Jump to content

Talk:The Secret Life of Bees (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plot

[edit]

I basically only skimmed the book, but I don't remember any sex change operations. --DocumentN (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a complete mess:

  • Themes should not be part of the synopsis and instead have a section of their own OR be included in symbols (Symbols and Themes). The synopsis should include a summary of the novel and its plot. I haven't finished this book yet as I merely went to look for information. Otherwise, I would have fixed it myself.
  • Influence quote does not include a reference. If you wish to include a quote in an article, a reference is a MUST,
  • There is a MOVIE review, copied directly from New York Times (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/movies/17bees.html?partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes&ei=5083) in the notes. This should be removed for it is not only on the wrong section, but it also violates copyright.

83.253.234.217 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie

[edit]

I read in a newspaper that the book has been optioned as a movie. Does anyone have more information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.139 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is set to be release in 2007, and no casting has taken place. They are still writing the first draft of the script. For more details check it out at imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.120.151 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure... here

Dakota Fanning will be playing Lily, Fox Studios has taken on the harrowing task of transforming this "strong-woman-fights-her-way-out-of-some-circumstance-while-gaining-insight-and-growing-emotionally-while-developing-a-forbidden-love-interest" cliche of a book into a profitable movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.208 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was saying this was over saturated with "symbolism" yet I find that it was undersaturated, it was a great book. The reviews were great, and the story was overall just wonderful. I found nothing wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.231.2 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

book is amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.149.127 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study guide for students

[edit]

There's this great study guide made by Year 10 Australian students for this book. -- can be found at [[1]]

includes: Introduction, Themes, Summary of the plot, Key turning points, Author information, Quotes, page references, Characters, Settings, Historical context, Chapter summaries, Structure, Symbols, Practice Essay Questions --Msmarmalade (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date

[edit]

Observation: The infobox currently says the book was published in January 2003, while the main article says 2002. --DocumentN (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themes and Symbols

[edit]

I attempted to add a section on themes and symbols but was informed that my contribution constituted "original research" "commentary" and "Personal analysis" To continue this discussion, I am posting what has been said so far here, where it makes the most sence. And were others can add to the discussion.

[edit] Unsourced POV Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to The Secret Life of Bees. The content has been removed. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Secret Life of Bees. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This webpage that you cited as a source has nothing about themes and symbols. Please do not add the information again without a proper source. Continuing to add it without a proper source is considered vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Here is the quote from the page:

"In this New York Times bestseller, a young girl's search for the truth about her mother leads her to three beekeeping sisters who take her into their mesmerizing world of bees and honey and of a mysterious Black Madonna. A novel about mothers and daughters and the women in our lives who become our true mothers. A story about the divine power of women and the transforming power of love."

Although the webpage does not explicitly use the words THEMES and SYMBOLS it states that this is what the book is about. A theme of a book is a larger idea expressed ("A novel about mothers and daughters... A story about the transforming power of love"). The quote also showes some of the symbols used to express the theme: bees, honey, Black Madonna.

It is not an incorrect summery to express and summerized this information as "themes and symbols". Personally, I think you are being overly pedantic, but would it prevent you from deleting the material if I changed the heading to "See Also"?

I have to admit, I am frustrated. It is not original reserch. It is not commentary. Saying "One of the themes of this story is motherhood using bees as symbolism" is another way of saying, "This is a story about motherhood and involving bees." Original reserch or commentary would be if I started writing about my own ideas of what the bees were symbols for. The fact that they were the tools that the author used to tell a story about motherhood is clear from the source. amyanda (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amyanda2000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if I quoted a source that said, A, B, and C are the things that happen in this book? Would I be wrong to put A, B, and C under the heading of PLOT, even though the original did not use the exact word "plot"? Basic knowlege of what constitutes plot, symbols, and themes is not original reserch. What if the article says, "By Sue Monk Kidd" -- is it original reserch to rever to Sue Monk Kidd as the AUTHOR, even though the word "author" was not used in the work cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is what was added by Amyanda2000 in the section "Themes and Symbols"

According to Sue Monk Kidd's website, some of the important themes of the novel are included below.Sue Monk Kidd.

Here is my response on Amyanda2000 talk page after she made the edit :

It is synthesis of research to reach your own conclusions, also not allowed. If you find published reliable sources that discuss themes and symbols, you might be able to summarize that in the article. But you are taking a few bits and pieces of information and imposing your own interpretation. That, indeed, is original research. It's one thing for you to state that the author describes the book as being about "motherhood and involving bees". It's quite another thing for you to come to your own conclusion that the not what happenz nothing about some of the "themes" or "symbols" you identified, making the stretch into your own interpretations even more pronounced. To state a book is "about" something is not equivalent to stating that those things are "themes" or "symbols". I could come up with a dozen or so different "themes and symbols". For example, I could use the fact that a jail is discussed at least twice in the book and then add my own interpretion that the novel has a theme of "the atrocities of our penal system", but then I have stepped over the line into my own interpretion. Other editors might come up with hundreds more. If we allowed that the article would be nothing more than an overbloated list of "themes and symbols", all of it original or synthesized research. Now, if I find a reliable source that discusses how a theme in the novel relates to our penal system, then it might be appropriate to summarize that.
Sorry you're frustrated, but we have rules and guidelines. Wikipedia has no professional editorial oversight. It relies on editors to maintain its policies. Without that, this would not be an encyclopedia; it would be a huge mess of opinions. I have had to fight this battle many times on different articles. It is based on clear and unequivocal Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, I suggest that you raise the issues on the article's talk page, but don't add the information again without a clear consensus to do so, or with some solid, reliable sources that are unambiguous so that you don't add your own interpretations. For ideas on how to use published research to write about themes, look at articles identified as good articles on books or films. An example that comes to mind is Pulp Fiction (film); there are others. Ward3001 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Amyanda2000's additional comments here:

  • Basic knowlege of what constitutes plot, symbols, and themes is not original reserch: Basic knowledge of plot is not original research because the book itself is the source for the plot. Discussion of symbols and themes is original research if it is not cited to a reliable source which discusses it as a theme or symbol and not just a plot summary. As I noted earlier, the author (or anyone else) stating that a book is "about" something (e.g., bees) is not equivalent to stating that something (bees) is a theme.
  • What if the article says, "By Sue Monk Kidd" -- is it original reserch to rever to Sue Monk Kidd as the AUTHOR, even though the word "author" was not used in the work cited: Kidd is already identified as the author, so there's no need to refer to her in the plot summary. If you are referring to "themes and symbols", however, you need to cite a reliable source (whether Kidd or anyone else) that specifically addresses the issues of themes or symbols. To extrapolate from a point in a plot summary (e.g., "the book is about bees") to an interpretation of a theme or symbol ("bees is a theme in the book" or "bees are a symbol of ...") clearly is original research. Ward3001 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Writing

[edit]

I don't have the time or inclination to fix it, but this article, or at least the plot summary, was (quite hilariously) clearly written by an eight year old. Might want to go through and edit it. GRHooked (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

The very thorough synopsis was deleted by a vandal a few years ago and has since not been corrected. I am going to combine what was there with the shorter version currently posted. --Roseclearfield (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current synopsis is pulled directly from the introduction of the book. Here is what it said (clearly not NPOV):
"Isolated on a South Carolina peach farm with a neglectful and harsh father, fourteen-year-old Lily Owens has spent much of her life longing for her mother, Deborah, who died amid mysterious circumstances when Lily was four years old. To make matters worse, her father, T. Ray, tells Lily that she accidentally killed her mother.
Lily is raised by Rosaleen, her proud and outspoken African-American nanny. In the summer of 1964, when Rosaleen attempts to exercise her newly won right to vote, she is attacked by the three worst racists in town and is thrown into jail. Lily is determined to save Rosaleen and finally escape her own father as well. Seizing the moment, she springs Rosaleen from jail, and the two set out across South Carolina in search of a new life.
Their destination is Tiburon, South Carolina—a town they know nothing about except that in a box of Lily's mother's belongings there is a cryptic picture of a black Virgin Mary with the words "Tiburon, South Carolina" written on the back. There they are taken in by three black beekeeping sisters who worship the Black Virgin Mary. It is here, surrounded by the strength of the Virgin Mary, the hum of bees, and a circle of wise and quite colorful women, that Lily makes her passage to wholeness and a new life." --Roseclearfield (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Secret_Life_of_Bees_(novel)&oldid=1232858383"