Talk:Nora Barnacle

message: What was the point of reverting? The extant text ("instigated relations of a sexual nature") is laughably prudish.
:I just opened this talk page to comment about that very thing. It also implies intercourse. Karlusss 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How sordid!  Typing monkey 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: She married Joyce in 1931 and after that her name was and she called herself Nora Joyce. So why is this article about Nora Barnacle? It's also no pseudonym she used. Tabasco da Gammla 10:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering about this too. Even in the family photo with Joyce and her adult sons she is tagged as "Nora Barnacle." Is there some reason for this?124.171.112.246 (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nora Joyce 

message: "It was rumored that she sought solace from her friend, budding English theatre starlet, Laura London" -- "Sought solace"?? What on earth does that mean? In the name of Clio, people, let's write plainly. -- 201.19.77.39 11:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. I changed it to "sought comfort," but I still think it sounds old-fashioned. I don't really know what the nature of their friendship was, so I'll leave it to someone else to come up with a better phrase.Sadiemonster (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sought solace"??

message: "The nature of the initial meeting between Nora Barnacle and James Joyce remains controversial, as some claim that Nora instigated physical stimulation"  Again, what? In the article, "stimulation" is linked to Handjob - an ungraceful term but at least clear. If there's any good cite on this incident one way or another, then let's just say what we mean and cite. -- 201.19.77.39 11:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nora instigated physical stimulation"

message: Nora Barnacle was born in Galway City in the Galway City Workhouse, not in Connemara.  Please read the biography written by Brenda Maddox  and correct the wrong information. With kindly regards --Gudrun Meyer (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Information 

message: From what I remember from the biography Nora, at least on one occassion her son Gorgio visited his sister in an asylum, and knowing it would be very upsetting to witness Lucia's decline, told his mother not to visit her. This doesn't seem to me to be the same as Nora "refusing" to visit her. (Nora also wrote many letters to her daughter while Lucia was hospitalized.) 
Does anyone else think the statement is somewhat misleading? Codenamemary (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Refused to see Lucia again" (?) 

message: The current section on this work states, "In 1988, Nora Barnacle was the subject of a feminist biography by Brenda Maddox, Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom.[3]"
In what sense is this book "feminist"? In it, the author briefly discusses some feminist interpretations of Ulysses and the character of Molly Bloom, but Maddox doesn't lend her support to this argument one way or the other, as I recall. Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In what sense is the biography NORA "feminist"? 

message: The article Michael Feeney (schoolteacher) would appear to fail notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. I propose that relevant content from it be merged  with The Dead (short story). See below. RashersTierney (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not merge it into The Dead (short story)? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for feedback. I'd be open to that too. RashersTierney (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you gave me the idea.  We should probably add a paragraph to The Dead (short story) about Michael Furey, and mention Michael Feeney (schoolteacher) and Michael Bodkin, the two men who likely served as models for the character. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. I'll change the notices accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: "At the beginning they loved each other passionately and deeply, as witnessed by the sensual epistolary correspondence between them"
How about we ditch the pretentious bollocks and call them "pornographic letters"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsign (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Pornographic' suggests trading in erotica. I think 'Erotic' is more appropriate. Valetude (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sensual epistolary correspondence"?

message: This article still uses archaic and confusing language. Nora's relationship with Willie Mulvagh is described as an "affair and dubious friendship." What is a "dubious friendship?" Who decided it was "dubious?" This language isn't neutral.
I'm also making the following small wording changes:
"At the beginning, they loved each other passionately as evidenced by the numerous pornographic letters they exchanged" is now "the numerous pornographic letters they exchanged suggest they loved each other passionately at the beginning of their relationship." Otherwise it sounds like the editor is making an evaluation of their relationship.
"While in Dublin, she met Joyce, on 10 June 1904, but not until 16 June did they have their first romantic liaison" is now "She met Joyce on 10 June 1904 while still in Dublin, and they had their first romantic liaison on 16 June."
I've also made changes to the paragraph about "Lucia's mental disease," because nobody uses the phrase "mental disease." The wording in this paragraph was also very stilted, with too, many, commas ("There, her father visited often, but not her mother").Sadiemonster (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated some of the language

message: The section "Maddox Biography" says that the Maddox biography was made into a film in 1999, but the article on the film says this was a 2000 film. Vorbee (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Was probably shot in 1999, so "made into a film in 1999" wouldn't necessarily be wrong. However, I have changed the dates in this article.--Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 1999 or 2000 film?

message: I bet they aroused more than just people's curiosity.
134.3.47.23 (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Their sexually explicit letters have aroused much curiosity"