Zapen Tutoring

Her daughter was disabled. Her marriage was collapsing. Her manuscript was destroyed. She had no money and no hope—so she wrote a novel that changed everything.
Her name was Pearl S. Buck, and she became the first American woman to win the Nobel Prize in Literature—but first, she had to survive.
Pearl was born in 1892 in West Virginia, but she only spent three months there before her missionary parents took her to China. She grew up in Zhenjiang, a city on the Yangtze River, where she learned to speak Chinese before English.
"I spoke Chinese first, and more easily," she later said. "I did not consider myself a white person in those days."
While her mother tutored her in English and Western subjects each morning, Pearl spent her afternoons with her beloved Chinese nurse, Wang Amah, who told her stories, taught her Chinese customs, and took her to visit local families. Pearl listened to women gossip, absorbed their stories, learned to see the world through Chinese eyes.
She hid her blond hair under a hat, played with Chinese children, attended their parties. She was neither fully American nor fully Chinese—she existed in between, belonging everywhere and nowhere at once.
This bicultural identity would eventually make her one of the most important writers of the 20th century. But first, it would make her life extraordinarily complicated.
In 1917, Pearl married John Lossing Buck, an American agricultural missionary. They settled in rural northern China, then moved to Nanking, where Pearl taught English literature at the university.
In 1920, she gave birth to a daughter, Carol.
Something was wrong. Carol didn't develop like other children. She couldn't speak properly. She had violent tantrums, screaming for hours. She couldn't learn basic tasks. Today, we know Carol had phenylketonuria (PKU), a metabolic disorder that causes severe developmental disabilities if untreated. But in 1920, no one understood what was happening.
Pearl's husband couldn't cope. He withdrew emotionally, leaving Pearl to manage Carol alone while continuing her teaching work.
Pearl's feelings toward her daughter were painfully complicated. Sometimes she devoted herself completely to Carol, desperately hoping the condition would improve. Other times, she felt crushing frustration and shame.
"Sometimes I can scarcely bear to look at other children and see what she might have become," she confessed.
Her husband controlled their finances completely, forcing Pearl to sign over her tiny teaching salary and then beg him for an allowance. He refused to consider returning to America, where Carol might receive better care.
Pearl realized with sickening clarity: she would likely end up solely responsible for Carol's care, and she had no means of providing it.
Then, in 1927, everything collapsed.
The Nanking Incident—a violent uprising targeting foreigners during China's civil war—forced Pearl and her family to flee their home with nothing but the clothes they wore. Soldiers ransacked their house.
Inside, in Pearl's attic workspace, was the only copy of the novel she had just finished—years of work, her first real literary accomplishment.
The manuscript was destroyed.
The Red Cross evacuated them to Japan, where they lived as refugees for seven months before relocating to a run-down rental house in Shanghai, shared with two other families. Her husband returned to Nanking for work, leaving Pearl alone with the children in cramped, depressing conditions.
Her marriage was disintegrating. Her daughter needed expensive, long-term care. She had no money and no manuscript.
Pearl was 35 years old, living in poverty, responsible for a disabled child, trapped in a controlling marriage, and her only completed novel had been destroyed by war.
Most people would have given up.
Pearl started writing again—not because she loved it, but because she had no other option. Writing was her only possible path to financial independence, her only hope of securing Carol's future.
She found an old trade magazine in a Shanghai bookstore that listed three literary agents. She wrote to all three.
Two rejected her immediately, saying there was no American market for stories about China.
The third, David Lloyd, agreed to represent her. He would remain her agent for 30 years.
In 1929, Pearl took Carol back to America to find appropriate care. Touring institutions for disabled children broke her heart. Most were warehouses where children were hidden away, neglected, forgotten.
She finally found the Vineland Training School in New Jersey—a place that seemed humane, where Carol might be safe and cared for.
Leaving Carol there was, Pearl said, the hardest thing she ever did in her life.
To afford the care, she borrowed money from a member of the Mission Board.
At the same time, her first novel, East Wind, West Wind, was finally accepted for publication by John Day Company—after 25 rejections. It was the last publisher on her agent's list. One more rejection and the manuscript would have been withdrawn permanently.
The publisher, Richard Walsh, saw something special in Pearl's writing. (He would later become her lover, then her second husband after she divorced John Buck.)
Pearl returned to China and immediately began writing her second novel. She wrote in a frenzy, driven by financial desperation and creative urgency.
Three months later, The Good Earth was finished.
The novel told the story of Wang Lung, a Chinese farmer, and his wife O-Lan—ordinary people living through extraordinary times. Pearl wrote about Chinese people as fully human, complex, dignified, worthy of empathy.
In 1930s America, this was revolutionary.
When The Good Earth was chosen by the Book-of-the-Month Club, Pearl received a check for $4,000—enough to pay for several years of Carol's care. She was stunned. For the first time in her life, she had financial security.
The book became a phenomenon. It sold nearly 2 million copies in its first year, remaining the bestselling novel of both 1931 and 1932.
Pearl earned more than $100,000 in eighteen months—an astronomical sum during the Great Depression. She immediately put $40,000 toward Carol's long-term care.
In 1938, Pearl S. Buck became the first American woman to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.
The Nobel Committee praised her "rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces."
But Pearl's achievement went deeper than beautiful prose. She had humanized Chinese people to American readers at a time when racism and xenophobia were rampant. She challenged Americans to see across cultural boundaries, to recognize humanity in people they'd been taught to dismiss.
She spent the rest of her life advocating for civil rights, women's rights, and disability rights. She adopted seven children of mixed race—children who, like her, existed between worlds. She wrote over 70 books. She founded Welcome House, the first international, in*******al adoption agency in America.
Pearl S. Buck died in 1973 at age 80.
Carol outlived her mother, dying in 1992 at age 72, having spent most of her life at Vineland.
Pearl's story is one of survival transformed into art. She didn't write The Good Earth because she felt inspired—she wrote it because she was desperate, because her daughter needed care, because she had no other way out.
And that desperation produced one of the most important American novels of the 20th century.
Sometimes our greatest work comes not from comfort, but from necessity. Not from privilege, but from the determination to survive.
Pearl S. Buck proved that mothers will do anything for their children—including change the world.

Sophia Smith sat in her Massachusetts mansion in 1863, surrounded by silence and an impossible question.
Her last family member had died. She was unmarried, increasingly deaf, and suddenly one of the wealthiest women in New England—with $400,000 to her name (about $9.5 million today).
But here's what made her situation truly extraordinary: she had absolutely no idea what to do with it.
In 1860s America, wealthy unmarried women had exactly one script: donate quietly to charities, live respectably, leave your fortune to male relatives. Women couldn't vote. Couldn't hold office. Couldn't even serve on boards. Society expected them to exist in the margins of importance.
Sophia Smith was about to rewrite that entire script.
She consulted her pastor with a simple question: "How can I make my fortune matter?"
His answer was radical: "Build a college. For women."
The idea electrified her. Here was a woman who'd been denied formal education her entire life, told that women's minds weren't worth investing in, that they needed needlework and deportment—not algebra, Latin, or philosophy.
And she knew it was complete nonsense.
In March 1870, at age 73, Sophia finalized a will that would shake the foundation of American education. Her instructions were crystal clear: use her entire fortune to create a college providing women with opportunities "equal to those which are afforded now in our colleges to young men."
Not separate. Not watered down. Not a "female version" of education.
Equal.
Three months later, she died. She never saw a single student. Never witnessed the revolution she'd ignited. Never knew if her dream would actually work.
But her will was ironclad.
Smith College opened on September 14, 1875, with fourteen young women. Just fourteen.
Those fourteen women studied the exact same curriculum as Harvard men: Latin, Greek, mathematics, natural sciences, philosophy. The real thing. No dumbing down.
Critics claimed women's brains couldn't handle it. That advanced education would damage their reproductive systems. That college would make women unmarriageable and unnatural.
The women proved them wrong, one degree at a time.
The timing was perfect. The 1870s women's rights movement was exploding, but women kept hitting the same wall: lack of education. You couldn't be a doctor without medical school. Couldn't be a lawyer without law school. And colleges wouldn't admit women.
Sophia Smith's endowment shattered that wall.
The ripple effects were staggering.
By 1900, Smith College had over 1,000 students. By the 1920s, it became one of the legendary "Seven Sisters" colleges. Its graduates became teachers who started schools, writers who published groundbreaking work, scientists who made revolutionary discoveries.
Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique. Gloria Steinem became a feminist icon. Sylvia Plath became one of America's greatest poets. Barbara Bush became First Lady.
All because a deaf, unmarried woman in Massachusetts decided her fortune should empower women she would never meet.
Here's the beautiful irony: Sophia's unmarried status gave her something married women didn't have—complete control over her wealth. Under coverture laws, married women's property automatically became their husbands' property. But Sophia's money was entirely hers to direct.
She used that power to create opportunities that didn't exist in her own lifetime.
That's a particular kind of generosity—investing in a future you won't live to see, for people you'll never know, because you believe they deserve better than what you had.
Today, Smith College has an endowment over $2 billion. It's educated over 50,000 women. Its alumnae include Pulitzer Prize winners, Nobel laureates, members of Congress, CEOs, groundbreaking scientists.
None of it would exist without one woman's 1870 decision to leave everything to a college that didn't yet exist, for students not yet born, to study subjects women supposedly couldn't master.
Sophia Smith died alone, deaf, unmarried—circumstances that should have rendered her invisible to history.
Instead, she became one of the most influential women in American education.
Not by breaking barriers herself, but by funding the institution that would help generations of women break every barrier that followed.
She couldn't attend college.
So she built one.
And 150 years later, it's still opening doors she never got to walk through.

In 1951, a female mystery writer used a detective novel to challenge 500 years of historical 'fact'—and convinced millions that one of history's greatest villains was innocent.

Josephine Tey had a problem with authority—especially the authority of accepted historical narratives written by men who'd never questioned their sources.

Born Elizabeth Mackintosh in 1896 in Inverness, Scotland, she chose to write under pseudonyms her entire career. First as Gordon Daviot for her plays, then as Josephine Tey for her detective novels. The reasons were complex—privacy, the freedom to write across genres, perhaps the knowledge that women writers weren't always taken as seriously.

By 1951, Tey had established herself as one of Britain's finest mystery writers. But she was bored with the formula. Country house murders. Bumbling police. Clever detectives finding fingerprints and questioning suspects. She wanted to write something different.
Something that would challenge not just a fictional murderer, but history itself.

The Daughter of Time opens with Inspector Alan Grant laid up in a hospital bed, bored out of his mind. A friend brings him pictures of historical figures to occupy his time. Grant, a detective trained to read faces and assess guilt, becomes fascinated by a portrait of Richard III.

The man in the portrait doesn't look like a murderer. He doesn't look like the twisted, evil villain from Shakespeare's famous play. He looks thoughtful, even kind.

This bothers Grant. Because Richard III is "known" to have murdered his young nephews—the Princes in the Tower—to secure his throne. It's one of history's most infamous crimes, taught in schools, immortalized in literature, accepted as fact.

But what if it wasn't fact? What if it was propaganda?

Through Tey's detective, she began systematically dismantling the case against Richard III. Grant sends researchers to libraries. He reads contemporary accounts. He examines the timeline. He asks basic investigative questions that historians apparently never bothered with: Who benefited from the princes' deaths? Who had motive? Who actually had opportunity?
The answers were startling.

Richard III had little motive to kill his nephews—he'd already been crowned king, and the boys had been declared illegitimate. Killing them would only create martyrs and potential rallying points for rebellion.

But Henry VII, who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field and founded the Tudor dynasty? He had enormous motive. The princes were threats to his shaky claim to the throne. Henry married their sister to legitimize his rule—but that meant the princes, if alive, had a better claim than he did.

Henry VII also had opportunity. He controlled the Tower after Richard's death. He controlled who could investigate. He controlled the historical narrative.

And most tellingly, Henry VII never actually accused Richard of the murders during Richard's lifetime. The accusations came later, after Richard was dead and couldn't defend himself, when the Tudors needed to justify their seizure of the throne.

Tey's detective realizes what historians should have recognized centuries ago: the case against Richard III was built almost entirely on Tudor propaganda, written by people whose power depended on Richard being a villain.

Shakespeare's famous portrayal of Richard as a hunchbacked monster? Based on Tudor sources written to please Elizabeth I, Henry VII's granddaughter.

The historical "consensus" about Richard's guilt? Based on uncritical acceptance of obviously biased sources.

History hadn't been written by objective observers. It had been written by the winners, and the winners needed Richard to be a monster to justify their own seizure of power.

What Tey did was revolutionary. She took the methods of detective fiction—careful examination of evidence, questioning of witnesses' motives, skepticism toward convenient narratives—and applied them to accepted historical fact.

And she did it in a novel that became a bestseller.

The British historical establishment was not amused. Here was a woman, a fiction writer, questioning centuries of scholarship. Male historians who'd built careers on Tudor history dismissed her arguments. They said she was a novelist, not a historian, that she didn't understand the complexity of medieval politics.

But readers loved it. The book sparked massive public interest in Richard III. People began reading the actual historical sources instead of accepting what they'd been taught. Amateur historians formed societies to investigate Richard's reputation. The case for Richard's innocence gained serious academic support.

Josephine Tey had done something extraordinary: she'd used popular fiction to challenge academic authority, and she'd won the public debate.

The Daughter of Time is regularly cited as one of the greatest mystery novels ever written—not because of its plot twists, but because its central mystery is real. The Crime Writers' Association voted it the greatest mystery novel of all time in 1990.

But Tey's achievement goes deeper than solving a historical cold case. She demonstrated something profound about how we construct and accept "truth."

She showed how narratives become calcified into fact through repetition. How bias becomes invisible when it's held by those in power. How propaganda, given enough time, becomes history.

How rarely we question what we're taught simply because everyone seems to agree.

In 1951, a woman writing under a pseudonym used a bedridden detective to challenge 500 years of historical consensus—and millions of readers found her argument more convincing than the work of professional historians.

The ripple effects continue today. In 2012, Richard III's skeleton was discovered under a parking lot in Leicester. DNA testing confirmed his identity. The skeleton showed scoliosis (a curved spine), but nothing like the grotesque deformity described by Tudor propaganda. The battlefield wounds suggested he died fighting bravely, not fleeing cowardly.

Physical evidence was vindicating what Tey had argued in 1951: Richard had been maligned by people who needed him to be a villain.

When Richard III was reburied in 2015 with full honors, many credited Josephine Tey with beginning the rehabilitation of his reputation. A fiction writer's novel had literally changed how a nation viewed one of its kings.

Tragically, Tey died of cancer in 1952, just a year after publishing The Daughter of Time. She was only 55. She never saw the full impact of her work, never witnessed the decades of scholarship that would support her arguments, never knew that Richard III's bones would be found and would confirm her skepticism of Tudor propaganda.

She wrote eight detective novels in total—a small output, but each one sharp, psychological, unconventional. She questioned authority in all of them, challenged comfortable assumptions, pushed boundaries.

But The Daughter of Time remains her masterpiece, not just as fiction, but as intellectual rebellion.

She proved that you don't need a PhD to question academic consensus. That fiction can be a vehicle for truth. That asking "who benefits from this story?" is always a valid question. That history deserves the same skeptical examination we give to crime scenes.
Josephine Tey—a Scottish woman writing under a pseudonym, outside the academic establishment, using the "lowbrow" genre of detective fiction—took on 500 years of historical certainty.
And she won.

She didn't do it with credentials or institutional authority. She did it with logic, evidence, and the courage to say: "This story doesn't add up. Someone has lied to us. Let's find out why."

Male historians dismissed her.
The reading public believed her.

And sixty years later, when they dug up Richard III's bones, the evidence suggested the mystery writer had been right and the historians had been wrong.
Sometimes the most important mysteries aren't about who committed the crime.
They're about who's been lying about it ever since.
Josephine Tey asked that question in 1951.
We're still learning from the answer.

Switchboard Soldiers Win Recognition

She was unmarried, deaf, and told women didn't need college. She left her entire fortune—$400,000 in 1870—to prove them wrong.
Sophia Smith was 62 years old in 1863 when the last of her family died, leaving her alone in the Massachusetts mansion where she'd lived her entire life.
She was unmarried. Increasingly deaf. A woman in her sixties with no husband, no children, no direct heirs. And suddenly, she was extraordinarily wealthy—one of the richest women in New England.
The problem: she had no idea what to do with it.
In 1860s America, women like Sophia had limited options. She couldn't vote. Couldn't serve on boards. Couldn't hold public office. Society expected wealthy single women to live quietly, donate to charities through their churches, and eventually leave their money to male relatives.
Sophia Smith had different ideas. She just hadn't figured them out yet.
Her fortune came from her father and brothers—smart investments in railroads and manufacturing during America's industrial expansion. By the time her last brother died, she'd inherited everything: approximately $400,000, equivalent to about $9.5 million today.
But Sophia wasn't interested in merely being rich. She wanted her wealth to matter. To change something fundamental about the world that had limited her throughout her life.
She consulted her pastor, Reverend John Morton Greene. What should she do with her fortune? How could she make it count?
Greene suggested something radical: establish a college. For women.
The idea seized Sophia's imagination. Here was a way to address something that had bothered her throughout her life: the systematic denial of education to women. Women couldn't attend Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or any of the prestigious colleges educating America's male leaders. A few female seminaries existed, but they offered watered-down curricula—finishing school, not serious scholarship.
The message was clear: women's minds weren't worth investing in. Women didn't need algebra or Latin or philosophy. They needed needlework and deportment.
Sophia Smith, self-educated and intelligent, knew this was nonsense.
In March 1870, at age 73, Sophia finalized her will. The language was bold and unambiguous:
"It is my opinion that by the higher and more thoroughly Christian education of women, what are called their 'wrongs' will be redressed, their wages adjusted, their weight of influence in reforming the evils of society will be greatly increased, as teachers, as writers, as mothers, as members of society, their power for good will be incalculably enlarged."
She directed that her entire fortune be used to establish a college that would provide women with educational opportunities "equal to those which are afforded now in our colleges to young men."
Not separate. Not different. Not lesser. Equal.
Three months after signing her will, Sophia Smith died on June 12, 1870. She never saw the college that would bear her name. Never met a single student. Never witnessed the revolution she'd set in motion.
But her will was ironclad. Her instructions were clear. And she'd appointed trustees determined to honor her vision.
Smith College was chartered in 1871. Finding a location, hiring faculty, and constructing buildings took years. Finally, on September 14, 1875, the college opened its doors to its first class: fourteen young women.
Fourteen students doesn't sound revolutionary. But in 1875 America, it was radical.
These women studied the same curriculum as Harvard men: Latin, Greek, mathematics, natural sciences, philosophy, history. No dumbing down. No "female version" of education. The real thing.
The faculty took them seriously. The coursework was rigorous. The expectations were high. And the women proved they could meet them.
Critics claimed women's brains couldn't handle serious study. That advanced education would damage women's reproductive systems. That college would make women unmarriageable, unfeminine, unnatural.
Smith College graduates proved them wrong, one degree at a time.
What made Sophia Smith's vision especially powerful was its timing. The 1870s women's rights movement was gaining momentum. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were fighting for suffrage. Women were entering professions previously closed to them. But they constantly hit the same barrier: lack of education.
You couldn't be a doctor without medical school. Couldn't be a lawyer without law school. Couldn't be a professor without a college degree. And colleges wouldn't admit women.
Sophia Smith's endowment broke that barrier. Smith College graduates could pursue graduate degrees, enter professions, compete on equal intellectual footing with men.
The ripple effects were enormous.
Smith College graduated its first class in 1879. Among those early graduates: teachers who started their own schools, writers who published groundbreaking work, activists who fought for women's rights, scientists who made discoveries that changed their fields.
By 1900, Smith College had over 1,000 students. By the 1920s, it was one of the premier women's colleges in America—part of the "Seven Sisters" alongside Wellesley, Vassar, Radcliffe, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, and Mount Holyoke.
These institutions produced generations of women leaders. Betty Friedan (Smith '42) wrote The Feminine Mystique. Gloria Steinem (Smith '56) became a feminist icon. Sylvia Plath (Smith '55) became one of America's greatest poets. Barbara Bush (Smith '47) became First Lady.
All because a deaf, unmarried woman in Massachusetts decided her fortune should empower women she'd never meet.
Sophia Smith never married. Some historians speculate she may have had a romance in her youth that ended, leaving her single. Others suggest she simply preferred independence. In 1860s America, unmarried women were pitied, dismissed as spinsters, treated as incomplete.
But Sophia Smith's single status gave her something married women didn't have: complete control over her wealth. Married women's property automatically became their husbands' property under coverture laws. Sophia's money was entirely her own to direct as she wished.
She used that power to create opportunities for women that didn't exist in her own lifetime.
That's a particular kind of generosity: investing in a future you won't live to see, for people you'll never know, because you believe they deserve better than what you had.
Sophia Smith never attended college herself. Her education was limited, self-directed, achieved through reading and determination rather than formal instruction. She knew firsthand what women lost by being denied educational access.
And she decided to change that. Not through advocacy or protest or political action—avenues largely closed to women in her era—but through the one tool she had: her fortune.
Today, Smith College has an endowment over $2 billion. It's educated over 50,000 women. Its alumnae include Pulitzer Prize winners, Nobel laureates, members of Congress, CEOs, groundbreaking scientists, acclaimed artists.
None of it would exist without Sophia Smith's 1870 decision to leave her entire fortune to a college that didn't yet exist, for students not yet born, to study subjects women supposedly couldn't master.
In her will, Sophia wrote that she hoped her college would help women develop "their full intellectual and moral potential." She believed education could transform individual lives and, through those transformed lives, society itself.
She was right.
Sophia Smith died alone, deaf, unmarried—circumstances that might have rendered her invisible to history. Instead, she became one of the most influential women in American education.
Not by breaking barriers herself, but by funding the institution that would help generations of women break every barrier that followed.
She couldn't attend college. So she built one.
And 150 years later, it's still opening doors she never got to walk through.

Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web - but never sought money for it. His unusual upbringing could explain why...

"It was really important that the web should be free for anybody to use," says Tim of his invention.

He persuaded his employer, Cern - the European research centre based in Switzerland - never to charge for using the web. This means Tim is not as famous - and nowhere near as rich - as contemporaries like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who were, curiously, all born in the same year, 1955.

In fact, "being famous must be a total pain," says Tim.

So, what inspired him to create his invention - and never crave fame or money for it?

Part of the answer could lie in his upbringing.

His mum and dad met while building the UK's first commercial computer, Ferranti Mark 1, and brought their children up to understand logic and problem solving. Tim's dad even made a model computer at home using water jets.

"He did that because then you could see that computing was just logic. It's just, if this comes on, this comes on, then this comes on," says Tim.

His parents gave him freedom to experiment. And family camping holidays gave him a strong sense of self-sufficiency. Tim's mother was a churchgoer and a driving force in the family.

"[They were] rational, but yes, one was quite devout, and also very scientific. And very creative and very imaginative,” says Tim remembering his parents.

Tim himself was a shy boy.

"Growing up, I didn't, never had a girlfriend while I was in high school. I never really went to dances and things. So I guess the energy went into mathematics and physics and electronics."

When he began working for Cern, the only way he could find out what colleagues were doing was to go for coffee with them. He realised he needed a way to help different computer systems to talk to each other.

It was a leap of imagination on his part.

"The idea that you would click and go to somewhere - anywhere - in the world… people just could not imagine it."

When he launched the World Wide Web in 1990, no-one knew the success it would become. Inspired by his parents’ values, Tim was determined that it should be free – and a force for good.

But in the last few years, he's begun to worry about the way algorithms reward people for staying on their platforms - even if that means making them angry.

"If it's trained to polarise people, then that's not a neutral piece of technology. That's a piece of technology which is making the world a worse place," he says.

He’s now working on what he calls 'pro-human' technology, in which people have control over their data, and profit isn’t the end goal.

The world which Tim created has changed beyond even his imagination. But there are things he misses about the old world – like chance meetings over coffee.

"The fact that... if you have to meet somebody, you have to go around to a friend's house to see the friend."

There may be fewer chance meetings, but Tim does value walking in London parks without being recognised. He may not be a billionaire – but that's the way he likes it.

🎧 https://bbc.in/4968vE0