Talk:Stephen James Joyce

Copyright doesn't began at different times in different places

Copyright applies to place of original publication or residency/citizenship of the author. In the case of Joyce's work, Ulysses was published serially in the U.S. Ulysses was published in book form in Paris in 1922. Portrait of the Artist was published in 1914 in New York. Dubliners in 1914 in London. Finnegans Wake in London in 1939. US copyright law is death of author + 70 (or works published prior to 1923), UK is death of author + 70, France is death of author + 70 (unless the author is deemed to have died in the public service of France, in which case it's death of author + 100). If he's held under Irish copyright, since he was a citizen, then it's still death of author + 70. I've changed the article to reflect this. Alexandergreenb (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's arguable that Ulysses has been public domain ever since the US law about pre-1923 texts went into effect. The rest of them undeniably entered the public domain in on Jan 1 2012. It might be the case, however, that French PD law is what applies to Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, since that's where he resided from 1920 until his death. Alexandergreenb (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Factual error: Joyce's works entered the Canadian public domain in 1992

The final paragraph includes the claim "On 1 January 2012, on the 70th anniversary of Joyce's death, all of his works entered the public domain in the European Union and Canada." As applied to Canada, this appears false:

• The cited article (note 4) does not include the word 'Canada'
• Canadian copyright law specifies a term of "the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year"
• Canadian copyright expert Michael Geist noted, on January 1, 2012, that Joyce's works had been in the public domain in Canada for twenty years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedlamhotel (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I would be against merging this with James Joyce. Stephen is notable in his own right, as the New Yorker article clearly shows, and this article is likely to expand as the many currently open lawsuits play out. There's no reason to put that material into the main Joyce article; it's really not about Joyce himself. Chick Bowen 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also against merge. Stephen is notable, and this is becoming a current event. Sandy (Talk) 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Sandy. I've removed the tag, since I left a comment on the talk page of the person who originally put it there a week and half ago, and have gotten no response, and the article is expanded a bit since then anyway. Chick Bowen 03:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Also against merge. Stephen has carved out a visibly separate identity in his wars against invasive academic hyenas. 174.16.17.65 (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did he burn Joyce's letters?

I remember hearing a story about Stephen buying some of James Joyce's love letters at an auction and then burning them. A web search suggests there's at least an element of truth in this, but I don't find solid confirmation:

• "he wanted to destroy it?"[1] (Note: this quote refers to a letter to Nora which Stephen did not acquire, and so this letter didn't get burnt)
• "Stephen Joyce, the grandson of James Joyce, burned letters written by Joyce's daughter, Lucia."[2]

Anyone else got pointers? Gronky (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any secondary sources to hand, as I've mostly heard this from more senior scholars talking at conferences, but it is pretty common knowledge among Joyceans that Stephen said he had burned these letters. Some people don't believe he actually did. Qassandra (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the lead. I've found references for Stephen claiming to have burned the letters (below), but it would be worth also digging up some references for there being doubts that he actually burnt them. Gronky (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Burnt James-Lucia letters

Here's a reference in the James Joyce article, but the above comment suggests this isn't the whole story:

In-depth knowledge of Joyce's relationship with his schizophrenic daughter is scant, because the current heir of the Joyce estate, Stephen Joyce, burned thousands of letters between Lucia and her father that he received upon Lucia's death in 1982.(Stanley, Alessandra. "Poet Told All; Therapist Provides the Record," The New York Times, July 15, 1991. Retrieved 9 July 2007). Stephen Joyce stated in a letter to the editor of The New York Times that "Regarding the destroyed correspondence, these were all personal letters from Lucia to us. They were written many years after both Nonno and Nonna [i.e. Mr and Mrs Joyce] died and did not refer to them. Also destroyed were some postcards and one telegram from Samuel Beckett to Lucia. This was done at Sam's written request."Joyce, Stephen (31 December 1989). "The Private Lives of Writers" (Letter to the Editor). The New York Times. Retrieved 9 November 2009.

Gronky (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and trimmed the unsubstantiated claims in this passage, which was originally in the text before being relegated to a footnote (and even that seems relevant rather to the SJ than the JJ article). The NYT article does not say that the letters were to or about JJ; only one sentence in the article is about the Joyce family, and it reads in its entirety, "Stephen Joyce, the grandson of James Joyce, burned letters written by Joyce's daughter, Lucia." Henry^Flower 13:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did he block the Rejoyce 2004 readings?

Why did he prohibit the Rejoyce 2004 festival from doing public readings of excerpts of Ulysses? What's his side of the story?

People seem to conclude that he's simply nasty, but he probably sees it differently.

This article is quite detailed: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol2-3/bloomsday.asp

...but it doesn't address Stephen's reasons directly. It quotes David Norris critising Stephen Joyce: "If anybody talks of profiteering, he should be asked what he made out of works in whose creation he played no part himself". So, did Stephen accuse the Rejoyce 2004 festival of profiteering?

Andrew O'Baoill is similarly quoted: "[...] some legal actions seem solely concerned with the financial health of the estate and have no concern for nurturing the greater cultural legacy of Joyce."

And this passage from the linked article:

However, Laura Weldon, the national co-ordinator of the festival, denied that the event had vulgarized the work of James Joyce: "We have not done anything near what he has raised the spectre of."145

...but the article still doesn't directly say whether Stephen Joyce complained of vulgarisation.

One of the organisers, Laura Weldon, said it might be down to a 65-year old grudge, but that seems a bit petty and subsequent quotes in the article also reject this theory:

I know Stephen. This is a long-standing poor relationship with Ireland, and it goes back to the fact that in 1941, when his grandfather died, the state intentionally did not send a representative to the funeral. That was a mistake; it was a decision that may have been a function of the times. There was however, someone there from the British Consul, so Stephen understandably bears a grudge. Now we have a national celebration of someone who was previously shunned. I cannot begin to speak on behalf of Stephen, but that is one element of the dynamic.

Does anyone know of any published articles or interviews where Stephen Joyce himself explains his actions? Gronky (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Gronky, the picture I get is that one of James Joyce's biographers got hold of some personal and possibly sexually explicit letters between James Joyce and Nora Barnacle, and published them as "research". Stephen Joyce (understandably imho) saw this as a voyeuristic privacy invasion and decided that the whole Joyce industry could take a hike. Lucero's dissertation (in External Links) has more info about this. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Stephen Joyce → Talk:Stephen J. Joyce – Completely uncontroversial, just cleaning up a small mess I made when I botched the moving of Talk:Stephen Joyce to Talk:Stephen J. Joyce. Gronky (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen James Joyce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081203192353/http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050244.html to http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050244.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)