his thoughts keep returning to bodily impulse and physical activity – his own and that of the world around him. When Bloom is to the fore we see what Johnson describes as a ‘somatizing of the text’:

There Stephen’s penchant for metaphor urged narrative transformation of mundane objects into symbols, here Bloom’s solid pragmatic presence seems to cause every attempt at metaphor to founder on mundane physicality: ‘Mr Leopold Bloom ate with relish’ (that ‘relish’ is as much ‘condiment’ as ‘gusto’).

So the use of world for word in Martha Clifford’s love letter to Bloom is no mere slip of the pen in a text-within-a-text (in a character’s mind in our mind): it’s virtually a hologram of one of the book’s major themes. Johnson continues:

Her second mistyping, ‘if you do not wrote’, floats into Bloom’s mind a paragraph later: ‘I wonder did she wrote it’. The odd thing about this mistake is that Joyce the author wrote ‘write’. It was either the typist or the typesetter who ‘wrote’ ‘wrote’. Joyce did not notice it until several proofs of this episode had been pulled and had repeatedly repeated ‘wrote’. When he did notice it, Joyce the writer wrote Bloom’s ‘I wonder did she wrote it’, thus opening wide his authorial arms to embrace the typesetter’s mistake. As Stephen Dedalus says later: ‘A man of genius makes no mistakes. His errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery’.* Errors, it seems, are volitional even when made by someone else.

Johnson reflects on the trust and scepticism the reader feels towards the text of Ulysses:

We trust, that is, that despite their erroneous status ‘L. Boom’, ‘world’, and ‘wrote’ communicate meanings that lie outside the scope of narrow rectitude. Ulysses repeatedly reminds us that certitude aligns itself with bigotry, racial hatred, blind nationalism, egotism, violence. … Joyce’s alternative authority is one which recognizes the inevitability of error, exercises a healthy scepticism, and yet happily embraces the new world occasioned by the fall, the lapses.

One of the things Ulysses does best is to dissolve boundaries by the dozen: between fact and fiction, ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture, art and criticism, symbol and thing-in-itself. By accepting error as part of a new and deliberate reality, Joyce eagerly, playfully, adds to that list.

[Further reading: posts about, or featuring, James Joyce]

*

* In a final edit of this post, I noticed I had typed Her errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.

Advertisements

16 Responses to When is a typo not a typo? In the wor(l)d of Ulysses

  1. astraya says:

    I have just finished re-reading Nicholas Ostler’s ‘Empires of the Word’. When I first read a reference to it online, it took me a moment to realise that it was about languages and not purely about history (that is, ‘Empires of the World).

    (When I typed the title of the book in the first sentence), I typed ‘World’ instead of ‘Word’.)

  2. astraya says:

    Looking at the book again, I saw that the full title is ‘Empires of the Word: A language history of the world’. It’s actually about the languages of the empires of the world.

    • Stan Carey says:

      Ostler’s book has been on my to-read list for a while, and more than once I’ve had to double-check whether the title contained Word or World. If you re-read it I’m guessing you enjoyed it?

      • astraya says:

        Ummm, no, actually – my fault, not his. I think I was expecting a more balanced overview of world languages, but he focuses on about 20 ‘big’ languages through history, from Sumerian to modern-day English (two from central/south American, one from sub-Saharan Africa, and none from North America or Australasia). My interest in Ancient Egyptian, to chose just one, ran out before his chapter did.

        When I said ‘re-reading’, I should have said ‘desultorily flipping through to see if I can glean something the second time before I sell/donate/throw away’.

  3. Goatllama says:

    “Errors are… the portals of discovery.” This sentiment resonates quite strongly with me. It encourages one to be bold in creative situations, and not so worried about the possibility of mistake. Very freeing.

    • Stan Carey says:

      Yes, it’s a reassuring idea (though it may also invite indulgence). Anaïs Nin said something similar: “You have a right to experiment with your life. You will make mistakes. And they are right too.”

      In an earlier post on a particularly stealthy typo, I wrote that errors, when caught, “allow us a useful glimpse of the strange machinery within”. The same can be said of all kinds of error.

  4. galtz says:

    Thanks, Stan.

  5. Andrew says:

    I’m a professional copy editor, and each time I read Ulysses (approx eight times now) it puts me in a happy trance. Thanks for giving me a fresh taste of that happy trance. Do I have time for another reading before Bloomsday?

    • Stan Carey says:

      My pleasure. It’s a tight deadline, but it’s at least theoretically possible. I know someone who read it in 24 hours, adhering (more or less) to the book’s own chronology.

  6. […] book, for all sorts of reasons. O that basis, I suspect it is perfectly reasonable to have some unusual typo stories about […]

  7. […] writing about typos in Ulysses triggered it, but I finally took Brenda Maddox’s book Nora: A Biography of Nora Joyce off the shelf […]

  8. humphreyking says:

    Ezra Pound: “I don’t care a damn about the metaphysics and the correspondences and the allegorical and the anagogical and the scatological parallels of his [James Joyce’s] opus [Ulysses]. I don’t care whether you spell it ‘omisias’ or ‘omoousias’ or however thehellzbellz you do spell it or whether the father came out of the egg of the second emanation of the egg of the third emanation. Has not the author himself complained in my hearing that at least someone might have said they enjoyed the book and thought it ‘so goddammed funny’?”

  9. maceochi says:

    I’ve been wondering for years whether the way in which streets were capitalised in that 1922 text (‘Eccles street’, etc.) was because it was printed in Paris and French does not capitalise ‘rue’. I thought I read that somewhere years ago but I could be making it up. It is more than a few lower-case ‘streets’; all road type labels (there should be a word for that) are consistently lower-case. Thoughts?

    • Stan Carey says:

      I can’t remember if I’ve read something about that. Joyce himself would have insisted on the chosen style, so the European influence, if such it is, was on him and not the printers, in this case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s