Talk:Nathaniel Parker Willis

Lots of work to be done

I got started on cleaning this up a bit. The 1911 encyclopedia information that was used is unbelievably biased. I have no references about most of his life and work, but I did what I could in relation to some of his magazine work and relationship with Edgar Allan Poe. This desperately needs more clean up and more sources. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary to list every single item he ever published in sequence, but I'm unaware of what is most important from his works. -Midnightdreary 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review

This is a very interesting article about a man I've never even heard of until now -- learn something new every day, huh? In short, it fulfills the GA criteria in that it is well written, correctly formatted, verifiable, broad in its coverage, stable, neutral and well illustrated with free images. I do have a few points that I would like to see addressed or at least considered before promoting it to GA status, however:

• The date-range in the lead should have an en dash.
• There are two instances of "building up" or "built up" in the lead; just "building" or "built" will do, but you may want to change one to a synonym so it's less repetitive. Creating?
• The lead seems skimpy, although it does hit upon the high points. I think it's lacking in detail and explanation, so here's some suggestions for what you may like to add to give it some life; feel free to pick and choose:

• ...who worked with several notable American writers. What notable American writers? Poe, for example, stands out in the article, and I know he's your Wiki-muse. :)
• Willis came from a family of publishers. More detail here, perhaps a few words on his father's reputation. That his father began "the Youth's Companion, the world's first newspaper for children" may be worth mentioning.
• He started his own publication, the Home Journal, in 1846... How successful was this publication? What is it known as today? The lead in its separate article notes that "It is the oldest continually published general interest magazine in the United States"; is this true?

I actually can't substantiate that claim. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it sounded catchy. :) Still, just a few words on its current title and that it's still being published today (this is already stated in the body) would be enough. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Willis had built up his popularity thanks to his good nature, though he was occasionally noted for being effeminate and Europeanized. What is "his good nature"? Friendliness, kindliness? Examples? Is this in addition to his work as a writer and a publisher, or do they go hand in hand? What are the negative connotations of "effeminate" and "Europeanized"? Perhaps that would require too much detail to explain the 19th century American male machismo, but if it's that notable to be placed in the lead, a little context would help.

It's hard to explain... Willis's literary reputation and personal reputation were one and the same. He created for himself this sort of public persona which he sold (whether it was true or not) in his writings which were, usually, autobiographical essays. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• His sister was Fanny Fern, how interesting! Notable enough to mention in the lead? What about his brother, the composer?

For an article on N. P. Willis, I'm not sure why his siblings merit introduction in the lede. I will definitely consider it though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like I said, pick and choose. I definitely had an epiphany when I learned that Fern was his sister, but that may be just me. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Willis has connections all over the American literary map; first Fanny Fern, now Harriet Jacobs? Unbelievable! Since she's such a well known figure in feminist/slave narrative, this could could be mentioned in the lead, as well.

I had never heard of Harriet Jacobs or her book before putting this article together. Is she someone of particular importance? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends, I suppose; I've read excerpts of her book in two separate Eng. Undergrad classes (Af-Am Lit. and Early Am. Lit.) and apparently it was quite sensational at the time. It's certainly one of the most scandalous of slave narratives published then. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• During this time, he became the highest-paid magazine writer in America, earning about $100 per article and $5,000 per year. Perhaps worth a mention.
• The fact that he "especially promoted women poets" may be notable, given the time period. Whose career did he impact?

Few are remembered today. He mostly promoted the "scribbling women" of the era not known for their deep literary merit. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The romantic descriptions of scenes and modes of life in Europe at once gained a wide popularity and established Willis's literary reputation, despite the high price tag of $7 a copy, and an American edition was soon issued. The bolded part seems a little random; that is a high price to pay, but I don't know if it's notable enough to break up the flow of this sentence.
• He soon married Mary Stace on October 1, 1835 after a month-long engagement. Is there any information about her available? Where was she from, for example?
• The article caused some scandal and Willis's publisher had to apologize. "...for which Willis's publisher had to apologize"?
• During a short visit to England in 1839-1840...: the dreaded en dash.
• His personal life was touched with grief when his first child was born dead: eek! "...when his first child was stillborn"?

I'm not very familiar with this type of terminology: the "born dead" line was from the source. But, I'll take your word for it and make this change! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Born dead" just sounded so cold; "stillborn is at least medically recognized. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Willis was part of a committee of literary figures–including William Cullen Bryant, Charles Anderson Dana, and Horace Greeley–to invite Edward Everett...: these should be either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes per WP:DASH.
• "an impersonal passive verb - a pronoun of the feminine gender." Because this is part of a quote, I'm not sure what the dash is supposed to be, but definitely not just a plain dash.
• Should the "Bibliography" be underneath the header "Writings"?

I'm not entirely sure what to do with that "Writings" section. Any advice is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would keep "Writings" a second level heading and make "Bibliography" a third level heading underneath it, since it's on the same topic, yes? María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not positive that a ref is required after every work listed in the "Bibliography section"; is this information going to be contested? Most if it is cited to Beers, so perhaps only one ref is needed for the entire section?

I'm hesitant to do something like that, lest future editors go in and make additions which are not supported by the source even when the article claims it does. I know it's a lot of footnoting, but it doesn't hurt, does it? I like to play it safe in case anything is ever challenged (and after some pretty brutal FAC reviews in the past, I've found that anything can be challenged!). --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good point; Trust No One (at FAC). And, no, it doesn't hurt. Certainly more citations are better than none. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have faith that this can be promoted soon to GA status; my main concern is plumping up the lead, but other than that, most of my comments are minor. If you have any questions or concerns, or need further clarification, please do let me know. I'll put the nomination on hold for now. María (habla conmigo) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, María. I probably won't get around to these changes for a day or two, but I appreciate your being so thorough! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just let me know when you're ready for another look. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've hit all of your concerns (well, the ones I was capable of addressing). Give it another look and let me know if you have any further suggestions for improvement. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Midnightdreary, it's much improved; the lead especially is a lot more interesting. :) One thing, though: since Willis did not technically work with Jacobs (she was his nursemaid, yes?), it may not pan out mentioning her in the lead after all. That minor point aside, I'm satisfied that this passes the criteria, so consider it promoted. Congrats! María (habla conmigo) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks so much for your review and your great suggestions! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Leftover FAC stuff

• Willis began contributing more frequently to magazines and periodicals. - This sentence at the beginning of the "Literary career" section needs some context, such as dates or motivations.

The context is in the preceding and following sentences: between 1827 and 1829. Is that not clear? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is like a topic sentence for the entire paragraph or even the entire section, so it should not rely on the next sentence for context. I was definitely stopped short here. I wouldn't have assumed the sentence was referring back to the previous section, either. When a sentence starts a section, it usually begins a new topic. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Supplied context. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Willis arbitrarily refused to print the work of his sister Sara Willis ("Fanny Fern") after 1854 - Why "arbitrarily"? Had he printed it before? Some clarification needs to be added here.

Hmm... arbitrarily implies there is no reason; that makes it hard to clarify. Even I am confused by this one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a solution for this yet? Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I clarified that he had previously published his sister. Not sure if that helps. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Among his later works were Hurry-Graphs (1851), Outdoors at Idlewild (1854), and Ragbag (1855). Willis had complained that his magazine writing prevented him from writing a longer work. He finally had the time in 1856, and he wrote his novel Paul Fane which was published a year later.[8] His final work was The Convalescent (1859), which included a chapter on his time spent with Washington Irving at Sunnyside. - Are these all novels? Could we get a hint of what they are about since there are no links?

He only wrote one novel, Paul Fane. I think I clarified this nicely, if you want to take another look ("no links"? What does that mean? I was earlier asked to remove a link to an online version of a work in this same review). --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It would still be nice to describe these other longer works a bit - what kind of works were they? What were they about? (When I said no links, I meant no wikilinks. I see DYKs in your future!) Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found no specific descriptions beyond what I have already added. None of them are particularly literary or meritorious. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that perhaps the first paragraph of the "Reputation" section is too flippant - it describes Willis as a static character. Of course Willis was well-liked by his friends, for example! And, he was well-traveled only after a certain point in his life and he was only six feet tall after a certain point as well. I don't think these kinds of descriptions are helpful. The relevant quotations about his being a dandy, etc. should be inserted into the article where appropriate, not all grouped together. We have to be careful not to give undue weight to a few people's remembrances and be sure that we give ample room for the reader to decide what NPW was like from the article.

I strongly disagree. Willis's appearance and his image were his reputation. He introduced himself as a character to the reading public, and that's what made his work popular. I can clarify this, but I would never budge on including his physical appearance and personality under reputation, nor would any biography of Nat Willis. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your response provides an excellent solution - include the material where it is most relevant in the article, where you discuss how he appealed to the public and how his business succeeded. That ensures that it is discussed at the most relevant moment in his life and removes the problem of describing him as a static character. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this would work. I'll ruminate on it a bit further. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Willis built up his reputation in the public at a time when readers were interested in the personal lives of writers - Why were readers particularly interested in the personal lives of writers at this time?

Explaining why is difficult. Why do so many people say red is their favorite color? It's just the fad of the time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would expect some of the literary criticism about the time does in fact try to explain this. That is just the sort of thing literary critics try to explain. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is it worth linking to this archive in the "External links" since only UVA people can see it?

I'll look for advice on this one. UVA has a fairly substantial Willis collection, and there are not a lot of collections out there. I differ to others' opinions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some other opinions on this? I know I found it frustrating to click on the link and not be able to see any of the texts! Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The easiest solution is just to remove it and, thus, the debate! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

Willis at age 31

Here's an engraving of Willis in case it can be used.--INeverCry 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathaniel Parker Willis. 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/web/20090225135231/http://www.daguerreotypearchive.org/pdf/N8550001_WILLIS_HOME_JOURN_1855-07-21.pdf to http://www.daguerreotypearchive.org/pdf/N8550001_WILLIS_HOME_JOURN_1855-07-21.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Corrections related to Harriet Jacobs

I changed the paragraph about Willis's journey to England in 1845. The former text said that Imogen stayed in England after her father had returned to the US. The reference was to Yellin, page 86. But in the last two lines of p. 86 Yellin only says that Willis "had initially planned" to leave his daughter in England, while in the continuation of the same paragraph on p. 87 she says that after changing his plan, he returned to the US together with Imogen. Yellin (whose focus is of course on Jacobs, not on the Willis family) doesn't provide information on where Imogen was staying between her return from England and her father's second marriage. So I dropped the sentence "After the marriage, Willis's daughter Imogen came to live with the newlyweds in New York", because it no longer has any context. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There are some more problems related to Harriet Jacobs:

Section "Literary career": The sentence „When her owners sought to have her returned to their plantation, Willis's wife bought her freedom for $300.“ has two problems: (1) Jacobs's legal owners (in plural, because her owner Mary Matilda (née Norcom) had come to New York together with husband Daniel Messmore) didn't own a plantation (Yellin describes their financial situation on p.114, and in more detail in note 6 on p.310 in Jacobs's Incidents). (2) The context is the year 1842 and the small child of Willis's first wife, while Jacobs's freedom was bought in 1852 by his second wife (Yellin p.114-118). So it is not wrong, but very misleading to mention the purchase of her freedom in that context. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuation in section "Literary career": "... Jacobs would write in her pseudonymized autobiography Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, which she began composing while working for the Willis family, ..." (1) In 1850, Willis's second wife re-hired her again. She stayed in the service of the family until 1861 or 62 (Yellin, p.150, states that in the summer of 1861 she was at Idlewild, p.158 gives the date of her departure to Washington as „early spring“ 1862). She finished her book in 1858, it was published in January 1861 (Yellin, p.143). So, she did not only „begin“ to compose her book while working for the Willises, but she also completed and published it while working for them. For the same reason, the words „future writer“ in the lead are not correct, since she was a published writer at the end of her work for the Willises.

(2) The next words are the most problematic ones: „… that she "was convinced that ... Nathaniel Parker Willis was proslavery". Willis is depicted as "Mr. Bruce", an unattractive Southern sympathizer in the book.“ This does not only sound like she had been ungrateful to the family who bought her freedom, it is also wrong. The reference given is to p. xvii of her autobiography. But that page was not written by her (as immediately becomes clear from the Roman page number; in the 2000 edition the phrase is on p. xxi), but is part of the introduction by Yellin. She doesn't give any depiction of Willis / Bruce in the autobiography, but only mentions him 7 times in matter-of-fact style, while both his wives (with a total of more than 20 mentionings) receive great praise. Still, "proslavery" is Jacobs' own description of Willis, given in a private letter to her trusted friend Amy Post (reproduced on p.254 of the 2000 edition of „Incidents“). In her book, she doesn't criticize her employer.

(3) „One of Willis's tales, "The Night Funeral of a Slave", ...“. Reference given is to Yellin, p.109. There, Yellin only says that „The Night Funeral“ was published by Willis, not that it was written by him. A reprint (from De Bow's Review, February 1856) is available online (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/acg1336.1-20.002/242) showing that it was signed „Viator“ (Latin, „Traveller“), so it was in fact anonymous.

(4) "Frederick Douglass later used the work to criticize Northerners who were pro-slavery." "Later" here seems to refer to a time after 1853, when Jacobs started writing her book. In fact, he re-printed "The night funeral" before that date (Yellin, p.109). The word "used" (the work) seems to be a bit misleading, since Douglass constantly criticized pro-slavery people, using a variety of ways. Yellin's word is "republished".

Sorry for being verbose. Since my first correction in the lead was reverted, I feel I should explain myself carefully.

I'm a bit at a loss what to do. Maybe completely delete the paragraph on Jacobs in the section "Literary career", shortly mention her first employment in the sentence on her second one in 1845, mention the purchase of her freedom and the autobiography in the section "Idlewild", and one sentence on Willis' pro-slavery views (Yellin, p.140 calls his "Negro happiness in Virginia" an "unashamed apology for slavery") in the section "Reputation" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)