Talk:O. Henry/Archive 1

First intital?
Is 'O.' the supposed first name initial of the pseudonym 'O. Henry'? If it is, it should be filed under 'Henry, O.' [[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|Contact Me!]] 15:28, May 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, I can't find this spelled out in Naming Conventions, but as you can see by looking for yourself, Wikipedia article titles do not invert names; names are given in their normal order, NOT last name first. Thus, the article on George Washington is entitled George Washington, not Washington, George.


 * In the pseudonym "O. Henry," O is the initial of the supposed first name and "Henry" is the supposed surname, so O. Henry is the correct title for the article.


 * Naming Conventions specify that the most common (rather than, say, the most scholarly accurate) title is to be preferred, which is why the article is under O. Henry rather than William Sydney Porter. Dpbsmith 18:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * yes, but when categorising, it is possible to invert names, for instance: [Category:Writers|Henry, O]. [[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|Contact Me!]] 19:04, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

O. Henry
O. Henry is a household name in Russia, as his books were among the few by Western authors read in Soviet schools.

This is double wrong. First, he was not in the school program, second, popularity in Russia was not gained through public schools, otherwise the most popular writer would have been Leo Tolstoy. O. Henry was indeed wastly popular, mostly on account on excellent translations into Russian, and partially because of a popular movie based on some Gentle Grafter stories. On an unrelated note, American authors in general were very much read in the former Soviet Union, popularity of some of them greatly exceeding their popularity at home (examples are such cult writers as Hemingway, Irwing Shaw, Wilder).

O Henry was popular not in Russia specifically, but in the USSR, and for several reasons. (i) His works weren't in copyright and could be published in the USSR without payment of royalties. (ii) the simplicity of his written language made it accessible to a populace who couldn't get English tuition from native speakers. But principally (iii) the maudlin story of his life as a convict in the USA appealed to communist apparachiks, who portrayed "poor" Porter/Henry as a victim of the capitalist system which imprisoned him. Reiner Torheit (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The story I always heard about his name is that he took it from his prison warden. You'd think that would be mentioned, even if not definite. DEL 66.57.224.168 02:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

pardon coincidence?
The pardon paragraph mentions Henry Flipper's eventual pardon. Isn't it strange his middle initial was O?

O. Henry & Henry O.

J. Crocker 08:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards
Think it's worth mentioning that if he wrote today, his work would never be considered serious enough to win an O. Henry award? 66.57.224.66 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you nerd? Wow how is that strange? Wow nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.182.107 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, the point made by the first poster here is an interesting and witty one. PS I dare say 'nerd' is unencyclopaedic language! 149.254.58.29 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the pseudonym
I don't see any compelling argument for putting a bunch of undocumented guesses about the origin of the name "O. Henry" above an explanation given by the author himself. Whether Porter's story was intended to be taken at face value it's the answer he gave. And it's not as if it's a particularly funny or entertaining story. It's perfectly believable, so unless there's an authority out there you gives a reason why his account should be doubted, we shouldn't dismiss it. And Wikipedia certainly shouldn't offer the "popular theories" contradicting him without any sources for them. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and since I added most of those undocumented guesses that I found here and there, I have taken the liberty of deleting them. -Regards Nv8200p talk 20:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "In a 1909 New York Times interview, Porter described the origin of his pseudonym," is factual and presented from a NPOV. It's not as if the article presents his account as fact... only that he gave it. We should not actively call his truthfulness into question by referring to it as merely "his version" unless we have a reliable independent source that calls that into question for us, or there are other cited and credible "versions" to refer to. -JasonAQuest (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with "gave an account of" as an NPOV statement. If you want a source for the possible dubiousness of this account, I'll refer you to Guy Davenport's introduction to the Penguin Selected Stories (reprinted in his The Hunter Gracchus and Other Papers on Literature and Art [Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 1996]): "To every query about its [i.e., the pseudonym's] choice, O. Henry gave a different answer. 'O. is the easiest letter to write.' Sometimes he said the O. was for Olivier, 'the French for Oliver, you know.'" And the article in its current state cites both stories, which are in some sense incompatible. Davenport is also a source for the notion that "the pseudonym that he began to write under in prison is constructed from the first two letters of Ohio and the second and last two of penitentiary," which has been removed from the section. I don't see any reason to privilege any specific account, since people a lot less slippery than Porter have been known to give less than reliable versions of such matters in interviews. If you can explain why "described" is somehow more NPOV, and accurate, than "gave an account of," I'll drop the matter. Deor (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to drop the matter; I'm asking you to help get the article correct. I asked for sources of the other origin stories, and none were forthcoming (the bit about "Olivier" was an  embellishment, not a contradiction of the account he gave immediately before it), so I rephrased the article to reflect the information at hand rather than using weasel words to imply something the article didn't corroborate.  But since there is evidence and at least one of the other accounts has an actual source (thanks for that), you're absolutely correct that we should include it in the article, and I've done so.  Any accounts simply need citations, which is what I was asking for from the beginning. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

i love o. henry's stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.230.36 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia paradoxes
This article, and one I read earlier today, have both puzzled me. The earlier article was prefaced with warnings that it might not be up to Wikipedia standards, etc., so I read it expecting utter amateurism. To my surprise, I found it quite well-written. I think I can hazard such a judgment since I am a professional writer with five published books, and numerous articles, to my credit. (References on request!) I have also worked as a professional copy editor. I don't claim to be perfect, but I think I can tell poor writing from good. That piece seemed fine to me, but tonight I came to read up on O. Henry, having just purchased a fine old edition of his complete works in two fat volumes, and find an article which though devoid of warnings is full of clunky writing like this immortal sentence under "Pen Name": "Porter GAVE various explanations for the origin of his pen name.[3] In 1909 he GAVE an interview to The New York Times, in which he GAVE an account of it:" I'm not sure what to think: had the first article been cleaned up, but the warning not yet removed? has nobody yet noticed the infelicities of the O. Henry article? Is Wikipedia in a constant blur or flux? Or are your standards simply the opposite of mine? I admit being from the "old school," so maybe what we used to consider bad writing is now deemed good. If so, I resign from the 21st century. Billcito (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are reasons for maintenance tags other than the quality of the prose in an article: lack of references, nonencyclopedic tone, point-of-view pushing, and many others. Without knowing what article you were looking at, it's difficult to tell whether the tags were appropriate. On the other hand, if you think that this article is in need of improvement to eliminate "clunky writing," go right ahead and improve it. That is, in part, what one does as a Wikipedia editor—trying to make articles better than they were when one found them. Deor (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations and Legacy
I think the "Legacy" section could be improved by referencing radio and theatre adaptations of Henry's work. I confess a small interest here, in that I've written and published a few stage adaptations as one-act plays, so I won't presume to link to my own work unless someone else considers them notable. Anyway, at http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/published/uva-sc/viu02489.document I found "A Guide to the Papers of O. Henry from the Doubleday and Company Archive 1894 (1894-1927) 1958" Quote: The collection contains manuscripts and typescripts of several short stories by O. Henry; radio adaptations of O. Henry stories by Henry Fisk Carlton, one in collaboration with Robert Winternitz; material regarding a film adaptation of "Best Seller" by Roy Mason; and an unpublished biographical account of Henry's Texas days by Paul Adams.

My question is does this document, which is basically a catalogue of documents held by a university, have any use as a reference in Wikipedia? Even if it doesn't I leave the link here in case anyone wants to follow it up.

Rob Burbidge (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what year The Missing Chord was written and/or published please?
Thanks very much. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First publication was in the magazine The Century, June 1904. Deor (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you!--Tyranny Sue (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Pardon
On what grounds would a pardon be granted? A presidential pardon today would suggest that whoever was president back at the time of the imprisonment would have pardoned O. Henry had he been asked. Presumably, that president would not have granted a pardon because O. Henry was guilty of the crime. So what justification would a modern-day president have to grant a pardon?


 * A Pardon may be granted for many reasons, including the belief that the public interest isn't served by continued imprisonment, changing public opinion about the crime or the criminal, or that the existence of the laws and situation that described the crime itself is a black mark on the State. Because they require no case to be made nor any adjudication of guilt or innocence, pardons are more often a move for political reasons. --184.234.139.147 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)