Talk:The Embroidered Couch

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Embroidered Couch is one of the oldest erotic novels published in China?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hercules (nightclub)

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 19:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The hook doesn't seem to be cited in the article. The closest I see is Wilt L. Idema's statement that it's "most likely China's earliest vernacular pornographic novel", a somewhat different statement from the hook (with the qualifications "most likely" and "vernacular").
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Interesting article! The hook needs clearer sourcing or an adjustment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well point taken, hmm how about ... that according to one source, The Embroidered Couch is "most likely China's earliest vernacular pornographic novel"? Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That works for me. In my opinion it would also be fine to remove "according to one source", as the quotation marks make it clear we're quoting a source. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Embroidered Couch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Well, this is a tidily-written and well-cited article on a curious subject. I shall have to take most of the citations on good faith, so I will have few comments but a couple of questions.

• The reception states that the book has been "poorly received by critics". That is somewhat ambiguous for a book of this kind, as it seems multiple critics objected to its being pornographic, i.e. they disliked its subject, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is a poor specimen within its genre. I think, since we are required to be neutral on such questions here, that we should carefully distinguish the two issues and try to say something clear about both of them. It seems clear that commentators agree the book was strongly pornographic, so it would be helpful if we could have some statements about how well the book is written, and whether it has a coherent plot (it seems so).

Added what I could find. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to separate out the 'Literary significance' as a section, with 'Reception' as another.

Done. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• On the Literary significance, it appears that the book was pioneering and influential, founding both the genre of "pornographic and erotic fiction" (is that not two genres, pace Wong?) but also "scholar-beauty romance". Perhaps we could have something on what the latter genre is, with an example, and whether the book is in fact the first instance of the genre or just a precursor of it. The section should, I think, begin with some sort of overview of how important the book is in these terms.

Wong himself doesn't give concrete examples of that so I thought it'd be better to just remove the quote instead. ::Think it's clearer now, but would some reordering be better still? Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ray Conlogue (ref #21) says that while erotica was suppressed, the book "had been hugely popular when first published", something the article needs to say (if Conlogue is correct). Conlogue gives the date of 1644 for the suppression, i.e. there was a period of nearly half a century when the book was *not* suppressed, a fact elided by the article. This too clearly needs to be stated, as it explains how the book could have so popular.

Wong doesn't say that the book wasn't banned in the Ming dynasty or before 1644 so I've just specified when it started being recorded as a banned book to be safe. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Conlogue compares the book briefly to The Golden Lotus; it seems that is a far politer and more metaphoric novel of manners than the Embroidered Couch, but all the same the comparison is useful for context. The article names the book only as "Jin Ping Mei", so it'd be helpful to give its English translation also, with a brief description of its approach and content, and its (much gentler) reception by the establishment.

Briefly mentioned. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Conlogue mentions that the work catalogues "lesbians, bisexuals, voyeurism, masturbation and incest". If he's right, then the article has skipped several of those in its account.

Not sure if some of those are really integral; the plot section is largely based on Wong's overview. For instance I don't think masturbation is among the "main points" of the plot. When Wong does refer to it, it's during a pretty technical analysis of the use of description. But as far as understanding the gist of the story it doesn't seem important, based on Wong's reconstruction. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Finally, Conlogue mentions that the translator Hu found the book "very funny", and that "he became fond of the characters: the scholar Easterngate, his pretty and insolent wife Jin, and Easterngate's bisexual lover Dali, who also becomes Jin's lover". Both of these seem worth mentioning, as they suggest that the work has literary merits both for its wit and for its characterization (see my first point above).

Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Vitiello 1994 needs an ISBN or other identifier.

Hmm, this is a PhD dissertation, but is accessible via the link. Certainly doesn't have an ISBN and other works that cite it just leave it as it is. What other possible identifiers are there? Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Its OCLC is 34155026. You can just use "|OCLC=34155026" in the citation template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Kudos! Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Additional sources (useful or not) may be available to answer some of the questions posed above:

• Wong, Ka. "The Anatomy of Eroticism: Reimagining Sex and Sexuality in the Late Ming Novel Xiuta Yeshi." Nan nü 9.2 (2007): 284-329.

This one's already referenced in the bibliography! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Guo, Jie. "Robert Hans van Gulik Reading Late Ming Erotica." Hanxue Yanjiu (Chinese Studies) 28.2 (2010) has a note on page 253 about voyeurism in Jin Ping Mei and the Embroidered Couch as erotica (as opposed to pornography), which could be helpful.

• Merlin, Monica. "The Nanjing courtesan Ma Shouzhen (1548–1604): gender, space and painting in the late Ming pleasure quarter." Gender & History 23.3 (2011): 630-652 discusses the courtesan character in the novel, based on Ma Shouzhen.

• Songling, Pu. Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio. Penguin, 2006, where the Introduction, subsection 'The Erotic' compares the "crude" Couch to other texts.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions, Chiswick! I'll definitely get down to making the necessary changes soon but please give me some time because I've got a few real-life chores to finish first. It's also been a hot minute since I took a look at this and have forgotten 99% of the reading I did. Off the top of my head, I don't think I regarded the Conlogue piece as a super authoritative source on matters relating to literary significance and such (but useful for more superficial matters). The point on the novel's initial popularity does strike me as important though and I'll do some re-digging once I get the chance to. Think virtually all of the sources I looked at (discount Conlogue) didn't have anything to say in the way of its popularity but my memory is fuzzy. On that note, the general sentiment, both past and present, towards the work does seem to point to "poor reception". I'm not sure if I agree that saying critics "poorly received" the work--by that I mean calling it "poison", "filth", etc.--necessarily implies that it's "a poor specimen within its genre". I could just remove the offending sentence for the time being. But if you could point towards a source that praises it as an exemplar of pornographic fiction--while railing against its being pornographic--I'd love to use that but I don't seem to recall one, and it sounds like a head-scratcher to me. It's like someone writing about how Five Guys makes the best cheeseburgers, objectively speaking, but oh I'm a vegan and beef is disgusting. Again discounting Conlogue, because I don't think he's an authority on this subject unlike the cited scholars, I don't recall any (significant) discussion of "how well the book is written, and whether it has a coherent plot", but rest assured I will take a hard look once I finish my coursework. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We are required to be neutral, which means not endorsing any point of view. Conlogue doesn't pretend to be a scholarly authority but does represent a reliable journalistic source, aka the ordinary reader, so is valuable. We should present and attribute his views to him (i.e. it's not necessarily Wikipedia's opinion).

Further, if scholar A says "it's an interesting and well-written example of early pornographic writing" and scholars B, C, and D say "it's disgusting", we should simply report and cite both facts (that A said X, BCD said Y), and readers can draw their own conclusions. We do not have to wait for a hypothetical scholar E to make both statements simultaneously. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got it, yeah looks like I wasn't being too neutral there but to my mind it was the clear consensus view.Will integrate the stuff that I've left out in a few days' time. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't recall Wong himself giving an example of "scholar-beauty romance" so I just took his word for it and quoted him as it was. Would embellishing Wong's unelaborated quote border on OR? I do note that there already is an article for Caizi jiaren, so I wonder if it'd be better to just link to that instead. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wong article does have an abundance of info that would be helpful in addressing your concerns. I suppose back then I thought a lot of it was too dense and would complicate matters for the layman reader, plus there was too much to unpack and synthesise. Its appraisal of the work "by its own terms" in the world of pornographic/erotic fiction also seems to be unique so I wasn't sure how much weight I was supposed to accord it. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, delicate matters both. By all means link Caizi jiaren, but at least make it clear what the connection is. As for weight, Wong definitely deserves coverage; you'll have to judge how much is "due coverage" but as usual "the main points" are what we're striving for, so do have a go at summarizing the arguments, making clear it's Wong's view; going beyond what is written is indeed risky but when an author says (for example) "the war" and it was 1918 then it's fine to link World War 1 specifically. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Summary

This article seems close to the required standard, but some attention to the listed points might help it to ensure it covers "the main points" of the subject (criterion 3a). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce - I see you've made several changes to the article. Could you indicate on this talk page which comments you believe you've addressed, so I can strike them once checked? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to rework and add some things but am pretty rusty so forgive me if it made things worse :P Thank you for reviewing this again and I'll try my best to address any follow-up concerns you might have Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worked ok. Would you mind extending the short summary in the lead section slightly to reflect your changes to the body text? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What about now? Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, every little helps. I think the article meets the criteria now. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)