Talk:God's Little Acre/Archive 1

Splitting the main article up
It might be a good idea to split the main article into two articles, one for the book, and another for the film.

Does anybody have an opinion on this?


 * Yes - but only if there is more material in each than small stubs, :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Entire article seems to be synopsis of film - maybe reducing the level of detail may be easier? Dev920 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it needs more detail, not less. The additional details should relate to the difficulties encountered in the movie's production and filming, though.  Whatever difficulties there may have been in finding a publisher for the book were overcome when Erskine Caldwell won the obscenity trial, and counter-sued.  It might be interesting to note that his book does not represent the first time he had a run-in with authorities.  His first published work (not counting his magazine columns) was The Bastard (1929), and large numbers of the printed editions were seized out of hand.  It appears that he wanted to pick up a reading audience through shock tactics.

Absolutely it should be split between the book and the movie - as I looked at the plot I wasn't sure which synopsis I was reading (the movie, I think) and that's really unfortunate, especially since the synopsis seems to be more of a scene-by-scene run-through.

I also think the article should be split - it seems to me that most of it refers to the film (I've only read a translated version of the book and I'm afraid I can't be of much help). Avoniram (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since most of this discussion has been gone for a year or so, (how did you find it?) I don't think there was a lot of interest.


 * The movie, as described in the article, sounds reasonably close to the book. Two separate articles seems like a lot to me.


 * The "DISCUSS" tag at the top of the article is quite distracting, I think. Other opinion?


 * To raise a somewhat related point, here is a quote from the article: "the film adaptation that may have been the more alarming, inasmuch as it portrayed a popular uprising, or Marxist insurrection, in the southern United States by millworkers laid off from work and trying to gain control of the factory equipment which their jobs depend on."  The uprising is also in the book so this point of difference does not make sense as written.  Also it is just speculation.


 * At least restoring the text raises awareness by putting the article back on top of my watchlist. Thank you, Avoniram.  (I wonder how many editors have it on their watchlist.) Wanderer57 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was attracted by the "DISCUSS" tag and was surprised to find only one comment on the subject (that's how I found the missing bit eventually :) I decided to restore the beginning of the discussion as most of the comments seemed to be in favour of splitting the article, yet nothing has been done about that so far.


 * As I already said, I think the novel deserves an article of its own - it definitely is significant enough. For example, here it is described as "Caldwell's single most popular work" and here is the statement: "Caldwell's reputation as a novelist largely rests on Tobacco Road and on God's Little Acre (1933), another best-selling novel...".


 * I think there are some differences between the plot in the article and the plot of the novel - e.g. I can't remember "The populist Pluto Swint is elected county sheriff, replacing the incumbent." However, I read it quite a long time ago and could be wrong. And you made a good point about the uprising being misleadingly presented as part of the movie only. It should be clear what is a difference and what is not.


 * There are also some other problems with the article. The plot seems to me far more fragmented than necessary - all these headings concerning the plot (County election impends, Digging holes instead of farming...) just make it more difficult to follow... Some sources (especially about the analysis) would be highly beneficial. I can see further down this page that you also seemed to be curious as to who came up with one of the statements presented in the article.


 * I'm glad I stirred some interest :) The subject matter is worth it and I hope more people would share their opinions and help to improve the article. Avoniram (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
This page reads like a negative review of the film rather than an encyclopedia article. (Ibaranoff24 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Dispute about Neutrality??
I can't find any dispute. Why the tag on the article? Wanderer57 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

- - -

Still no sign of a dispute. Tag removed. Wanderer57 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxist interpretation
QUOTING ARTICLE: ""God's little acre" may not refer to a part of Ty Ty's farm, but rather to the land on which the mills stand, which according to Communist doctrine ought rightly to belong to the workers employed there."

An interesting interpretation. I should read the book again.

Who has suggested this that we could give as a reference for more about this reading of the book? Wanderer57 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I realized my closing sentence is very convoluted. I'll try again.

Who came up with that interpretation? Wanderer57 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status
Copyright Office lists this as renewed: Registration Number RE0000304495 / 1986-09-25

What is the basis for this being listed as public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.229.62 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary
The summary is a mess and reads like cobbled together fragments of essays by different authors.

Factual Error. Only two of the sons were married. Just finished the novel and cant find any reference of Shaw having a wife.

70.26.88.78 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata
Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to Infobox book as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ RobTalk 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)