Talk:James Joyce/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General commentary

A few suggestions for the opening paras:

A "featured" article should probably avoid phrases like "Due to this" which do not make clear what "this" refers to. It might be wise, too, to avoid sentences such as "Joyce was attacked by a dog, which added them to his lifelong fear of thunderstorms".

"Et Tu, Healy" usually comes with a comma and it is unusual to italicize the titles of individual poems. John Joyce remembered sending the poem to the Pope, not the Vatican Library.

"John Joyce" or "John" in three consecutive sentences seems clumsy.

Stubbs' Gazette normally has an apostrophe and is probably better Stubbs' Weekly Gazette. Again the "due to" ["This was the beginning of a slide into poverty for the family, mainly due to John's drinking and general financial mismanagement"] is probably ill advised.

As Joyce went to kindergarten, it seems imprecise to say he was "initially educated" only at Clongowes.

Joyce was withdrawn from Clongowes in 1891, not 1892. It would be interesting to know the evidence for the "hope that he would prove to have a vocation" apart from general Jesuitical longing in this direction.

If UC is listed as UCD, then Trinity should probably be TCD. [The article on UCD gives the form as UC, D; unfortunately, it suggests that the University was founded in 1908, but that's another matter.] "Off-limits to Catholics" seems imprecise, particularly as Trinity did accept Catholics. A little more explanation would clarify.

His celebrated article on Ibsen was I think [and Ellman confirms] a review of When We Dead Awaken and entitled "Ibsen's New Drama".

He both graduated from UCD and left (the first time) for Paris in 1902 not 1903. He returned once well before his mother fell ill.

In the subsection on Ulysses, Joyce's complaint that he had oversystemized his work is elaborated upon by saying that Joyce eliminated the chapter titles "that had been taken from Homer." Forgive me if I am wrong, but the concept that the titles were actually Homeric appears to be incorrect. In so far as I learned at Reed College, "Homer" did not personally divide his/their work into Books; this division is thought to have been imposed during subsequent redaction by the limited maximum size of scrolls. As such, the phrase perhaps ought to be reworked--except that Joyce, writing in the early Twentieth Century, might not have himself known the distinction.

--It's not that Homer titled the books of the Odyssey (or the Iliad)--you're right they were probably split into books later. The issue is that Joyce provided a scheme (actually 2, if I remember correctly) by which the chapters of Ulysses are commonly given names taken from characters and events in Homer, such that one chapter is called Penelope and another is Scylla and Charibdis (sp?). These are simply loose, thematic connections between the works, and not meant to be a 1-to-1 correlation between Joyce's chapters and Homer's books.

While in a certain sense true, it seems somehow deeply wrong to say that everything, or indeed anything Joyce wrote deals "exlusively with Irish topics."

"Exclusively" could be disproven with a single example. Do we really want to dare the reader to find an counterexample? Koyaanis Qatsi

The image looks like a painting; can we get an attribution for the artist? --Delirium 07:16 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I assume you mean the picture at the top of the article - it's not a painting, it's a photograph. The same picture appears on the cover of my edition of The Portable James Joyce from Penguin Books; the only attribution there is "Cover photo courtesy of The Bettmann Archive". - Dharmabum420 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

How about Joyce as a character in fiction? (snip! In A Moveable Feast for example - there's no mention of friendship with Hemingway in the article either.) And also how James Thurber ended up resembling him? - Sparky 04:18, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree?

Joyce also features heavily in Flann O'Brien's later work.

• Joyce picture
• Another Joyce picture

compared

• Thurber
• a Thurber picture
• another Thurber picture

For the phrase where it mentions the ranking of his other two novels (not Ulysses), there's no specification on which is #3 and which is #77. While I may just be missing the implied "respectively," it would be good to clarify this.

I've done the clarification as suggested above; I couldn't see the purpose of splitting his works into two lists (good and bad ones?- POV), especially since there aren't that many. So I've been bold and amalgamated them. Markalexander100 09:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi

I think this article needs a lot of work. Like him or not, Joyce was one of the key figures in 20th C. literature. At the very least we need a more detailed biography and discussion of his significance/influence. Any takers? I'll do what I can over the coming weeks. Bmills 13:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have seen a page of Joyce's notes on display in the British Library - the most amazing chaotic jumble of text. Think they were for one of: Dubliners; Portrait or FW (think FW off the top of my head). Almost certain there'll be a scan or similar online. Worth hunting down, clearing for copyright issues and adding to this article? Felt it really gave an insight into the character of the man.

This isn't it but it gives you an idea of what it looks like!

I found two pages with notes from Joyce:

• Notes from Joyce, handwritten
• Notes on manuscript

Both from: Weblog on Joyce

I don't know about copyright issues.

--Maarten van Vliet 09:50, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking, that to say that "Joyce's universe is firmly rooted in Dublin" is akin to saying that "Shakespeare's universe is firmly rooted in England." Its a bit underwhelming. --McDogm 03:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare's plays take place in England, Scotland, Italy, Egypt, random islands, and the coast of Bohemia. Joyce's works take place in Dublin. --24.131.209.132 04:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget Joyce placed Dublin's people IN THE WORLD as nobody else. He also sets his work iside heads.

One of the main problems with analysing Joyce is that his Ireland had vanished by the time Ulysses was published in 1922.... Since that time everything Irish has been IRISH--everything being viewed through a narrow Irish nationalism... everything else excluded totally... this is always the tradgedy that follows a nations INDEPENDENCE... Someone writes "Joyces universe is rooted on his Dublin experiences"...well thats normal ...all writers use their upbringing as material...another"Irish experiences are essential to his writing"... now lets be a little careful here...What Dublin.. What Ireland ...is he talking about??? The answer ...whether one likes it or not is the enormously richly charactered free speaking ,free thinking --and proud -colonial capital of British Ireland, a close linked part of the great British Empire and pictured here at almost the peak of that empires wealth and power...these "Irishmen " were full not only of their "Irishness" but of the fact that they were in fact members of the British Empire they were proud of their Irish troops that guarded that empire --of their great literary heroes fame in London---at that time from 1904 to 1922 George Bernard Shaw was one of the the most famous names in the world....the world of Ulysses dazzles with its cosmopolitanism its European love of Italian and German opera...in the entire book there is not a mention of the endlessly promoted "Irish" folk music that is all the world hears about today...Ulysses is many things but essentially a poem or hymmn first to the great and glorious English language..indeed Ulysses is a kind of test flight for English with Joyce stretching it to its maximum and also a hymnn to the British Empire in all its rich glory...whether one likes it or not. It is interesting that Joyce ends the main book with a large black full stop...as if after this the English language had no where further to go... and also that with the arrival of the Irish Free State..with its sad decline into a semi fascistic Mussolini Franco Hitler sympathising closed inward looking and screwed up society the real days of Irish greatness were over... There is however even more to be said because in fact the Irish /Dublin location is surely not as absolutely rigid as all that... In fact the richness of atmospere language and passion ..both for the British and against them for nationalism etc,could be mirrored in many cities of the empire..in Sydney Melbourne Bombay Port Said Singapore etc... I do not think this is pushing things too far... It is interesting that Joyce always pointedly travelled on his British passport as if refusing any connection with the new Ireland.. By reading the book in this way it can be seen as a great realistic historical novel --it becomes even more rich rewarding and remarkable... Although everything in wikepedia is freely copyiable-- if academics wish to pursue these ideas perhaps they might mention their origins... Jon Peters,truthlord..

What are you trying to say? That Joyce was a Unionist or British Imperialist? Is there anything specific about the article you wish to change/discuss? Remember that this talk page is for discussion on developing an encyclopaedic article on James Joyce, not for general discussion of the man and his works - there are plenty of other sites dedicated to that. --Ryano 20:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Really Ryano, to read my comment and immediately throw out those grotesquely strong and emotional words..that I suggest Joyce was a UNIONIST (Ive put that in capitals for a reason) or a British Imperialist shows the extraordinary tensions that swirl around a writer long dead...I am sure Joyce felt that the only people who could really speak or write English were the Irish (with Wilde Yeats and Shaw he was on pretty good ground there)--he was probably bemused by English woodeness and control ..He certainly wanted to see the Irish language revised--had this happened it would have given Irish writers a kind of power.."I am CHOOSING to write in English..I dont HAVE TO.." He would have known all about British Imperialism but there are several kinds of other Imperialisms... would he have preferred Prussian Russian French Spanish Japanese...here we have the usual problem of the symplistic hate the Brits school...there really were other political systems in the world ..life is always a way of choosing the lesser of evils...regarding independence..... by 1904 Canada had achieved considerable independence from Britain without breaking all ties.. I think that Joyce would have looked for such solutions rather than the decision of 1921.. Lloyd Georges decision is alwayslooked at from the Irish angle never it seems to me(I know little about all this incidentally) from the ruthless brutal British position which was essentially.. "Russia is now firmly communist ..our attempt with the French and Americans to bring the regime down has failed..we are getting out of Russia..Hungary has just been communist..Germany is on the brink of going communist..Mussolini originally a communist is taking over Italy..Britain has suffered terribly in the war..the workers are probably ready to go to the barricades at the drop of a hat..the last thing we want is an unstable Ireland..give me Collins number quick..we have other things to think about" I therefore think that Joyce particulaly in view of his attitudes to catholicism would have wanted to preserve a British connection of some kind rather than see Ireland become a Catholic fiefdom..but I am no expert on these matters..he would certainly never have been a political Unionist in the N.I.manner.. Regarding your technical comments.. I am new to wikipedia and realise I may well be writing in the wrong place-I am sorry about this.. could you give me some help as to how I move my comments and what sites I move them too ..thanks in advance--Jon Peters truthlord

Sorry Jon, I didn't wish to be emotive or inflammatory, I was just trying (rather crudely) to draw some specifics from your contribution. As I said above, this talk page is about James Joyce the Wikipedia article rather than James Joyce the man or James Joyce the author. I think your comments are interesting and I don't think you need to move them anywhere, but I hope you understand my point. As to general Wikipedia policy, the following articles would make good reading: WP:FAQ, WP:NOT, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Welcome to Wikipedia, you might also wish to create an account and sign in, as this makes it easier to interact with other editors. --Ryano 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A large part of what Ryano is trying to say is that you're discussing possible motivation behind Joyce's writing, and what his attitudes towards the British or Irish Home Rule may have been. It's all interpretive (WP:NOR) and contentious (WP:NPOV) and belongs on message boards discussing Joyce, which you could find with a Google search. A Wikipedia talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article itself, not for discussion of the article's subject. - dharmabum 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody put titles on this General Comments Section. Its a travesty. Lovely comments though.

Born 2 February 1882 Rathgar (near Dublin), Ireland

Can this be changed to Rathgar,Dublin please. --132.185.240.122 06:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Jon Truthlord I think that is pure comedic genius you obviously have no grasp of Irish history or indeed the work of Joyce priceless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.245.244 (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"On reading Finnegans Wake"

I have a problem with this section; is it really appropriate to provide advice how to read a book in a biography page on the author? Moreover, the text of the section is markedly different from the rest of the article, particularly in its use of indefinite "you". Does anyone else feel this section should be removed, or at least moved to Finnegans Wake? Adso de Fimnu 03:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Seconding removal of the subsection, or at least moving it to Finnegans Wake. It totally breaks the flow of the rest of the section and isn't written in an encyclopaedic style. --Jacj 06:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thirding removal of this section. Section removed. --Simoes 01:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Adso de Fimnu 02:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrote it in a day?

Is this tidbit in the Early Life and Writings section true? "The following January he wrote A Portrait of the Artist, an essay-story dealing with aesthetics, in a day, only to have it rejected from the free-thinking magazine Dana." Emphasis added. 68.12.183.137 02:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, according to Ellmann's biography, it is true. He wrote it on January 7, 1904. Ellmann describes it as "an autobiographical story mixing admiration for himself with irony," part essay and part story. It was later to morph into Stephen Hero, then still later into A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, over the next 10 years. Ellmann doesn't mention how long it is, but the description of it indicates only a few pages. Dharmabum420 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what the first poster was getting at... people often say "Portrait of the Artist" to mean "(...as a Young Man)" and the wording makes it seem like he wrote the novel in one day. --24.131.209.132 00:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Joyce's two fears

Quote from the article: "Joyce had two great fears: he was deathly afraid of dogs as well as being terrified of thunder and lightning." This has been in the article at least since 12 December 2005. It is currently stuck in between the paragraph on his entrance to literature and the one about his education, and I'm wondering if that should be where it best fits. In my opinion, it doesn't really fit with the flow of the article at this point, yet I'm unsure as to where it should go or if it should even be included. Does the knowledge of these two great fears add enough to the reader's understanding of James Joyce to warrant inclusion in the article? --Ash211 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they don't really fit where they are. It is worth noting that these fears were crippling fears, and often affected his life profoundly (he would turn into a trembling wreck during storms, weather reports often influenced his travel schedules, and he was attacked by dogs on several occassions). Stephen is also afraid of dogs, and his fear of thunder was used prominently in the 100-letter "thunderwords" of Finnegans Wake. That's why I've never taken it out, but it definitely feels awkward where it is. - Dharmabum420 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dogs + thunder + lightning = 3 fears. Unless the dogs and thunder count as one. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, peebles; we can't all count to three. ;) More seriously, though, the article currently reads thunderstorms and dogs so two is probably okay. --Matthew K (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A fine point

Mr. Joyce was born in Rathgar. Does this count in making him a genuine "Native of Dublin"? AnnH: can you make the call? -- Mosa123ic 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Even in Joyce's day Rathgar was a suburb of Dublin, I don't see any problem with terming hime a Dublin native. In any case he lived in several other Dublin neighbourhoods throughout his early life. --Ryano 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rathgar is not only part of county Dublin, it is part of Dublin City. Pleidhce (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Where's the picture of Joyce? Can anybody put a legal picture of him on top of the page? Gero

The last one was removed for copyvio. Jwy has put up a picture of his statue in Dublin for the time being. I've been searching for a fair-use portrait for some time with no luck. I've always liked the picture of him from about 1904; while the image is probably copyrighted, I wonder if using a picture of the Penguin edition book cover such as this one could be fair-use? - dharmabum 20:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a low-rez version of that 1904 pic by Curran, the statue pic is hardly adequate. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Great; I hope it passes review. I've grown exceedingly weary of how hard it seems to be to get a simple, low-res, widely available picture illustrating the subject of an article past the copyright fanatics, on this and many other pages. - dharmabum 08:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1920-1941: Paris and Zurich

This paragraph feels (reads) a little jumbled and haphazard. These 21 years could be stretched, or just tidied. If I had time, I would do so right now. But, thoughts or suggestions are pertinent at the moment. Jimcripps 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly brief. :) The current text is the result of emergency surgery a little while ago, when it turned out that some of the information there was plain wrong. I'd suggest a thorough going-over. Henry^Flower 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quarks

The article mentions that (according to a Mr Gleick) the derivation of quark from FW is to be doubted because "physicists have pronounced quark to rhyme with cork and not with Mark". I'd heard more or less the opposite version: that the particle is generally pronounced to rhyme with Mark, but that the quarks in the book rhyme with cork (since JJ derived the word from 'quart'). So my question is, are we sure we have Gleick's argument the right way round? Henry^Flower 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found the source (it's p. 390). Just one parenthetical sentence, so hardly worth the exposition it was given here. Henry^Flower 11:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet?

Isn't it fair to also acknowledge the novels debt to Hamlet as well as Homer? --24.131.209.132 04:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of James Joyce

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to james joyce font

• I'm new to Wiki, so I apologize if I break any ettiquette rules here -

I saw a couple of things on this discussion page regarding Joyce's handwritten documents. I have created a true type font of his handwritting using scans of manuscripts from biographies and the like. I think it might be neat to add to the Joyce links at the bottom of his page. If an experienced Wiki-user thanks it's worthwhile, here's the link: http://www.iwritegood.com/jamesjoycefont.asp thanks for your time. 66.195.56.171 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)mrcjrenner@gmail.com

I think it's great, and I've added the link.--Quywompka 09:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Postmodernism

Joyce is mentioned quite prominently in Postmodern literature and the Legacy includes references to both Derrida and Lacan, yet the word "postmodern" is not mentioned anywhere. Perhaps his influence on postmodernism and the criteria by which his work is classified as modern should be mentioned? Vagary 09:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Joyce is indeed mentioned on the Postmodern literature page---as one of the founders of literary modernism. Though the article makes a number of dubious claims (echoes of postmodernism preceded modernism?), that Joyce was a postmodernist is not among them. Indeed, the pomo lit article doesn't even give much time to how and why he might have influenced postmodernists or encouraged them to react against Modernist literature (which is where the canon pretty firmly places him). I think this citation further confuses an already confusing distinction, and unless anyone objects, I'd like to remove the reference. Daniel P. Shannon (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Endnotes

The author of The Injustice Collector is given incorrectly as "Max, D.J." It is Max, D.T. thanks!Dtmax 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)d.t. max

Fair use rationale for Image:CBI - SERIES C - TEN POUND NOTE.PNG

Image:CBI - SERIES C - TEN POUND NOTE.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Joyce's languages

I've heard that Joyce was fluent in several languages, including French, German, Italian, and Irish Gaelic, yet the article does not seem to expound on this. --MosheA 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Joyce was fluent in French, German, Italian and Danish. He did not speak Irish Gaelic. Pleidhce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.212.54 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"not altogether persuasively"

I removed this POV statement that was inserted into the sentence that tells of Carol Loeb Schloss's book about Lucia Joyce, in which she alleges that there may have been incest between her and James Joyce. Whether or not she argues persuasively that there was incest is not relevant to whether something has been alleged or not. The reasons for her allegation are listed. This is sufficient enough. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not to read the Schloss book about Lucia. To say that the allegation is "not altogether persuasive" is vague at best and completely dismissive of Lucia (Joyce's muse by his own admission) at worst. Pistolpierre 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess

I find it very strange that Anthony Burgess is not mentioned, as he was an influential author, a Joyce-phile and a particular admirer of Finnigans Wake. The fact that he produced a heavily annotated and shortened edition of Finnigans Wake is also overlooked.

Urselius 15:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Incest claims are completely unsubstantiated

The references to incest between james and lucia joyce are out of place on wikipedia.

These claims are unsubstantiated, and while arguably possible, cannot be proven. They belong in a book of literary feminist criticism as a theory or idea, not on the internet or wikipedia.

1) Samuel beckett was very close to Lucia joyce. He was aware of the fact that she had mental problems. The wikipedia article suggests that her insanity was a "cover-up" for Joyce's sleeping with her, which is a massive assumption, suggesting that the cover-up went on for decades between doctors, Joyce, Nora, Samuel beckett, Joyce's relatives, etc.

2) The article mentions that letters between Joyce and Lucia were burnt by his son. It does not mention that Samuel Beckett, when asked by joyce's heirs as to what to do with correspondence between him and Lucia, urged them to burn it. His opinion was that by burning her correspondence, Lucia would be spared the brutal analysis by academics that her father was be subjected to.

3) The article states that Finnegans' Wake ends with a father having sex with his daughter, which is untrue. It also says that Ulysses and Portrait of the Artist as a Young man sexualize pre-adolescent girls, which is also not true. Finnegans' does include some discussion of incestual longing by the father, but this is the only basis for Schloss's theory.

That Joyce slept with his daughter is not only an unsubstantiated theory, but it is perpetuated in the spirit of slander. Something so far from a "fact", and representing a very partial or biased assumptions, should not be featured on wikipedia.

I have deleted the section which presents this theory as realistic or true. I respect those contributors who want to discuss this possibility; I would suggest creating a Lucia Joyce article rather than cluttering the James Joyce article with vague possibilities.

Sam newhouse, Snewhous@gmail.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.137.3 (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Influences on Joyce and his style

Does anyone else feel that this article doesn't really put Joyce's work into context? I mean, shouldn't there be some focus on the influence of Dante, Ibsen, Flaubert, Wordsworth and others on his work?

And shouldn't there be some more focus on the aspects his style (subjectivity, epiphany, allusion, interior monologues, stream of consciousness etc.) and the changes of it over each of his works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybloat (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be some focus on the aspects of his style. It can only add to the information of Joyce. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Artículo en español (Spanish article)

Hi, my name is Matías any i'm translate this great and complete article about James Joyce. Thanks for this good job. (Fbuelvas) Bye! 200.89.119.108 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable works in the infobox

since the box allows for "works," shouldn't Dubliners and Portrait be added -- they're much more widely read, I'd imagine. And/or, Finnegan's Wake.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In particular Dubliners should be included as it is seen as one of his greatest works and is included in UCD's first year's Critical Readings modules. (sorry don't know how to sign my name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasehelp1988 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Joyce's name in Irish

The article opens with Joyce's name in Irish (Séamus Seoighe). I suggest deleting this reference, since while Joyce was indeed an Irish writer he never really associated himself in any significant way with the revival of the Irish language. He also wrote in English and was a master of English prose style. Opening the article this way may, in a subtle way, create the wrong impression and overstate Joyce's links to the Irish language. I also don't believe noting his name in Irish is that important. Artweary (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted it. It implies that in some context he is known by this translation, which is simply not true. Alas, it's another example of the tomfoolery that mars every single Wikipedia entry to do with Ireland, or with the Irish language. Pleidhce (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Daedulus

I am quite sorry to put this up at the very top of the article but in every Joyce related article I have read his psuedonym is represented as "Dedalus" when it was actually "Daedulus", I would hope that noone bans my account for this but it is well known. In fact there is a "Daedulus Building" in UCD which is dedicated to him as a centre of learning. I don't have as much skill in terms of editing articles as other users might but I do have first hand experience in seeing his effect on UCD and reading those books which were written under the pseudonym he originally decided upon, of which still exist in the UCD library, So I would like to think someone with better editting skills than I would correct this issue. Pleasehelp1988 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The character in Portrait and Ulysses (usually taken to be at least to some extent biographical) is Stephen Daedalus. The variant you suggest may be referring directly to the father of Icarus? (John User:Jwy talk) 06:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleasehelp1988, do you realize you are spelling it as "Daedulus" (with a "u")? You'll find that if you read Stephen Hero it is "Daedalus" there, but it gets shortened to "Dedalus" in the later novels. If you believe this is not the case, please provide citations etc. Pádraig Coogan (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References and External links for the works

Maybe we should leave the links and references for the works in the articles for the works? Someone interested in a particular work will likely be heading to the individual articles anyway. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucia incest claims

I removed the following few lines of text (explanation afterwards):

There is much correspondence of Joyce's showing that Lucia was his muse in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses, and Finnegans Wake. All three works include a voyeuristic father with a libidinal interest in nubile pre-pubescent and adolescent girls—very often his own daughter. Finnegans Wake ends with a father having sex with his daughter. There is correspondence from Joyce proving that he spoke with Lucia in a language similar to that of the fragmented multi-language style in Finnegans Wake.

1) Finnegans Wake does not end with a father having sex with his daughter - that is just blatantly not true. Now, incest is everywhere throughout the book, mostly between brothers and sisters, but also in the father's lusting after Issy - but the current quote is a very different thing that bluntly makes it sound like Finnegans Wake ends in a good bout of paedophilic porn, instead of the beautiful monologue of ALP's farewell to the world that it does. In any case, it's all irrelevent - will we go over to the Vladimir Nabokov page and allege that he very well may could have been a paedophile because he wrote "Lolita"? Attempting to infer what may have been the biography of a writer through his works is complelety un-encyclopaedic (although admittedly Stephen does it alot in Ulysses, but he's not writing an encyclopedia article and is, let us remember, a fictional character).

2) Much is made here of the very thin and conjectural notion of voyeuristic fathers in Joyce's works, which in itself bares little relevence for his biographical details. Portrait - where is the voyeuristic father? Ulysses - yes, Bloom is voyeuristic and maybe slightly masochistic and faciliatates his wife's infidelity and all the rest of it, but his awareness of his daughter's budding sexuality does not equate with incestuous feelings per se. the Wake - yes HCE is exactly the character of " voyeuristic father with a libidinal interest in nubile pre-pubescent and adolescent girls—very often his own daughter." but, referring, to my previous point, this provides us with no biographical infomation about James Joyce between the years 1920-1941 in the slightest, only about a character (if he even is that, which he probably not) - that's for the Finnegans Wake page, not the James Joyce biography.

3) I believe i do remember reading somewhere about the similarities in Joyce's letters to lucia and the language in FW - most likely i would think it was in Ellman. But in the article this statement comes before any mention of FW or its linguistic style. Also, let's get a proper, un-editorial biographical reference, like ellman, into te equation.

4) If somebody has made an inference of incest, well look we can leave it in as it's referenced and all the rest, but let us not treat it as "fact", and let us not allow it to inform the WHOLE text of his biography for the course of 21 years - you know joyce did ALOT of things between 1920-1941 besides maybe possibly having (though quite equally possibly not) lustful thoughts about his daughter. I'm not a prude or a Joyce defender or anything, but it's lobsided and conjectural, and all in all not very biographical or encyclopedic.

that's my 2 cents - also i think there should be a lucia joyce page as she was a fascinating figure and very relevent. any comments? Warchef (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Warchef: I couldn't agree more. I think that even now, the wording is a bit irresponsible, though it is much better. I would personally vote for removal of the reference altogether.--Paulski.mcb (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no one voiced any alternative opinion here on the talk page, I have decided to be bold and remove the contentious allegation. If you have an argument as to why it should be re-instated, please outline it here on the talk page, and I'm sure we can find a wording or approach that finds consensus. Please find below the line which I have removed:

In her 2003 work, Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake, Carol Loeb Shloss infers from this destruction of letters that there may have been incest between Lucia and her father and between Lucia and her brother Georgio., but this allegation remains largely unsubstantiated.

peaceWarchef (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems for me. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

New Drama

The article states that Joyce wrote a review of Ibsen's New Drama. I don't doubt this is true, but what exactly is meant by "New Drama"? A particular play, or the novel style and themes of Ibsen's works in general? There is no play by him called New Drama, og any Norwegian/Danish translation of the term. Apologies if this is a dense question.--Hinakana (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a new drama at the time anyway. 7 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick google indicates the article's name is Ibsen's New Drama." I have adjusted the text to make this more clear. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Martello

Tom Stoppard had a great line in Travesties: "What did you do in the Great War, Mr. Joyce?" "I wrote Ulyses, What did you do?"

There was a review of a biography of Nora I heard on the radio (haven't read it) which suggested he kept her awake by laughing out loud by thinking about what he had written during the day while writing Finnegan's Wake.

Hemmingway makes several references to Joyce (and at least one to Nora, Giorgia, and Lucia) in A Moveable Feast A.times.B,equals (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Film biography of Joyce

Should a link to the biographical film Nora be included? I just searched for it for a few minutes in the article. Thanks. 99.165.88.76 (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

Was his death caused by his ulcer, the surgery to try to treat it, both, or something else? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I think this biography is lacking badly the section religion, because, as citing the article: lead "his tempestuous early relationship with the Irish Roman Catholic Church is reflected through a similar inner conflict in his recurrent alter ego Stephen Dedalus" "Joyce, however, was to reject Catholicism by the age of 16, although the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas would remain a strong influence on him throughout his life." "Ellmann reports that when the arrangements for Joyce's burial were being made, a Catholic priest tried to convince Nora that there should be a funeral Mass. Ever loyal, she replied, 'I couldn't do that to him'." These three citations would support that there was something between him and the religion, Catholicism. Also, The A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man as semiautobiographical would hint that he really had a tempest with the Catholicism... Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe somebody really knows much more about this. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have many sources that show that he held onto Catholic philosophy and theology. This means that he was Catholic, even though he may not have practiced or went to Church. He was also culturally Catholic, which is a shaping factor in Irish life during the time (and still is now). Joyce's Catholicism also comes out in many of his works, so it would be POV to put such an anti-Catholic bent, especially when it made Joyce what he became. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Syphilis?

I keep hearing that Joyce had syphilis at some point in his life. Is this true or at all substantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.91.2 (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic writer category

Copying this from my talk page in case others want to join in:

The "Roman Catholic writers" bit is important because of his Irishness. Catholic vs Protestant was still highly important at the time and even if they did not adhere to dogma, he still was culturally bound. CUA has a very strong Irish studies program (and deeply connected with Trinity). They also produce many of the volumes out there on the Irish writers. They, along with many of the colleges, divide the Irish writers along these lines. Joyce was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school. His attachment to Aquinas also represents a strong Catholic bent regardless if he went to Church or not. There are also many allusions to Catholic dogma and doctrine throughout his work, and he definitely captures the modern Irish Catholic viewpoint in works like Ulysses. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion isn't something, like the colour of your eyes, that attaches to people for life even when they're very clear they don't want it. He may have been born into a Roman Catholic family, but he himself did not embrace it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism is as much as a cultural identity as Judaism is. He did not convert to any other religion, plus he kept true to Thomas Aquinas's views. You can be Roman Catholic while not holding true to all of the values. The obligation is not to be a "good Catholic". Plus, I can provide you dozens of biographies which confirm him as a Roman Catholic and the influence of such identity upon his work. Finally, it doesn't matter if someone was something then became something else. Categories do not establish things only at the end of one's life. There are many categories dealing with high schools, and people leave high schools. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But the category is "Roman Catholic writer." He never embraced Roman Catholicism (or any religion) as an adult; he had rejected it by the age of sixteen. He was therefore never a Roman Catholic writer. Do you have reliable sources who describe him as such? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely he would be better described as an 'anti-Roman Catholic writer'. Is a new category needed? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

His writing was not against the faith. His problems were with the establishment. You can be against the establishment without being anti-Catholic. If Joyce rejected Catholicism, he would have rejected Aquinas. He did not reject Aquinas but embraced him. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to give a taste of what critics say about Joyce's reliance on Catholic dogma and thought: "In its philosophical reach, Keener's chapter on 'The School of Old Aquinas' is the most important in this study. Only the Thomist dispensation can free the artist from romantic solipsism, for only the scholastic concept of the union of soul and body can give language and knowledge integrity and clarity. The mind knows things, and does not wander in a spectral world of appearances. The word expresses the intelligibility of matter, itself a complex of meaning and implication rather than a dualistic congeries of detached connotations and denotations.... Within this context of Thomism, the efforts of the French symbolists and the demands of Ezra Pound for precise imagery can be understaood on the one hand, and, on the other, the debasing of life, though and language since Descartes" p. 679 Kain, Richard. "Review: Joyce: Aquinas or Dedalus?" The Sewanee Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1956), pp. 675-683 Review of Hugh Kenner's Dublin's Joyce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1956. Notice the year (1956). I can provide dozens of books which are based on this work and take the arguments and argue even further the utter reliance on Aquinas and Aquinas's Catholic dogma within Joyce (and many more not based on this work). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Another old one that discusses Ulysses - "because the core of Joyce's values is the simple, conservative, essentially Christian idea that the spiritual, rather than the material, is man's real, important condition" (p. 196) "And later points out that it is not Catholicism, but Christianity as a whole that "Joyce is condemning... for its sanction of violence throughout history." This verifies that it is not dogma or theology that he is against, but actions and individuals (p. 201). Mason, Ellsworth. "James Joyce: Moralist" Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Jan., 1956), pp. 196-206.

Some more works 1 and 2. I have plenty more, but I don't have much time to find online links. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an interest in Joyce having had the somewhat interesting pleasure of wading through Finnegans Wake, as well as some of his other works, and am also of Catholic background. I wonder if you both are right here, since yes, Joyce's work so obviously contains traces of his Catholic background, but at the same time he rejected the formal aspects of the religion

All of this, both sides, could be nicely laid out in an article, but in a category, no. The problem might be that both editors are defining the category itself in different ways. What does the category mean or refer to: formal religion, or, the philosophical aspects of the religion that stick like glue even if the religion itself has been rejected. Until the category has been defined the discussion could be unending since both sides are in a sense, right. Hope I'm not intruding on this discussion . Just a thought ot two on an interesting topic.(olive (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

The religious categories as I have been using them are based on which religious approach an author takes. For Christopher Smart, he is an Anglican poet. He was Anglican by birth but philosophically he was far more Methodist. However, his writing is based in Anglican terms. Also, Alexander Pope did not have access to Church and was limited in his ability to be a Catholic by the British government. However, his Catholic background and understanding of Christianity appeared within his writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks. English Literature is one of my fields. That's not the "category" I was referring to. My reference was to the category , "Roman Catholic Authors", and to the categories added to an article. Seems what that category actually refers to in each editor's mind is fundamentally different. Unless you have some agreement some common ground on what that category means, refers to, and or includes in this case, the discussion will be ongoing.(olive (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

I just provided you two examples of how the category is used. You can also have multiple "____ writer" templates if there were multiple defining religions in the literature. The use of Aquinas in Ulysses is more than enough to justify the category. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I misunderstood you.(olive (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

What´s the problem. You have to choose: a Catholic or an agnostic, it is impossible both at once. He was a former Catholic. This is it and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.143.13 (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to choose anything. There is no "one or the other" when it comes to belief. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is when it comes to Wikipedia categories. To add him, you'd need to find multiple reliable sources who called him a "Roman Catholic writer," or very similar description. The problem with categories is that there's no nuance, no room for debate, to way to ensure neutrality. They really are "either-or." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, just about every biography calls him a Roman Catholic writer. He begins Ulysses with the pre-Vatican II approaching the alter statement. I find this all to be rather absurd, especially when I provided many sources above which have been known and part of mainstream Joyce criticism for over 50 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, how is a category not allowing room for debate? There is no rule saying that there can't be two categories dealing with the same issue. You can be multiple things, you know. Joyce was Irish and also -not- Irish. There is no mutual exclusivity about categories. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are indeed needed for such a claim. One does not have to be a Roman Catholic to admire and emulate the writings of Aquinas. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

So, you think that someone born Catholic, raised in a country where you were either Catholic or Protestant and could be killed or discriminated against because of it, had a completely Catholic education, believes strongly in the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and incorporates Catholic dogma throughout his works that he is not a Catholic writer? I would love to see a source on that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Can you link to a source, or give a title and page number if it's offline, that calls him a "Roman Catholic writer," or uses a similar term to describe him?

The reason this matters is that, for someone who never embraced Catholicism or any religion as an adult, and indeed who specifically rejected it, it seems most unjust to apply that label to them when they die. Just because someone writes about certain issues, or appears influenced in certain ways, or was born into a certain culture, does not ipso facto make them an X writer. If my writing is influenced by French existentialism, am I a French existentialist writer? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I listed sources above. I listed quite a few of them. They can be seen at 13:09, 27 August 2009 and onwards. Do I need to link diffs? The biographies and sources make it 100% clear that he was against those who -ran- the Catholic Church but was not against Catholic Theology or Catholicism as a Religion. He was also -raised- Catholic, which has a incredibly strong cultural component that can never be chosen to be gotten rid of. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem useful to have a category for writers influenced by Roman Catholicism. It may be a bit confusing for readers, however. What about a name change for the category or some text at the top of the category page describing what the category is supposed to encompass? Wikipedia:Categorization#Category description seems to encourage descriptions (for one example, there's a line or two of description at the top of Category:Gay writers; Category:Terrorism also has a description). I take it that Slim's conception of what this category would generally mean would include Oscar Wilde (not in this category, by the way), who turned to the church at the tail end of his life, while Ottava's wouldn't. -- Noroton (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"influenced by Roman Catholicism" Influenced? No. there is no "influence" about it. There are whole passages of Catholic mass, quotes from Aquinas, and the whole structural modernist philosophy derived from Catholic dogma within his works. As many biographies on the Catholic nature have (kinda meanly put it) "you can't understand Joyce unless you are Catholic" (other critics say "you can't understand Joyce unless you are Irish", obviously, there are some Irish Catholics that argue both). Likewise, a Catholic writer is not an individual who shows up to mass, says a few good words about the Catholic Church, and writes nothing about Catholic theology. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the category is that it seems to include people just because they were born into a Roman Catholic family. If it were called "writers influenced by Roman Catholicism," it would be fine, but "Roman Catholic writers" suggests that the Catholic church owns people from cradle to grave and beyond, even if they explictly say they don't want to be connected to it, and that's a POV that Wikipedia can't endorse. Ottava, this is the post you referred me to for sources, but there's nothing there. We need to see that other writers have described him the way you want to describe him, or with words to that effect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim, there are innumerable writers describing Joyce as a Catholic writer. Incidentally, Hugh Kenner (whom Ottava Rima quotes above) is probably the single most influential critic of James Joyce as well as of Anglo, Irish, and American literary modernism. I'd venture to say there's probably no major study of Joyce that doesn't take into account his Catholicism, nor any major study of Catholic literature in the 20th century in which he doesn't figure prominently. You are quite right to stress his resistance to/rejection of Catholic doctrine and (especially) institutions, and you're quite right to stress the quandary this presents for our system of "categories." These quandaries also exist for Kafka as a Jewish writer, Updike as a Protestant writer, and so on. In response to your legitimate misgivings, I would only argue that when categorizing literature and writers, active and/or orthodox beliefs matter less than central motifs and imaginative formation. Roman Catholicism is absolutely crucial (pardon the pun) to Portrait of the Artist, for example, a book which constitutes not a rejection of but rather an extended dialectical engagement with it. (This view represents not my own original research, by the way, but rather a dominant critical understanding of that book, which I can certainly source if it comes to that.) To my knowledge, incidentally, Joyce never said he didn't "want to be connected to" Roman Catholicism, which would be as crazy as Walter Benjamin saying he didn't want to be connected to Judaism.--G-Dett (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies with the title of the category, which would be better changed to, "Writers influenced by ...," but as it's currently titled, I think we have to place ourselves in the position of the subject's wife who, when someone suggested there be a funeral Mass for Joyce, reportedly replied, "I couldn't do that to him." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - as I said, it is not an "influence". It is a use of Catholicism and a Catholic world view in a work. A Catholic writer is one who thinks, rights, and feels like a Catholic in their work. It has nothing to do with mass attendance, oaths of loyalty, or anything like that. To be an Irish Catholic is also a strong cultural identity. I know many who have "left" the Church who still perform the same rituals, say the same prays, acknowledge the same days, and invoke the same saints. It is part of their being.

"is the post you referred me to for sources, but there's nothing there." - in that post is a long quote from a third party summarizing Keener (I felt a third party would be better so there would be an objective view of Keener's work). A Thomist, by the way, is a type of Catholic - one who follows St Thomas Aquinas. The next edit adds some more references. I listed merely four older works and ignored any newer works to show that it was not a new phenomenon to discuss Joyce. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What your post expresses is a POV, and it's an interesting one. My argument is that Wikipedia can't adopt that POV as its own.

If I were born to Scientologist parents, who raised me with Scientologist beliefs, which I rejected before I reached adulthood, would you argue that in later life I was a "Scientologist writer", just because I used imagery from it in my work? Suppose I became a famous novelist, someone any tradition would be proud to be associated with, and I converted to Catholicism, would you still want to see me in the "Scientologist writers" category?

To say that Joyce remains a Roman Catholic writer, because educated in that tradition, is simply to acknowledge that there is no way to remove ideas that were firmly implanted in someone's mind in childhood, just as there is no way to "de-Scientologize" a child raised by people with those beliefs. Children are quite literally "brainwashed" by their parents, and I say that without judging the quality of the input; the point is that the child has no defence against it. So your position really does amount to endorsing as a label—from cradle to grave (and beyond, in terms of reputation)—whatever ideas were first put in a child's mind by the people who raised him; a kind of intellectual ownership, which is really quite depressing. And, more to the point from WP's perspective, not a POV the project can endorse via the use of its categories, unless multiple reliable sources explicitly endorse it too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to decide what we want the category to do. I think we can find many references (at least through Ulysses - I haven't dared Finnegans Wake yet) that his works have very strong Catholic themes, images and forms (a chapter of Ulysses is a "catechism"). There should be SOME sort of category tagging of the article to indicate this. Category:Catholic-related writers seems unsatisfying. Personally, I'm okay with the Catholic writer categorization - but it depends on our interpretation of the category. Perhaps a discussion at the category page would make sense? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Joyce was inbued with Roman Catholic culture, but he was hostile to it, a far from uncommon attitude. This distinction needs to be kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

I'm not arguing against that. I am professing we find a category to indicate that Joyce's writings have a strong relationship with Roman Catholicism (even if it is negative). For me, the proposed category could do that. The negativity should be obvious when they get to the page. But I can see objections to that approach - it is not the "first" meaning of "Roman Catholic writer." What would you suggest for a category? And - like I said - a discussion at Category talk:Roman Catholic writers is probably more productive. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Writers influenced by Roman Catholicism ? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

"what your post expresses is a POV" - yes, a POV shared by 80% of Joyce scholars. It is a long and detailed POV and written in most biographies. This, however, seems to ignore what has been said above - "is simply to acknowledge that there is no way to remove ideas that were firmly implanted in someone's mind in childhood" - instead, I have explained how the huge reliance on Thomas Aquinas for theological and philosophical matters -verifies- that Joyce was still a Catholic -regardless- of his view towards the Church government. You can be a Catholic and be opposed to the Catholic governmental structure or opposed to various beliefs. Even a heretic, by definition, is a member of the religion. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points all. I think the category difficulty we're encountering is quite particular to artists. "Roman Catholic physicists" or "Roman Catholic economists" would be unproblematic categories; if a given physicist or economist had renounced his religion he or she simply wouldn't belong on the list, because the imaginative wellsprings of these professions are not entangled with one's religious upbringing, at least not in any recognized or documented way. With artists (and perhaps writers in particular), however, such accidents of birth as religion or nationality may be renounced and yet remain thematically and conceptually central to their art; in many instances – and Joyce is certainly an example of this – they are even more central precisely because they are the site of so much intellectual and imaginative struggle. T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound are both categorized as "American poets," even though each left his country of birth for good as a young man, the former to become a British subject, the latter to become a partisan of fascist Italy, returning to the U.S. only to face trial for treason. Eliot captured the difficulty we're dealing with here when he was asked by The Paris Review if "there's a connection with the American past" in his work: "Yes, but I couldn’t put it any more definitely than that, you see. It wouldn’t be what it is, and I imagine it wouldn’t be so good, putting it as modestly as I can; it wouldn’t be what it is if I’d been born in England, and it wouldn’t be what it is if I’d stayed in America. It’s a combination of things. But in its sources, in its emotional springs, it comes from America."

On another, more specific note, lapsed Catholics are a bit like, say, Jewish agnostics. "You can take the boy out of the Catholic church..." yadda yadda.

Hey, how about that for a category, "Lapsed Catholic writers."--G-Dett (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Or just make a sub-category called "Thomists" for those who follow the philosophy and theology of Thomas Aquinas. He most certainly would fall under that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is a category that Joyce would fit into well. Like Rabelais he had great fun satirizing the techniques of Aquinas' scholastic logic and rejected the doctrines that arose from it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

According to what? I have over 20 books on my desk saying 100% opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You may have 20 books saying the opposite, but there are almost certainly another 20 books on Joyce saying what Xxanthippe is saying. And this is where Slim is really right: we shouldn't be using the category in any polemical way, i.e. to settle unsettled questions like whether Joyce's work offers an affirmation of Thomism or a parody of it. If we can agree that a category like "Roman Catholic writers" simply means writers for whom Roman Catholicism was imaginatively formative, then we can use it here (this is settled in Joyce's case, with no major critic I know of disagreeing). If we can't agree that this category would be understood this way, we should devise another category that can accommodate this idea, because it is an interesting and useful way to group writers, and one with more than ample precedent among reliable sources. Meanwhile we have to do all we can to avoid a tendentious use of categories.--G-Dett (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If Xxanthippe is "right", then I welcome anyone to try and prove it. I have at my disposal an Irish Catholic University's Irish Studies department and, through them, access to Trinity University on the matter. If you want to put up a reference saying that Joyce was not a Thomist then I will match it and more so. So, lets have at it. I am sure I will easily exhaust any resources you can possibly find on the matter, as I have access to tons of them saying the contrary to your position. The view that Joyce was anti-Catholic (not, anti-Catholic organization/leadership/government/etc but actually against the theology) is in the vast minority. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, I've been basically on your side. I can't speak for Xxanthippe, but I'm not suggesting Joyce was "anti-Thomist"; I'm suggesting that Thomism, like any number of other intellectual rubrics, is absorbed into Joyce's work in a way that makes parody and play difficult to distinguish from sincere affirmation. The work of Hugh Kenner, probably the most influential Joyce critic and himself a converted Catholic, and whose name you keep spelling "Keener," devotes considerable intellectual energy to disentangling Thomism and anti-Platonism in Joyce's work, while at the same time trying to disentangle Joyce's views on the matter from those of his fictional alter-ego Stephen Dedalus. The point is, these questions aren't resolved in the critical literature, and the fact that you want to "have at it" with me in a pitched battle of opposing references suggests that you realize this. The fact that Catholicism (and Thomism in particular) is imaginatively central to Joyce's work is, however, a resolved matter, and we should be choosing (or devising) a category that reflects this.--G-Dett (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Have at it mostly meant to start posting up sources. There is nothing wrong with listing sources, you know. :P From what I can see above, I spelled it correctly twice and mispelled it three times. Actually, I have the work infront of me and quoted a review above which verifies what I have been saying about his verification that Joyce is a Thomist. The issue was resolved and rather clearly, especially after he made it clear that Joyce does not equal Dedalus, but Dedalus represents a lot that Joyce actually disliked in the world. As I have stated above, 80% of critics side with Joyce being a Catholic writer and viewing Joyce as merely against Catholic hierarchy. I never said -all- works say something, and Wikipedia does not go off of what -all- works say - it merely represents the majority opinion as the majority opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the goal here is not to prove or disprove whether or not Joyce was a Thomist but to indicate his work is very "informed" by Catholicism. Perhaps the best approach would be to have a category "Roman Catholic themed works" (title still needs fine tuning) that applies not to the person but to the work. Possibly the Roman Catholic writers category could be tagged with this category - but maybe not. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

An artist's work is informed by life and everything in it, and not necessarily in any obvious and direct relationship to what created the influence. We can safely say Joyce rejected the outward formal trappings and structures of Catholicism, but that the religion greatly informed his work. Saying he was a Catholic Writer seems misleading, so that category doesn't seem applicable. Saying Joyce's writing was informed by Catholicism seems more accurate. That his work was influenced by Thomas Aquinas might be a sub category of "Authors informed (or influenced) by Catholicism" since he was influenced by much more than Aquinas. (olive (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Agree with Jwy and Littleolive oil.--G-Dett (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Category_talk:Roman_Catholic_writers#Writers_.22informed_by.22_Roman_Catholicism and pinged the Roman Catholic WikiProject. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "trappings" is misleading, especially with religion. He did not go against "Catholicism". He went against church government. They are separate things. One can be opposed to one's own government without being opposed to one's own country. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Trappings" for most would be misleading. As a Catholic I would consider trappings to be everything external to the more inner spiritual aspect of the church, and that would include the hierarchies, decrees and traditions that are all interconnected. In Catholicism its all woven together.(olive (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Not necessarily - each diocese is, for the most part, independent and allowed to have different strictures and policies. There are both liberal and conservative diocese that border each other and have -very- different views. Joyce knew that there was a major difference between Catholicism in Dublin than in the rest of Ireland, and knew that there was a difference between Irish and French Catholicism. There are also many, many different structures and organizations within the Catholic Church, and Joyce sided with the classical Aristotelian version of Dominicanism (God through rationality, reason, and contemplation of the world as opposed to just ritual) in most of his works. I, however, cannot edit the article on the topic as I am CoI'd from doing such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I was making a overarching statement about what I meant in my comment above. You sound like the very person to edit the article on this topic as long as you can be neutral.(olive (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, but I can't. The only involvement I have with Christian related material on Wikipedia has been very limited and mostly related to Anglicans, as part of my living deals with the promotion of Catholic values and the Catholic Church (I deal with literature in a separate aspect of my life, but the former CoIs myself from many, many pages). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I decline the challenge to "have at it" with Ottava Rima. I made an earlier suggestion for Category:Writers influenced by Roman Catholicism which still seems to cover the situation adequately as being applicable to both believers and repudiators. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

Forget Aquinas, please. If you ask Joyce throughout his work (his letters, his essays, comments, novels and short stories), Joyce in the flesh says: I'm an atheist, or agnostic, I’m blasphemous because I deeply hate the Irish Catholic Church which I trained. I was a Catholic in my childhood, until age 15 or 16. By no means I’m a Catholic writer.’ Therefore, if you include him in a category Catholic writers, you're simply lying. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.144.184 (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To single edit anon: If you will provide a source for this quote it will resolve the matter definitively. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

I´m the editor of the Spanish article, Sürrell. Do you think it's really necessary? Listen to me: «I couldn't do that to him.» (Bulson, p. 16). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.144.184 (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand what you are talking about. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

So I am, my friend, so I am. Read at least the English article, about his death. 'I couldn't do that to him.' For the love of God, he was not a Catholic writer, he was not a Catholic man. For instance, Is not a source his own wife?--85.53.144.184 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I just did a search for "Joyce" and "Agnostic" - the only results were for Bloom, a character who is clearly not Joyce, as an agnostic. Punch, in a parody, says that Joyce took an agnostic approach to the Church, but clearly not the same thing. Other sources that come up are calling -other- people Agnostic, but never Joyce (and one instance calls the individual a "Catholic Agnostic", which would verify the use of Catholic as extended towards such individuals). This interesting source says that Joyce, if the comment referred to himself (the comment that cannot be found, yet you seem to allude to) would be a joke to say that he was both gnostic and agnostic, and is possibly a joke about masturbation. Clearly, such a thing cannot be taken as "proof" about one's religion. This is why we need reliable sources for such things and not out of context "quotes" that have no proof text to even look through to see if you aren't taking things out of context. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We're coming too far. 1. What was the flag of Joyce, this: England, or this: Ireland? Ye know what I mean? 2. It's a contradictio in terminis to say that somebody is a Catholic and a former Catholic writer at once. 3. Is Harold Bloom an authoritative source in literature for an English speaker? He said: "Beckett and Joyce shared the aversion to Christianity in Ireland. The two chose Paris and atheism." Source: Bloom, Harold. El canon occidental (tr. to spanish). Barcelona, 2005. Ed. Anagrama. ISBN 84-339-6684-7. p. 509.--85.53.144.184 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Various style and prose edits

I just spent a rather long time on a substantial, though superficial, set of edits (each of which had many parts). Two of these were rolled back rather quickly with the explanation "no improvement on previous version," so I want to explain the various types of changes I made and my reasons for making them, preparatory to 1) undoing the rollback, reinstating my edits; 2) welcoming anyone who wishes to make additional changes via individual additional edits rather than by simply rolling back my entire effort; and 3) inviting anyone interested to discuss any of the specific types of changes I'm about to describe. So here are the sorts of things I did:

• I eliminated many sentences containing semicolons. If the second clause of such a sentence followed closely from the first or shed additional light on it, I tried to clarify the relationship by structuring the sentence to make use of an appropriate conjunction. If the two clauses were reasonably independent I attempted to split the sentence into two shorter sentences to keep the prose clean.

• I attempted to split similarly long sentences strung together using conjunctions unless the various clauses were closely related enough to provide a compelling reason otherwise.

• I restructured sentences to avoid use of the passive voice and of forms of the verb "to be." In most cases the previous version was grammatically correct. However, it is generally accepted that such sentence construction lacks descriptive power and interest in most cases when compared with sentence structure that takes advantage of active verbs.

• I replaced complex verb tenses such as future-perfect-in-past-tense with simple past-tense except where the complex tense served a specific purpose. For example, I replaced, "Joyce was to reject Catholicism by the time he was 16," with, "Joyce rejected Catholicism by the time he was 16."

• I added weasel word tags where I thought the text would benefit from more details about who did something or which commentators hold a stated opinion. Often, the aforementioned use of passive voice lent itself to such vague constructions.

• I restructured some sentences to avoid redundant use of phrases, names, or anything else.

• I replaced vague verbs with specific ones. For example, I changed, "His mother tried to get Joyce to make confession," to, "His mother tried to persuade Joyce to make confession."

• I replaced spelled-out numbers greater than nine with corresponding numerals and replaced numerals of nine or less with corresponding spelled-out words, consistent with the Manual of Style.

• In many places, pronouns were used ambiguously. I either replaced the pronouns with unambiguous nouns or restructured sentences to remove the ambiguity.

• I corrected errors in the usage of the prepositions "that" and "which."

• I added links to terms where I thought they might prove useful, or in order to facilitate clarification for readers who might not be familiar with a given usage of a word or phrase.

• I tried to remove verbs used in their gerund forms as being generally clunkier than simpler verb forms.

• I reordered lists in some situations where the existing list order allowed for ambiguous interpretation.

• I restructured sentences to avoid phrases set apart by parentheses or em-dashes in favor of simpler, more streamlined structure.

• I replaced phrasing that felt conversational with more formal wording. For example, I changed, "Joyce headed to Paris," to, "Joyce traveled to Paris."

• I made a variety of other small stylistic changes that were not strictly necessary, but that I felt improved the clarity, readability, or interest of the prose. Many of these are admittedly a matter of personal taste, and I certainly won't be offended if they're changed again.

All told, I spent a lot of time and effort on these edits. I think the blithe explanation, "No improvement on previous version," is inaccurate, and probably doesn't reflect a careful consideration of the changes I worked on, so I'm going to undo the undo and request that rollbacks be made on a case-by-case basis rather than whole-hog, or at least that my effort be discussed in greater detail before being thrown out. Best, W.stanovsky (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshall McLuhan in the Legacy section

Someone just added a link to Marshall McLuhan in the list of scholars influenced by Joyce's work, but did not reference it. A little Googling suggests that McLuhan belongs on the list, but I don't know enough to know exactly what reference would best fit to back it up (probably one of McLuhan's own works?). Someone out there want to take a stab at it? W.stanovsky (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Further reading deletions

I'm not sure why these have been deleted; can someone check? Also, new additions, if valid, are not alphabetical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked most in google books or Amazon.com and they check out. No comment on their quality; and explination by the removing / adding editor here would be appreciated. The biblo is far too long, I'm sure the valuable cites are lost among the mediocre. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See Also: Categories or no categories?

It may be that categories don't belong in a see also section. Nevertheless, the categories deleted by user:SandyGeorgia are not redundant with the categories that actually include the James Joyce article. They link to whole categories each consisting largely or entirely of related articles. Since that's the case, I think it's worthwhile having those links collected under one heading or another in this article. I don't know what the best way to organize them would be, but I think that until someone does, having these links in an imperfectly named section is far better than not having them at all. W.stanovsky (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LAYOUT. Featured articles are presumably fully developed and comprehensive, and any items in See also should have been worked into the text if they belong there. A long list of categories in See also is not appropriate: anything worthy there should either be added as a category, or should already be mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. I also see from the archives at Wikipedia_Talk:Layout that this relates to a fundamental debate about the purpose of a See Also section that you've contributed to over the years. It looks to me like the view you've argued for is the one that has become the consensus, so of course I'm happy to apply that standard here. That said, I think it's risky to presume that an FA-rated article actually meets all FA guidelines. In this case, for instance, James Joyce had its last FA review almost three years ago, and I think the consensus in question about the purpose of See Also sections may even be more recent than that review. So I think it might be best to review and remove the See Also section here piece-by-piece as we can verify that the important articles linked in the categories there are represented in the article's text or elsewhere. For example, I'll go ahead and remove the category link to his works, because I've looked at it and every article in it is also linked in the nav box of Joyce's works at the bottom. For links like those to categories of articles about single works though, it may take a bit more editing to make sure there are appropriate links within the article body. W.stanovsky (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Pre-revert version for retrieving sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has taken on an alarming amount of cruft since its 2006 review, including triva, external links, further reading, See also, and uncited content. I've reverted to the last reviewed version, from 2006; some additional citations may be needed, but this is a cleaner starting place than the wreck that the article had become. Please do not re-add categories to See also (see WP:LAYOUT). I will slowly work on MOS issues and recovering any citations lost in the revert, but can't get to it all at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several dead links. More than the link checker shows. Someone needs to go through it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting to the little things first ... but we'll get there, probably by the end of this week. Going back to the old version to recover lost citations is going to be a bear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, now that I've gotten through some of the trivials, I think I'll proceed in the opposite order of what I originally mentioned to you. Next, I'll retrieve your tags from the pre-revert version, in the hope that others will begin to work on those, and then I'll more gradually bring over other citations from the pre-revert version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Strike that, new approach. I'm putting old vs. pre-revert versions into a sandbox and comparing diffs paragraph by paragraph, to pick up any lost improvements and identify any discrepancies ... started a list below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finished merging pre-revert and old text; citation cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

External links

 Done Does this article need the external links sections on Dubliners, Finnegan's Wake and Ulysses when they have their own articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I say delete them. Those interested will go to other pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The first link under the Ulysses section of the ELs appears to be the uncited source for much of the content in that section of the article. Kablammo (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects for a really good reason, I agree to delete them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoxbox

 Done The infobox does not add value. The basic biographical outline can be contained in the lede; the collapsed lists of influences on and of Joyce is too long to be of value, and can never be comprehensive. Kablammo (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for infoboxes at all, for the very reasons you've mentioned. I only brought it back as part of the restore, but would be happy to lose it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment originally from May 2006

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Joyce/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations plange 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)