Usually those are just called “critics”.
“Critics are like eunuchs in a harem: they know how it’s done, they’ve seen it done every day, but they’ll unable to do it themselves.”
–BRENDAN BEHAN
Usually those are just called “critics”.[/quote]
Yeesh, Tomas, normally I agree with you ever before I read your posts.
One of my writing profs could translate poetry into about 5 languages but as he said, when asked why he didn’t write his own stuff said he could do the mechanics, but he couldn’t write for shit.
Not everyone who plays the piano is Mozart.
Just today the Mrs. asked me how to say “Running Dog” (zuo gou) in English. I told her that a lot of people have heard the phrase, but associate it with Chairman Mao, and wouldn’t think to apply it to non-Communist settings. After some thought and discussion I suggested “house n____”.
Usually those are just called “critics”.[/quote]
Yeesh, Tomas, normally I agree with you ever before I read your posts.
One of my writing profs could translate poetry into about 5 languages but as he said, when asked why he didn’t write his own stuff said he could do the mechanics, but he couldn’t write for shit.
Not everyone who plays the piano is Mozart.[/quote]
The reviewer actually praised the writing. He had a problem with the content.
Aren’t we confusing two separate issues here?
The guy is a good writer. Maybe those criticizing are not good writers (though we have no actual evidence of that). At any rate, regardless of their writing abilities the critics have some issues with the content of the book, the story that is told.
Why should critics of a piece of writing be ignored on the assumption (possibly incorrect) that they are unable to write themselves? Should something be above criticism simply because somebody takes the trouble to skillfully write it up as a story? Surely this is nonsensical?
What’s wrong with “lackey”? :s “House nigger” brings strong racial overtones into situations where it may not apply, and because it’s such a loaded term, it would probably distract the listener from the intended point.
Gofer, or dogsbody might be a closer appoximation.
Skivvy, is an alternate derogatory term, but whose usage is not as established.
Usually those are just called “critics”.[/quote]
Yeesh, Tomas, normally I agree with you ever before I read your posts.
One of my writing profs could translate poetry into about 5 languages but as he said, when asked why he didn’t write his own stuff said he could do the mechanics, but he couldn’t write for shit.
Not everyone who plays the piano is Mozart.[/quote]
The reviewer actually praised the writing. He had a problem with the content.
Aren’t we confusing two separate issues here?
The guy is a good writer. Maybe those criticizing are not good writers (though we have no actual evidence of that). At any rate, regardless of their writing abilities the critics have some issues with the content of the book, the story that is told.
Why should critics of a piece of writing be ignored on the assumption (possibly incorrect) that they are unable to write themselves? Should something be above criticism simply because somebody takes the trouble to skillfully write it up as a story? Surely this is nonsensical?[/quote]
Nonsensical indeed, gentlemen.
My comment was directed at some of the the expats who posted comments on the review, not at the reviewer himself.
I have no issue with someone reading a book and concluding that the book has problems, as jdsmith did with Ed Lakewood’s book, or as this reviewer did with this book.
What I find distasteful and somewhat laughable is a group expats going nuts over perceived offenses on the part of an author, fueled in large part by nothing more than “expat envy.” That is, another expat has pulled something off that is very difficult to achieve (e.g. completing and publishing a book), and thus becomes the target of potshots from left field on the part of a bunch of Internet ninnies who don’t have the guts to put their own stuff out there. I suspect that most of these wounded souls haven’t even read the book, but have jumped to an underpants-bunching conclusion that the author has deeply offended them.
I admit a strong bias in support of those who publish their work, as I have polished and published a mere 5% of my own prose, and no full-length books that are not written for the education market. Writing something good enough for public consumption is damned hard, and after you get it out there, you find all sorts of problems with it.
Well, it doesn’t seem as if anyone has a snappy reply to that post, so I’ll try to say something halfway intelligent.
There is a Canadian writer whose name is Will Ferguson who I mentioned in the Notes from the Other China thread. He’s one of the most popular writers in Canada at present and has had a decade of success during which time he’s written 10 books, at least 2 of which have won awards. He’s also had his books translated into a bunch of languages, has written pieces for a slew of newspapers and newsmags, and so on. When I first read him, I thought, 'That’s what’s making waves? God, I can do better than that.’ Although I agreed with almost everything he said (I ended up reading three of his books) I was put off by his frequent comments about his own life (not interesting) and a sense that he clearly thought himself to be the big man on campus. I thought he paled in comparison to other Canadian writers who had written on similar topics. I thought he ought to have some humilty given what he was up against historically.
I realized, however, that a lot of my dislike was just envy. After all, he had 10 books. I had none. I also realized that instead of sitting around and thinking I could do better, I actually had to get off my ass (or get on it) and do better. In an interview with Ferguson, he claimed he never takes shit from his editors, and I respect that. I also respect him. Ten books in something like twelve years is quite a feat. He cannot be accused of being lazy. Nor is afraid to speak his mind. And his books are very good in places and often quite funny.
Like the previous poster said, once your book is out you see all kinds of problems with it. And, also like he said, getting it out is damned difficult. Hardly anyone is willing to take a first time effort unless the book is exceptional. They say you can expect one hundred rejections. And then when someone does say yes, it dawns on you that you hardly have control of anything (the cover, the font, the marketing), and then something like 90% of books hit the market with a deafening thud. Actually, if you read publishing industry stats you might not only just give up on writing your book, but you might decide to throw yourself out the window. Failure is the norm. Success is rare and often has a lot to do with luck or years of perserverance. In short, there is much much more to it than meets the eye. I once read that writing a novel is like navigating through a foreign country without roadsigns or a map, and that is pretty accurate analogy. And, hell, never mind getting it published; just try getting it written. What style should you use? Where’s your voice? Humour? No humour? To employ complex vocabulary or not? Who are you writing for? And so and so forth. It took me months just to figure these things out as I hadn’t written anything for nearly a decade.
That said, why not try it? It’s quite an experience. Once you finish - and hear all the criticisms - you just might come to the conclusion that I came to. You can consider the suggestions, but in the end you have to go on to write something that will satisfy yourself.
Cheers
Ed
I do not believe that one must write books to have the right to rip another’s book to shreds. I do however believe one must read the book first or STFU.
I see your point Tomas. Thanks for clearing that up. That’s pretty much what I thought you meant when you wrote that bit.
Writing is not easy. All that tapping…sheesh
[quote=“Ed Lakewood”]In China two years ago, I ran into this major from the US military who imparted that he was in China on a bit of sanctioned spying. He thought China was wonderful and that it ought to blow Taiwan to smithereens if it should formally make a break. During our chat, he kept dropping Chinese words into the conversation in order to illustrate his scholastic leanings. He mangled every word, yet he claimed to be fluent in both speaking and reading - after two years of study. He also ordered me, as it were, not to refer to Taiwan as a country. When I asked him why, he said, “'Cause people 'round here don’t like it. That’s why.” When I asked him what he thought about all the missiles China had aimed at this place or the (whatever it is; 45 to 100 billion) that China is spending on its military every year, he claimed he didn’t really know about either. He had this air, you know? One that said, ‘You don’t know China and Chinese people, boy. Not like I do. I’ve seen the future and the East shall be red once more.’ He was a thoroughly bizarre combination of ignorance and snobbery.
I haven’t met too many people in Taiwan like that. Perhaps it’s because Taiwan lacks the patriotic fervour or the showy cultural pride that China does.[/quote]
Sounds a lot like Dennis Hopper’s character in Apocalypse Now. Didn’t Charlie Sheen wind up taking him home a defeated man when his object of worship fell?
Over the course of decades of hearing and reading the term “Uncle Tom,” I’ve come to equate it with a term that I’ve occasionally heard and read in more recent years: “race traitor.” If it doesn’t have that meaning, I don’t see how it can have any real meaning. In the case of expatriates, it presents a difficulty, because we are not all of the same race. So I’m charitably interpreting the term “Uncle Tom” to include the possibility that it is being used by extension or analogy.
However the term is being used, I think that in order to be a traitor to someone or something, either one must owe a duty of loyalty the person or thing, or one must have felt or exhibited loyalty to that person or thing in the past.
I don’t believe that I have any specific duty of loyalty to expatriates as a group, nor do I feel such a loyalty, so I don’t see how it’s possible for me to be a traitor to that group.
But if the term “Uncle Tom” were to be interpreted uncharitably (since non-whites are a minority among the foreign English teachers, and since “Uncle Tom” isn’t likely being used to refer to Filipinos, Thais, etc., who are working in Taiwan), then this term would seem to imply that I owe a duty of loyalty to the white race.
All I can think of to say about that possibility right now is, wow, that’s 'way out there. That’s somewhere past Alpha Centauri, for sure.