Talk:Julia Peterkin

Pulitzer Prize

>In addition to the controversy over the obscenity claim, there was another problem with Scarlet Sister Mary. Dr. Richard S. Burton, the chairperson of Pulitzer's fiction-literature jury, recommended that the first prize go to the novel Victim and Victor by Dr. John B. Oliver. His nomination was superseded by the School of Journalism's choice of Peterkin's book. Evidently in protest, Burton resigned from the jury.

Even if he was the chairman of the jury, why is Burton's resignation a "problem" with the book? Perhaps he wasn't against Scarlet Sister Mary as much as he was for Oliver's book, in which case the problem isn't with Peterkin's book, the problem is with Burton and his inability to persuade the jury to vote with him. Apparently most of the jury was fine with Scarlet Sister Mary winning the prize and surely that more than cancels out anything Burton did.

I think this section about Burton should be moved to the area where the Pulitzer is mentioned (in this entry and in the one about the book itself); and the "there was another problem with...." phrase removed for some reason.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics. Presumably, Richard S. Burton has some kind of doctoral degree -- that should be put behind his name the first time he is mentioned; thereafter he should be referred to by his last name. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Obscenity Charge

>Scarlet Sister Mary was called obscene and banned at the public library in Gaffney, South Carolina.

Is that it? Surely there must have been religious and civil leaders around the country who called it obscene, yes? I don't know how big Gaffney was in 1928, but it only has 12,449 people today. That hardly counts as a significant claim of obscenity. I think this section should also be removed until more information is available. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity

>She was audacious as well as gracious, an ambiguity attested to by Robeson...

Being audacious and gracious is not an ambiguity -- that's just human nature. If Peterkin had been a man, Robeson would not have commented on it. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Peterkin. 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/20060502172603/http://www.scribblingwomen.org/jpmerryfeature.htm to http://www.scribblingwomen.org/jpmerryfeature.htm

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) 04:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)