“Not everyone will agree with Kingston’s high estimate of Pearl Buck’s
representations of China. Nonetheless, Buck’s stories and essays ought to be
evaluated on their own terms, not prejudged by resort to a vulgar essentialism
that equates cultural authority with ethnic heritage or surname. Apparently
ignoring this elementary protocol, Edmund White declared not long ago: “each of
us can attest that . . . Maxine Hong Kingston knows more about China than did
Pearl Buck.” On the contrary, although Kingston has written brilliantly about
her experiences as a Chinese-American, she has published almost nothing about
China, a country in which she has never lived, and for which she does not
presume to speak. Ironically, in short, while Edmund White scorns Pearl Buck
and turns to Maxine Hong Kingston for reliable reports on China, Kingston
herself has turned to Pearl Buck. Edmund White, “The Politics of Identity,” New
York Times (December 21, 1993), p. A27.”

I have never used Buck in any class, but if did teach a US-China relations course she would be an obvious choice.

One problem with using Good Earth is that it is not a very good book as a book. Particularly in a survey class I think about what students will retain from the class 10 years from now, and for me, looking back, it is mostly the books I read. If my students are going to have something stuck in their heads for the rest of their lives I can think of a lot of things I would like better.

The other problem is that it leads naturally into talking about American images of China, and in a Modern China class I try to get them to realize that there might be things that mattered more to China than what Americans thought about the place.

I wouldn’t use Good Earth in a modern China course not because I wouldn’t dare, but because other books give a better feeling for everyday life, such as the book I mentioned, Ida Pruitt’s Daughter of Han, or Mo Yan’s Red Sorghum. There’s only so much time in a course.

In my course on US-China relations, Good Earth is a prime text.

This is a different question from appreciating the probing and committed body of work Buck wrote before she left China. I have written Introductions to forthcoming reprints of the twin biographies she wrote of her parents which I hope will bring them to more general attention. They’re fiery and smart books even if I couldn’t use them in a modern China survey. Maybe in a course on the American Empire, as she sees in her parents the failure of the American Mission in China.

Another question, as I suspect you of all people know, is that of literary racial profiling. I finger one or two perps in the article, but again, this is a different question from what to teach in a modern China course.

I should write a more expansive post on these questions, but I’d be very grateful if you and others weighed in on Buck and why we should or should not read her now.

Stand and face your accused. If, as Hayford article (rightly) states, [m]ost licensed China academics would not [dare?] use The Good Earth as the human interest component in a college-level history of China; and if this “teachable moment” that you’ve identified should indeed be taught to, then, by all means, let loose your criticism of Buck, point-up her considerable shortcomings and tell the reader why her books go unassigned.