Talk:The Power of Sympathy

message: This article has waaaaay too much 'original research'. Lots42 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR problem 

message: Apparently there was much misunderstand of who wrote this. How was the actual author identified? is a question the reader will ask.--Wetman (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Six more months later and I came here to express this same concern.  I'm kind of surprised this article is being linked from the main page with this sort of glaring issue. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Late November 2020, the problem is still there. I'm confused as to how a misattribution in 1893 caused all the readers BEFORE then to think Apthorp Morton wrote it. The apparent explanation would be that the novel had long been misattributed to her, and the serial publication followed suit. Aristophanes68 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: I found some clearer information in a reference book, and I added that here and took out the confusing paragraph. However, the source still does not say how Brown came to be known as the author. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of authorship 

message: Six years after your comment, the article is still confusing.  Here is what it says, and doesn't say:
* "The Power of Sympathy was first published by Isaiah Thomas in Boston on January 21, 1789...."
*# Was it published under Hill's name, another person's name, a pseudonym, a vague term (e.g., Jane Austen's novels were published with the byline "By a Lady"), or without any attribution at all?
*# When was this novel first attributed to William Hill Brown -- and on what evidence?  Do historians today accept this authorship as certain, or is it still disputed?
* "A century after William Hill Brown's death in 1793, Arthur Bayley, editor of The Bostonian, published a serial publication of The Power of Sympathy, attributing the work to Sarah Wentworth Apthorp Morton...."
*# Do we know the exact year?  ("A century" means 100 years, but why would it be republished exactly 100 years after the death of Hill, if nobody knew Hill was the author?)
*# Was it actually published under Morton's name, or was it published anonymously with a notes stating that Bayley believed the author was probably Morton? 
* "Through much of the 19th century, the author was believed to be female."
*#  Does this refer to the period before the serialization in The Bostonian?  If so, why does this appear in the article after the discussion of that serialization?
Given the status of this novel, these should not be difficult questions! — Lawrence King (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Six more months later and I came here to express this same concern.  I'm kind of surprised this article is being linked from the main page with this sort of glaring issue. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Late November 2020, the problem is still there. I'm confused as to how a misattribution in 1893 caused all the readers BEFORE then to think Apthorp Morton wrote it. The apparent explanation would be that the novel had long been misattributed to her, and the serial publication followed suit. Aristophanes68 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: I found some clearer information in a reference book, and I added that here and took out the confusing paragraph. However, the source still does not say how Brown came to be known as the author. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the author known, and when was the author secret? 

message: The article says: The novel mirrors a local New England scandal involving Brown's neighbor Perez Morton's incestuous seduction of Fanny Apthorp; Apthorp was Morton's sister-in-law. Apthorp became pregnant and committed suicide, but Morton was not legally punished.
:By definition, being a sister-in-law means that Fanny Apthrop was related by law, but not by blood to Perez Morton.  Can this seduction truly be correctly characterized as being incest?Marcd30319 (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to The Columbia History of the American Novel, p. 15, it was considered incest under 18th-century law. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Incestuous seduction?

message: "The opening letters between Harrington and Worthy reveal that Harrington has fallen for Harriot, despite the reservations of his father. Harriot resists Harrington's initial advances... when Harrington and Harriot become engaged, Mrs. Holmes becomes alarmed and exposes a deep family secret to Myra: Harriot is in fact Harrington and Myra’s illegitimate sister.
In this plot summary, the male characters are consistently referred to by their last names ("Harrington" "Worthy") without the use of "Mr.", while the female characters are referred to by their first name ("Harriot" "Myra"), or, if married, a title and married name ("Mrs. Holmes"). 
This undoubtedly accurately reflects the sexism of the time, but perhaps could be changed now that we live in the 21st century. (It's particularly awkward since there are actually three characters named "Harrington") Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. I changed it accordingly. Can't believe it took almost 6 years. Aristophanes68 (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First names and last names in plot summary