Talk:Pearl S. Buck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Christianity in China work group. See also Portal:Christianity in China.

(with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
West Virginia Portal
Pearl S. Buck is within the scope of WikiProject West Virginia, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of West Virginia and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. (Usage)
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings you add or change by editing this article's ratings summary page.

Contents

[edit] Let's split off "Home"

The long and detailed description of her house (Green Hills) seems like it ought to be on its own web page, linked from here. If there are no objections, I will move it. Dark Formal 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first paragraph doesn't make sense

"The family was sent to Zhenjiang, China in 1892 when Pearl was 3 months old. She was raised in California and learned the Chinese language and customs from a teacher named Mr. Kung. She was taught English as a second language by her mother and tutor. She was encouraged to write things at an early age.

In 1910, she left for America to attend Randolph-Macon Woman's College [1], "

How was she raised in California if she was in China from 3 months until 18 years? Furthermore, to say that she "was taught English as a second language from her mother..." defies logic. Is that supposed to mean Kung taught her Chinese before she learned to speak English? -by the mighty anonymouse—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.41 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Move?

Why isn't it ("Pearl S. Buck") at Pearl Buck (currently empty)? I dictionaried it and she is the only famous Buck (note that's a surname here). --Menchi 23:35 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Pearl S. Buck" is the name she's generally known by. RickK 00:32 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think we can redirect "Pearl Buck" here? Or make that a disambiguation page? If so, disambiguate from whom? --Menchi 00:37 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, I can't think of anyone else who would be called by that name, so my vote would be for a redirect, but if somebody can come up with somebody else who uses that name, then it should be a disambiguation page. See how firmly I take a stand? :) RickK 01:31 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, very firmly. But you do relect on the tremendous flexibility of WP. I have just made the redirect, but it can easily be changed later shall Pearl T. Buck be borned a decade from now and be famous 30 years from now.
Thank you for your input.
--Menchi 01:38 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Were the adopted children Chinese? -- Error 00:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They were mostly of mixed ancestry. She wrote in "Essay of Myself" that most were born of Asian mothers and mostly American fathers. --QueenStupid 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error on where she lived in China

The article states that Pearl Buck lived in Zhejiang, while she actually lived in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu province, China.

[edit] Water Margin aka All Men Are Brothers

I'd be grateful to anyone who can add a few sentences about her adaptation of the classical Chinese story The Water Margin

[edit] Chinese tutor Mr. Kong or Mr. Kung?

Everywhere else I have seen Mr. Kung including here http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/Buck/biography.html

[edit] Weird Sentence?

"In her Lifetime original series, Pearl S. Buck would write over 100.5 works of literature" huh?? --216.165.11.242 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce

I'm curious as to why she divorced her husband. I read this in an "about the author" from The Good Earth and thought there might be more info in the article here. 67.76.228.3 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

Are articles for biographies of Buck really necessary? Just wondering, since I just fixed a link for one, thus creating a red link calling for an article. QueenStupid 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by the "Biographies" section too. Both the books listed there are by Pearl Buck, not biographies of her. So they should be in the "Bibliography" section. For actual biographies you should just have a wikified ISBN. Dark Formal 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert to be sure - but my grandfather did know Buck in China so . . .... so i think that these are biographies that Buck wrote - one, i think of her father or perhaps both parents. The Exile is her dad and the Angel is her Mom - but please check it out. Carptrash 22:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
From target: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pearlbuc.htm and from looking at a list of her works in one of her books at the library, I know now that they are written by her. The library didn't have those books, so I don't know if they are biographies. Anyway, I will change the section header to be under "Bibliography." Also, should this "Bibliography" be changed to "Selected Works" or something to that effect? QueenStupid 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have both those books around here somewhere [maybe in the PILE] , but checked with Carpwoman - and they are biographies of her parents written by her. I'll think about the section headers a bit. Carptrash 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeserving?

While the Nobel prizes for literature are known for the writers ignored (Henry James, Mark Twain etc), it is hard to imagine there is a prize less deserved than Pearl Bucks. Her books include some that are simply unreadable (Imperial Woman--cheesy melodrama) and some that add nothing to the sum of hunman knowledge (Portrait of a marriage). The cruel irony is that she received a Nobel Prize for her American-centric maunderings about China while one of the great writers of the 20th Century, the Chinese master Lu Xun, vanished from Western view.

I haven't read all of her novels, but I think 'cruel irony' is a little harsh on the award and on her. I thought Imperial Woman was a pretty insightful book. I felt pity and anger for Tsu Hsi when I read it, as opposed to the extremely negative view most of my Chinese relatives have of her. I think this is a popular view of the last empress, and Pearl S. Buck, with that knowledge, really showed her readers a more sympathetic picture. I know she was no historian, but her works brought Asian culture to light in the Western world. Lu Xun's work sounds very interesting, and I thank you for letting us know about him. I'm definitely going to find some of his work. QueenStupid 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments like "unreadable," "cheesy melodrama," and "maunderings" are hardly NPoV and, to those who know the work, are quite simply inaccurate. Buck's books, aside from being excellent storytelling, made many non-Asians far more interested in China than they would otherwise have been. Her influence was vast and the Nobel was appropriate. Athaenara talk 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree at all. The dispute should be mentioned. Her Nobel Prize was regretted enough for the commitee to create a "lex buck" (which has the purpose to prevent another misstake like her by limiting the prize to people that already have been on the short list before) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 134.105.82.221 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 October
Can you give a source for that information? If verifiable, it would be worth mentioning in a neutral way. --Foggy Morning 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buck's humanitarianism and her organization coming "under fire"...

Pearl S. Buck International has consistently received "A" ratings from charity watchdog groups, and PSBI receives particularly good marks for its child sponsorship programs, which are judged to be extremely efficient. Examples include:

The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance [1]

The American Institute of Philanthropy (As a Top-Rated Charity) [2]

"Best in America" at Independent Charities of America [3]

The statements about "Pearl S. Buck International coming under fire" run counter to the public perception and those of the nonprofit watchdog community, which is based on audited financial statements and significant oversight.

While an article was written alledging management misconduct at Pearl S. Buck International in 2004, it was considered poorly sourced (the primary source was a fired employee) and did not result in any penalties for the organization. Furthermore, the wiki post suggests that it is inappropriate to "redirect" donations to pay for staff salaries (which is not true).

The article about mismanagement at PSBI is misleading and contradicts the confirmed standing of her organization within the charitable and philanthropic community. Considering also that there is no source listed for this citation, and that its claims have not been verified in any official way, I argue that it misrepresents her humanitarian contribution. I suggest that it be stricken.

--ChrisLeyda 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I almost deleted...

I almost deleted the Chinese and Pinyan spellings of her name. It would seem obtuse if every English Language Wikipedia article had the Chinese (and/or other foreign language) representations of people's names in them, as Wikipedia is not a language study guide. However, after reading the article, and seeing that she spent significant time in China, and wrote about her experiences, it seems contextually appropriate. Perhaps it would belong in another section of the article, however, other than the intro, as the intro gives no clues as to why we are reading Chinese language representations of an American;s name. I will leave it up to the regular contributors to the article to decide if and how to do that. Jerry 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese name and pinyin are appropriate because she is still known in China. cwh 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Illustrator of her works is entirely relevant

The Illustrator of her works is entirely relevant. It is factual, and referenced with the NY Times article. Undid JNW's deletion of this important aspect. Maxwell illustrated works for Pearl S. Buck for nearly 10 years. --Rocketsquirrel (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrators, plural

Factual, but not integral, unless your references make it clear that Maxwell maintained a special or exclusive relationship with Buck, which might be worth mention, i.e., 'Maxwell was the only artist to illustrate Buck's work for a ten year period, at the author's insistence'. Currently, the passage makes it appear as if Maxwell was the only artist who illustrated Buck's works, which was not the case. If this is a valid heading, what you have contributed thus far is a start---other prominent artists who illustrated her works included Dean Cornwell, Martha Sawyers, Benton Clark, Gustaf Tenggren, Kurt Werth, Charles Hargens, Esther Brock Bird, and William A. Smith. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to promote particular individuals, and thus far that is the appearance here. JNW (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Then add them

I intentionally put the title "illustrators" on the section, knowing that there were more illustrators than just Maxwell, to avoid POV. If you have references for Cornwell, Sawyers, Clark, Tenggren, et. al., they should be added. Currently, the passage makes it appear as if Maxwell was the only artist who illustrated Buck's works... untrue. It says he illustrated The Exile and Fighting Angel. How can one infer otherwise? Maxwell illustrated more works for Buck, including "China Sky" and serialized magazine editions of The Exile and Fighting Angel in Collier's and Woman's Home Companion magazines. But I am still working on suitable referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketsquirrel (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to add others. In the interest of fleshing out a heading you created in a biography on Pearl Buck, you might want to research other illustrators as well. JNW (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrators section

Personally, I have to wonder about the relevance of such a section in what is essentially a biography of the subject. I know that the author does not necessarily generally select those who illustrate their books, so unless there is some clear evidence that the author chose the artists, or knew them in a significant way personally, I'm far from sure that the section really should be in this article. Now, if the works are significant enough to be mentioned in the biography of the illustrator, that would be a separate thing entirely. And certainly such content would be welcome included in the content relating to the individual book itself. But the essence of such an article like this is the subject of the article herself, not her books per se, so unless the illustrator made a significant, recognized contribution to the artist's life or work, I am far from sure that such content should be in this article about the author herself. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the current placement is awkward and give it some undue weight. I would rephrase and move it under each of the two books in the bibliography section; if and when the books have their own articles they can be sent there. If there is more to the story/connection then possibly explore what that is as it may merit inclusion or prominent placement. Benjiboi 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the section should be removed entirely. It is not relavent to Pearl S. Buck. This is a biographical article, not a holding place for trivia and pet interests. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree to a point, remove the section and add the info in the bibliography section instead, the whole article needs expanding so, to me, removing information is not the answer. Every article is an organic process with sections growing unevenly. If consensus is that it simply has no place in the bio then maybe document on the talk for future editors. Benjiboi 00:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How are the illustrators of an author's body of work "trivia?" Decide how it should best be sectioned, sure, but to trivialize the relationship between literature, art and illustration and excise these facts from an organic encyclopedia seems a bit extreme. --Rocketsquirrel (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's a biography of Pearl Buck, not an entry to include those who worked with her in the fields of art or literature, from which hundreds of people would be included. An encyclopedic biography covers the essentials of a figure's life. To use it otherwise suggests an agenda. 69.37.21.94 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. JNW (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If the illustrators figured prominently in the author's life, then they could reasonably be included in the biography where appropriate. However, the illustrators of an author's work tend in general not to be particularly relevant to the author's life, which is the subject of this article. This is not saying that the illustrator's wouldn't deserve reasonable coverage in articles about the works themselves, but the policy of WP:Undue weight makes it very questionable whether such information belongs in an article about the life of the author. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immature writing style of article

I find I'm unable to get much past the first one or two paragraphs of this article because it reads like a fourth-grade essay. Aside from grammar/syntax/punctuation errors (of which there are, sadly, a not insignificant number), the style itself is simplistic to the point of being almost nonsensical. Examples (all from first paragraph, which, I guess, is an example all by itself):

She was raised in China and learned the customs from a teacher named Mr. Kung.

Buck learned ALL the Chinese "customs" from one person? Did "Mr. Kung" have a bigger name? Or did his close friends just call him "Mr."?

She was encouraged to write things at an early age.

By whom? What, exactly, are "things"? And how does this encouragement differ from that provided to most children (of literate families) during their early-education careers?

“The streets [of China] were alive with rumors- many … based on fact- of brutality to missionaries …”

What's with the punctuation here? Not to mention: Huh?

If no one objects, I'd like to clean up this article in a relatively massive way. I'll check back in about a week, and will begin editing then.

Sugarbat (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and made some small changes to wording. Still far from a great article in particular the odd Historic site reference that seems detached. Is this her homestead? If so should it not move slightly up the page?--Vagon (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add a redirect page

Pearl S Buck ~ender 2008-02-27 20:18:PM MST