Like many another woman writer excessively drawn to the kind (and unkind) hearts and coronets scene—or to its American counterpart—Pearl Sydenstricker Buck escaped downright badness only by a hairsbreadth…. Certainly, it's hard now to conceive Miss Buck trawling in a Nobel Prize—and for literature at that—even as a Buggin's Turn candidate in a lean year. [The Woman Who Was Changed, the] latest collection from under the belt of the Pearl S. Buck Foundation Inc.—only two of its tales have been published before—confirms once again a talent that's agreeable but markedly striated with flaws.
Five of these stories, for instance, enjoy happy arrangements at their endings. Emphatic endings are, of course, the formal prerogative of short stories. With so generally scanty a middle to go on with, even in a nouvelle-length piece like Miss Buck's title story, short fictions inevitably press rather hard on the ending they have chosen so rapidly to press on to. But plots offering you gladness as a consolation prize for the briskness of the dash you have just been made to put in are no part of the form's necessities. On the contrary, the better short stories frequently end with just the sort of tougher wryness that Miss Buck cannot keep up, with the reversals, puzzles and shock that she makes it her finales' business to phase out.
[In the title story, her] ur-feminist writer, for example, who quits a greyly enclosing bank-manager spouse for isolated freedom and writing, finds at the end a charming Swede who gives her … light and air, as well as the writing space she's craved…. Repeated instances of this final upbeat seem to seal Miss Buck's endings into the cosier nooks of Home Chat.
This is a free excerpt of 282 words. There are 575 words (approx.
2 pages at 300 words per page) in the full critical essay.
Read the rest of this Criticism with our Buck, Pearl S(ydenstricker) 1892–1973: Critical Essay by Valentine Cunningham Access Pass.
