|
I woke up two days ago to the sound of my cellphone ringing and turned over bleary-eyed to look at a text that said "YO, CHECK THE NYTIMES. YOU'RE IN IT."
Turns out, my brother's memoir just got reviewed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/books/fresh-off-the-boat-a-memoir-by-eddie-huang.html?_r=0
Long story short, he's a celebrity chef, has a restaurant in Manhattan, a show, and now a book out. And the cover of it has me, my maternal grandparents, my parents, and ofc my big brother. I'm the super fat baby in my mom's arms XD.
Now, I'm really happy for my brother (especially because he will give me some of all that book money), but I will say I've got mixed feelings about being written about by someone else. It's a really strange experience, because you have your memories about how things went and of course other people will have theirs.
But what is the truth? It really does bring me to that whole truth is relative/absolute debate. There's a whole ton of stuff in the book about his childhood, which as brothers, is obviously intertwined with mine, and I am a pretty major character throughout the first half of the book. And in some ways, he captures me perfectly, or rather he captures a perfect rendition of what I mean to him. And a lot of times, he writes about me in a flattering way which is nice. Although, he does fudge a few things to make himself look better too which is a bit -____-.
What eats at me the most though is the fact he got it published. You see, it's one thing for everybody to have their own memories and their own narrative and their own perspective on how things went down. But when it's put to paper, printed en masse, and then sold to the general public, that means ONE version dominates the rest. From now on, anyone who has read the book THINKS they know about my life, about my family, about me, etc. But really, they have an incomplete picture. It's like taking a painting, ripping off a single corner, and then trying to play like that's the whole masterpiece.
And I'm not sure how I'm supposed to react when those people try to talk to me. Should I say that what they read is wrong? Or incomplete? Or that I disagree? Problem with that is when I do that I seem combative, sour, even jealous. I get asked that now and again as well, which is SUPER annoying. See, both me and my brother are writers. Both of us are published. He has a memoir, a blog, and multiple OP-EDs in major newspapers. He's going to be a guest speaker at TED next year and is often invited to universities to give speeches. I, on the other hand, only have two novelettes published. Good news is both won major awards in F/SF. Bad news is it's been... 2 years? since I've published anything. Not because I haven't been writing, but more because I've been teaching myself the art of the novel.
Novels and short stories are very different beasts. I grew up only reading novels and never wrote a single word of fiction until my 3rd year of college. And in college they forced me to write short stories, which I wasn't used to. It took me a year of struggling to understand the elements of a short story narrative. And after I did I got published. So, seeing as how I learned the short story much quicker than the average writer, I thought I was really talented and could tackle a novel/get published really quickly.
Fast forward 3 years, and I have basically been slogging through hell as I've written somewhere in the ball park of 3,000 pages of fiction and published not a single page of it. Although, I don't take it as a failure because I haven't sent a single page of it out to my agent or an editor. Mostly because I know it's crappy and not worthy of publication. So, basically, I've been scrubbing it up and destroying my self-image of being a writing virtuoso. Am I upset? No. I was a bit depressed in my second year of writing and went on a poker, strip club, one night stand binge for like 6 months which ended in an empty bank account, a bunch of random numbers in my phone of people I don't ever want to see again, and some pretty shitty fiction which I deleted off my HD a few months later.
Oh wait. I'm supposed to have a point in all this. Right, so now I'm close to finishing a novel. One that I'm happy with. And goddamn it feels good, because I am finally proud of something I've written, after pretty much 3 years of telling myself I'm a worthless hack. But my brother beat me to the punch. Not only did he beat me to the punch, but he did it within a single year! He wrote a proposal, sold the idea to a pub house, THEN wrote the book, and then got paid huge. I can't say how much but it was quite hefty, a hell of a lot more than a first novel F/SF writer could hope to make, at least until big sales numbers come in.
Still, even so, I'm honestly not jealous. Why? Because we're very different writers. He wrote a memoir about food, his childhood, culture, etc. I have no interest in any of those things. I like fantasy. So as long as he stays out my wheelhouse everything is 100% copasetic. Now if in a single year he wrote an epic fantasy and hit the NYT Bestsellers list, I would then probably commit seppuku as it would become obvious that I am the lesser genetic variant and should eliminate myself from the breeding pool.
There is pressure though. My parents don't really understand writing. They wanted him to become a lawyer and me to become a doctor. We both became writers along with a bunch of other random shenanigans. So, to them, it's all kind of a circus. But one thing is clear to them: he wrote a book in a year and got paid big. I've been writing for three years and after breaking up with my gf moved back in with them -_-. In their eyes, it is clear who should be involved in the writing game and who shouldn't. It should probably be said here that my mother has never read a single page of anything either I or my brother has written. But she was really happy when we bought her designer purses with the money we made from writing.
Anyway, so they give me shit. It didn't help that in a fit of rage one day I signed up for the LSAT to prove to them I could go be a lawyer if worse came to worst. I got a 172 on it after a month of practice, because, quite frankly most lawyers are mouthbreathers and not very smart. So, now, I get fucking insane amounts of mail from every law school under the sun trying to get me to go to their horrible 3rd tier school so they can raise their student LSAT avg. Probably one of the worst decisions in my life, because every time something comes from some prestigious uni I just see the gleam in my mother's eyes as she waves it around in my face and reminds me that right now I could be living in Berkeley or LA or some shit training to become a slimeball.
Oh and after I went on that horribly wasteful bender, burning through what little money I had saved, I swore off girls. Pretty much the only girls I still talk to are my ex-gf, who is newly single and kind of hovering around, and this other girl who has a bf, but insists he doesn't exist when we're together. Which is really creepy to say the least because he has the same last name as me and I know a number of his friends and have been quite aware from the beginning that he not only exists but actively takes her out on dates and on vacations. But she's hot so I try not to think too much about it, except when she ditches plans with me randomly because her real bf shows up by surprise at her apt. I don't mind though, because I just go back to writing and most of the time I cbfed anyways. My libido has been vastly reduced ever since I realized I have zero intellectual interest in any of the women around me.
My dad has noticed this and constantly tries to hook me up with random Chinese girls, which quite frankly are not my type (read: not good looking). But they're "nice" girls from "good" families (read: willing to marry and rich), or they're "successful" and "intelligent" (read: have high paying jobs). In other words, I've slowly started to realize my dad is convinced I'll never make money and is trying to whore me out to random Chinese girls desperate to get married in the hopes that I can be a xiao bai lian (a male gold digger). I consider this somewhat shameful. Especially because when I confront him about it, he gets kind of sheepish and says he's just trying to introduce me to nice girls. AKA, that's exactly what he's doing and he's not going to stop until he succeeds. Recently, he even tried to have a girl MOVE INTO our house with us. She's a dentist in Taiwan and is trying to get her practicing license for the USA, and she's also the daughter of one of his best friends, so he came up with the brilliant idea of hosting her at our house while she tried to get her license!
Now, not that I don't like this girl. I think she's got a real cool personality and I think she's great as a friend, but I'm just not looking for any boom boom pow right now, nor am I interested in getting married. BECAUSE I MAKE NO MONEY. And because I just want to write some goddamned novels and be left alone.
So, long story short, my brother's super successful and I'm currently in a big rut. Or at least others see me as being in a rut. I don't think I'm in a rut. I just think things are taking a little longer than I expected. But everyone else thinks so. My big brother even sold a new novel proposal to his publishing house based on a concept about us two brothers doing something super interesting that I can't talk about because on the off-chance someone in the media reads this it'll violate a confidentiality agreement etc etc, but suffice to say he tried to deliver me a book deal on a silver platter. I turned him down. Why? Because I want to write my fantasy novel damn it! Not non-fiction! And I don't want to be treated like some kind of disabled kid who needs a food tube! But he keeps trying.
I guess what I'm trying to say is sometimes NICENESS can be a form of torture. Because I really feel bad. I want to accelerate this whole writing process and "make it" and have all that success and money pouring in already, but I know my limits and I really don't want to rush it because I don't write for money. I write for da love. That's not to say I don't write much. I write 10+ pages a day, 5 days a week. That's my minimum. But it still takes time to get it right. And I've realized, through these three years of struggling, is that everyone has limits. I can only put out so many pages a day before I start writing nonsensical mush. I have to pace myself. But I feel guilty when I do that because I feel all this external pressure. So I'll write a bunch for the day, feel good about it, then I fire up Dota 2 or Mechwarrior Online, I play like 1 or 2 games, and then I feel like I'm being a total bum because I shouldn't be enjoying myself at all, I should be slaving away doing every thing I can to make things happen faster.
But it doesn't work that way. So I just have to be patient, grit my teeth, and keep putting in work as best I can. Because when the success rolls in, it all looks like a bunch of sparkling lights and easy money and good times. But the truth is, behind all of that was years of hard work, years of failure and humility, oh and looking like a goddamned bum to everyone else while doing it. My brother's 3 years older than me. I've spent 3 years writing. He put in his years of hard work earlier than me. He's reaping the rewards earlier. And he STILL puts in a fuckton of work. So I'm happy for him. And proud. And one day, I'll be proud of my own accomplishments too .
P.S. Despite my tone throughout this blog, I love my fam and appreciate how ridiculously lucky I am to have parents/siblings who support me, care about me, and wish the best for me. But in the moment, sometimes it really can be irritating. Because as much as they love me, some of the things they do show they don't believe IN me, if that makes any sense. And that's probably the only part of all this that really cuts.
|
Great read and now i know your name =)
|
On January 27 2013 11:56 FractalsOnFire wrote: Great read and now i know your name =)
LOL
|
Good read. Good luck with your writing dude. I've passed by your brother's restaurant - will have to give it a try one of these days.
|
Fellow asian hi-five! I have a bro and he's making more money than me! But my wife is hotter! I win!
|
On January 27 2013 12:34 Burrfoot wrote: Fellow asian hi-five! I have a bro and he's making more money than me! But my wife is hotter! I win! Lol @ sibling rivalry.
|
Did OP change his username or made a new account?
I swear to god another Taiwanese wannabe writer kid had a blog on the same shit a year ago.
|
On January 27 2013 13:04 haduken wrote: Did OP change his username or made a new account?
I swear to god another Taiwanese wannabe writer kid had a blog on the same shit a year ago. Wasn't that StorkHwaiting?
|
On January 27 2013 13:22 Archas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 13:04 haduken wrote: Did OP change his username or made a new account?
I swear to god another Taiwanese wannabe writer kid had a blog on the same shit a year ago. Wasn't that StorkHwaiting? Was StorkHwaiting that guy who wrote the KMD post comparing Chinese, Japanese, and Korean girls?
Also, Samsung, if you're really Eddie Huang's brother, props. Eddie has always been a sort of hero for me. No joke.
|
Why give me props? I didn't do anything to be his brother except get born LOL.
And high-five Burr! :D Lol you def win!
c0ld, sibling rivalry has to be one of the most powerful forces in nature. I actually read a study recently about how because of the one-child policy in China a lot of the younger generation are lazier and less competitive. Something like that. Which is an interesting theory because I definitely think having siblings can challenge you to be better. It's easy to look at other successful ppl and be like oh they had this advantage etc etc. But when it's your own sibling doing well, all those easy excuses are taken away, and you have to just face the fact you're doing less with your resources than they are.
Thanks for the well-wishes and the compliments guys
|
copacetic is spelled with a c
On January 27 2013 13:28 Shady Sands wrote: if you're really Eddie Huang's brother, props.
lol thass cold
edit: also orlando is not the least interesting city
|
Writing at home with your parents around suckkkkkks. It's because all the 'rents see is you sitting at the computer playing games, surfing the net, and being a generally unproductive member of society when what you're really doing is writing, thinking about writing, and being a generally unproductive member of society. I'm not as bad off since I'm only home a few weeks a year, and anyways, I'm still in college so I can pass it off as "schoolwork," but my bro (who just graduated last year and is unemployed) is having similar problems.
|
On January 27 2013 15:00 babylon wrote: writing, thinking about writing, and being a generally unproductive member of society.
and remember kids, 2 out of 3 ain't bad either
|
On January 27 2013 13:04 haduken wrote: Did OP change his username or made a new account?
I swear to god another Taiwanese wannabe writer kid had a blog on the same shit a year ago.
I knew about the Baohaus restaurant, and I've never been to the States nor have any interest in restaurants in the States, so I must have learned about it through TL.
|
I was struck by the contradictions in the first part of that review. It portrayed your brother as having a life filled with rap music, rebellion and petty crime. Oh by the way, he got into law school too. I'm pretty sure none of those things got him into law school, but the studying, homework and paying attention in class wasn't so sexy I guess.
|
On January 27 2013 15:23 Jerubaal wrote: I was struck by the contradictions in the first part of that review. It portrayed your brother as having a life filled with rap music, rebellion and petty crime. Oh by the way, he got into law school too. I'm pretty sure none of those things got him into law school, but the studying, homework and paying attention in class wasn't so sexy I guess.
His memoir is calculated to make ripples in the busy food blogosphere.
three cheers for postmodernity t.t
|
Oh WOW lol...this is...pretty interesting >_>
That's so weird lol, brother's famous and in the NYT... not to mention yeah the idea of people only hearing your brother's story.
e: just finished the rest. Whoa what a story, best of luck.
|
"Mr. Huang puts the crude back in crudités"
wowwwwwwwwww
|
I don't think you should turn down opportunities vaguely related to your field just because you "don't like" that subfield. I mean, sure, if you're busy finishing your novel then that's understandable, but if you have the time to spare, why not learn how to non-fiction with your brother? Swallow your pride of being handed things, and of the superiority of your chosen genre, and work on something which will give you a different perspective on how to write.
Also, I have the same thing with (Asian) parents too. I guess it comes about as a part of Confusian culture where parents think they are inherently superior to their children (and are entitled to decide their life for them) just because they're the parents. Just ignore the haters and keep on truckin'.
|
On January 27 2013 18:14 Ianuus wrote: I don't think you should turn down opportunities vaguely related to your field just because you "don't like" that subfield. I mean, sure, if you're busy finishing your novel then that's understandable, but if you have the time to spare, why not learn how to non-fiction with your brother? Swallow your pride of being handed things, and of the superiority of your chosen genre, and work on something which will give you a different perspective on how to write.
Also, I have the same thing with (Asian) parents too. I guess it comes about as a part of Confusian culture where parents think they are inherently superior to their children (and are entitled to decide their life for them) just because they're the parents. Just ignore the haters and keep on truckin'. It's not about superiority of one genre over the other. It's about liking what you write. If you don't like what you write -- which is 100% going to be the case if you're writing a genre you don't care about -- then why will anyone else like your writing? This is why most published authors say that you should always write what you enjoy. Doing otherwise will feel like pulling teeth, and novel-writing's already a taxing enough trial of endurance. No need to make it even more soul-draining.
|
On January 27 2013 18:40 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 18:14 Ianuus wrote: I don't think you should turn down opportunities vaguely related to your field just because you "don't like" that subfield. I mean, sure, if you're busy finishing your novel then that's understandable, but if you have the time to spare, why not learn how to non-fiction with your brother? Swallow your pride of being handed things, and of the superiority of your chosen genre, and work on something which will give you a different perspective on how to write.
Also, I have the same thing with (Asian) parents too. I guess it comes about as a part of Confusian culture where parents think they are inherently superior to their children (and are entitled to decide their life for them) just because they're the parents. Just ignore the haters and keep on truckin'. It's not about superiority of one genre over the other. It's about liking what you write. If you don't like what you write -- which is 100% going to be the case if you're writing a genre you don't care about -- then why will anyone else like your writing? This is why most published authors say that you should always write what you enjoy. Doing otherwise will feel like pulling teeth, and novel-writing's already a taxing enough trial of endurance. No need to make it even more soul-draining.
Hm, as a reader, I've always been able to enjoy beautiful writing no matter what genre it was. Good writing is good writing, and I assumed that a writer should be able to enjoy writing well outside the confines of genre. Maybe it doesn't work that way? I've never really tried the writing thing.
|
So the real question the rest of us asians need to know is if you had to play the violin or piano. I got stuck with violin, my brother piano. My sister had it the worst: she had to play both. >_<
|
On January 27 2013 18:40 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 18:14 Ianuus wrote: I don't think you should turn down opportunities vaguely related to your field just because you "don't like" that subfield. I mean, sure, if you're busy finishing your novel then that's understandable, but if you have the time to spare, why not learn how to non-fiction with your brother? Swallow your pride of being handed things, and of the superiority of your chosen genre, and work on something which will give you a different perspective on how to write.
Also, I have the same thing with (Asian) parents too. I guess it comes about as a part of Confusian culture where parents think they are inherently superior to their children (and are entitled to decide their life for them) just because they're the parents. Just ignore the haters and keep on truckin'. It's not about superiority of one genre over the other. It's about liking what you write. If you don't like what you write -- which is 100% going to be the case if you're writing a genre you don't care about -- then why will anyone else like your writing? This is why most published authors say that you should always write what you enjoy. Doing otherwise will feel like pulling teeth, and novel-writing's already a taxing enough trial of endurance. No need to make it even more soul-draining.
Yes! babylon has it exactly. Good fiction needs to be genuine, The writer has to really love what they're writing, the world, the characters, etc. If they don't, you end up with pulpy generic crap. And yes, it is immensely soul-draining. I tried to write a novel idea once that I wasn't in love with but my agent thought was great and it turned out to be one of the most horrible train wrecks ever.
Also, writing is not like blacksmithing or baking or other sorts of mechanical crafts. It doesn't operate in quite the same way because writing comes from an intensely personal place. Now you CAN be a very mechanical, volume-driven writer and that's what they call a hack, but it won't do you or your craft any good.
The reason for that is probably because there's no one right way to write, so practicing nonfiction to "learn" how to do it is useless because everyone has their own style of doing non-fic anyway. Plus, I'm already well aware of how to write in the nonfic genre and have a few pieces published in literary journals. It's just not what I want to do right now. When I first started as a writer, say the first 2-3 years in college, I experimented in a ton of different genres and mediums and yes it definitely did help my writing. In fact, my first publication was a non-fic memoir short story, but again, it's just not what I want to do.
|
On January 27 2013 19:34 Burrfoot wrote: So the real question the rest of us asians need to know is if you had to play the violin or piano. I got stuck with violin, my brother piano. My sister had it the worst: she had to play both. >_<
Lol, my mom was kind of a nutjob... I had to play piano, violin, competitive swimming, high diving, ice skating, kung fu, Kumon, basketball, and tennis. As kids, she was super worried me and my brothers would end up nerdy, weak Asian kids, so she put us into a ridiculous amount of sports. We literally got up to go to school at 4:30-5 AM each morning and wouldn't get home until 9 or sometimes 10PM at night. Then we'd eat dinner in the car on the way back from our last activity -__-.
Oh and then because I was half-insane from all these compulsory activities when all I really wanted to do was read fantasy and game, I would go home and stay up till 1 or 2 AM reading/playing Star Control or Escape from Monkey Island. I had perpetual raccoon eyes as a kid lol and I constantly slept in class. And this was like elementary school I would be sleeping in class or playing hooky to sleep on a bench.
|
On January 27 2013 15:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 15:23 Jerubaal wrote: I was struck by the contradictions in the first part of that review. It portrayed your brother as having a life filled with rap music, rebellion and petty crime. Oh by the way, he got into law school too. I'm pretty sure none of those things got him into law school, but the studying, homework and paying attention in class wasn't so sexy I guess. three cheers for postmodernity t.t
Yes... I'm not a fan of the MSM and it's "literary" sphere... Sure sells a lot of books but IMO it's selling to people I have no desire to communicate with. The way I feel about modern society, its love of soundbites, its obsession with cult of personality, and its famous because you're famous phenomena is that "the only winning move is not to play."
|
On January 27 2013 12:32 c0ldfusion wrote: Good read. Good luck with your writing dude. I've passed by your brother's restaurant - will have to give it a try one of these days.
Let me know what you think if you do go c0ld! I'll pass the word along
|
On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play."
Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
|
On January 28 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play." Show nested quote + Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
...That's not a very good analogy. I appreciate it for what it is. That's why I'm staying the hell away from it.
|
|
You posted a story about not rejecting things and learning to use them in different ways in response to a post I wrote about not wanting to deal with the MSM and its marketing gimmicks. I responded by saying I am aware that there is more than one way of dealing with the MSM but none of them are worth a damn. That's why I stay the hell away from it. I don't really like the story you posted because it's flawed in how generic it is.
|
Are you calling zhuangzi generic? Fighting words. zhuangzi is the original.
what is the msm though?
you are interpreting this not how i meant, however (or how zhuangzi meant). The point is that zhuangzi advocates the virtues of uselessness and non-participation in the trivial chaos of secular affairs. He would agree with you (and the computer in that movie) that "the only winning move is not to play."
edit: that is, "wanting to turn it into something else" is, apropos our conversation, the desire to turn literature into commodity.
|
>sam!zdat: MSM = mainstream media, I believe.
|
On January 28 2013 07:17 sam!zdat wrote: Are you calling zhuangzi generic? Fighting words. zhuangzi is the original.
what is the msm though?
you are interpreting this not how i meant, however (or how zhuangzi meant). The point is that zhuangzi advocates the virtues of uselessness and non-participation in the trivial chaos of secular affairs. He would agree with you that "the only winning move is not to play."
Yeah, I like Zhuangzi quite a lot too . MSM = mainstream media. And yeah, that's exactly it. The trivial chaos of secular affairs is what I can't stand. Well, more the trivial lies and image-based garbage secular affairs like to concern themselves with.
|
Obviously MSM = men who have sex with men. Jeez, how do you guys not know this????
On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 15:24 sam!zdat wrote:On January 27 2013 15:23 Jerubaal wrote: I was struck by the contradictions in the first part of that review. It portrayed your brother as having a life filled with rap music, rebellion and petty crime. Oh by the way, he got into law school too. I'm pretty sure none of those things got him into law school, but the studying, homework and paying attention in class wasn't so sexy I guess. His memoir is calculated to make ripples in the busy food blogosphere.
three cheers for postmodernity t.t Yes... I'm not a fan of the MSM and it's "literary" sphere... Sure sells a lot of books but IMO it's selling to people I have no desire to communicate with. The way I feel about modern society, its love of soundbites, its obsession with cult of personality, and its famous because you're famous phenomena is that "the only winning move is not to play." It is a little bit funny, because most people would say that the fantasy/SF genre is no better than MSM and its literature given how well fantasy/SF can be adapted into MSM to make the big bucks. (In fact, one might even say that the "dream" of a lot of writers is to see their books get adapted for the big screen ....)
|
On January 28 2013 07:26 babylon wrote:Obviously MSM = men who have sex with men. Jeez, how do you guys not know this???? Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:On January 27 2013 15:24 sam!zdat wrote:On January 27 2013 15:23 Jerubaal wrote: I was struck by the contradictions in the first part of that review. It portrayed your brother as having a life filled with rap music, rebellion and petty crime. Oh by the way, he got into law school too. I'm pretty sure none of those things got him into law school, but the studying, homework and paying attention in class wasn't so sexy I guess. His memoir is calculated to make ripples in the busy food blogosphere.
three cheers for postmodernity t.t Yes... I'm not a fan of the MSM and it's "literary" sphere... Sure sells a lot of books but IMO it's selling to people I have no desire to communicate with. The way I feel about modern society, its love of soundbites, its obsession with cult of personality, and its famous because you're famous phenomena is that "the only winning move is not to play." It is a little bit funny, because most people would say that the fantasy/SF genre is no better than MSM and its literature given how well fantasy/SF can be adapted into MSM to make the big bucks. (In fact, one might even say that the "dream" of a lot of writers is to see their books get adapted for the big screen ....)
Yeah, but here's the thing, F/SF is honest in what it's selling. A lot of mainstream media books are not. Like Sarah Palin's memoir. That is not an honest book. Or some drug addict's story of redemption, when he was never a drug addict. They're shitty books that get peddled around the MSM circuit and become an overnight sensation for their supposed merits, which don't actually exist. But because everyone else starts chiming in that it's true, everyone rushes out to buy a copy. Just because a writer's book turns into a movie doesn't mean it bought into or relied on the MSM and its hype machine. Most times, it's the total opposite. Some movie director/writer reads a novel they really like, calls up the writer's agent, and asks to reserve the rights etc. That's why you see some less popular/obscure books get made into movies now and then.
|
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Just pointing out that it's often the case that people think in such a way, especially when you have, mm, books like Eragon and Twilight hitting the market. Though even those are, I suppose, honest in their own ways.
At some point though, I imagine that you (and any other published writer, I suppose) will have to deal with the fact that the books you put out may not be books you want to put out. It is not quite "selling out," but depending on the amount of external pressure people put on you, your writing may not in fact be as "honest" as it is when you first publish. I know a writer who's still trying to reconcile the fact that what she wants to write about is not what most readers are interested in reading and that she will probably need to "violate" the integrity of her story if she actually wants to get it published. But this is common in all forms of writing, except maybe academic writing (which is both some of the most deceitful and some of the most truthful writing you'll ever find out there).
|
On January 28 2013 07:47 babylon wrote: except maybe academic writing
Academic writing has a different problem, which is "publish or perish." Whereas fiction has the problem of "changing the writing to fit the needs of publishing", academic writing has the problem of "you just need to publish stuff, so who cares if it's nothing but mediocre obscurantism"
|
Yeah, I mean, each writer has their own personal struggle. Sometimes they're lucky and their personal taste cleaves closer to what most people enjoy. Sometimes, they have very alternative tastes and they run into the problems your friend is facing. But most times, the way I feel is if people don't like my story, I'm just not writing it well enough. I won't change the message or theme of it, but I might completely change the way I went about telling the story.
|
My philosophy is that you don't change your story so that people like it, you change people so that they like your story
|
Haha I've long ago given up on trying to change people. Lived with a gf for 2 years. Learned that lesson the hard way . And I told her stories all the time...
|
On January 28 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:Academic writing has a different problem, which is "publish or perish." Whereas fiction has the problem of "changing the writing to fit the needs of publishing", academic writing has the problem of "you just need to publish stuff, so who cares if it's nothing but mediocre obscurantism" It's not obscure for the sake of being obscure though. I believe that most (non-hackish) academics at heart are concerned primarily with the truth factor of what they are saying. It is just that they don't really give any thought to their readers.
It is an interesting problem, because most academics (and a lot of non-academics too) use the writing process to think about the world. This has a huge effect on how they write and often renders articles difficult to read, if not nearly incomprehensible. When you read an academic article, nine times out of ten you are just reading sentences that are mainly stream of consciousness. Sure, it's organized (or vaguely organized), but you are basically reading thought vomit on the page, and it's difficult for all readers, even other academics, to sift through it. They care about thoughts, not readers.
Of course, most of them will say, "If my readers have to slow down to understand what I'm saying, then that's good! They will spend more time thinking about my ideas!" No. Nobody wants to waste more time trying to figure out what an author is saying, not even other academics, lol.
(This is why most philosophers invariably suck at writing btw and why Ayn Rand gets props for her writing even if her "philosophy" is shit.)
---
Anyways, all writing is persuasive in some way. You have a world in your head. You are trying to make the readers see that world. How do you do it? That's the main question. You don't "change" readers, you convince them.
|
Wow, great point babylon. It IS very stream-of-consciousness. I guess it's kind of like showing your work in math? They want to write out their entire train of thought so other professors, etc can follow their theory? It really does make for some horribly dry prose though, and confusing as hell. Their punctuation is usually bad too and their paragraphs are just monstrous in size. I've seen a paragraph that covers over a page and a half. Just obscene lol.
And yup, it's about connecting and persuading. You can't change the reader if they don't like your writing, cause they'll just shut their minds down and put your book away.
|
Also, writing is not like blacksmithing or baking or other sorts of mechanical crafts. It doesn't operate in quite the same way because writing comes from an intensely personal place. Now you CAN be a very mechanical, volume-driven writer and that's what they call a hack, but it won't do you or your craft any good. not really sure im understanding this.
what is a mechanical, volume-driven writer?
|
On January 28 2013 08:42 AiurZ wrote:Show nested quote +Also, writing is not like blacksmithing or baking or other sorts of mechanical crafts. It doesn't operate in quite the same way because writing comes from an intensely personal place. Now you CAN be a very mechanical, volume-driven writer and that's what they call a hack, but it won't do you or your craft any good. not really sure im understanding this. what is a mechanical, volume-driven writer?
Someone who writes in a formulaic way to churn out pages. AKA pulp fiction writers.
|
Your brother's show is pretty cool
|
On January 28 2013 08:06 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 07:47 babylon wrote: except maybe academic writing Academic writing has a different problem, which is "publish or perish." Whereas fiction has the problem of "changing the writing to fit the needs of publishing", academic writing has the problem of "you just need to publish stuff, so who cares if it's nothing but mediocre obscurantism" It's not obscure for the sake of being obscure though. I believe that most (non-hackish) academics at heart are concerned primarily with the truth factor of what they are saying. It is just that they don't really give any thought to their readers.
Yes, but they're equally concerned with adding papers to their C.V.s, I promise.
It is an interesting problem, because most academics (and a lot of non-academics too) use the writing process to think about the world. This has a huge effect on how they write and often renders articles difficult to read, if not nearly incomprehensible. When you read an academic article, nine times out of ten you are just reading sentences that are mainly stream of consciousness. Sure, it's organized (or vaguely organized), but you are basically reading thought vomit on the page, and it's difficult for all readers, even other academics, to sift through it. They care about thoughts, not readers.
I'm with you totally. That's my basic mode of operation. But some writers are better at making themselves understood, and some of them, especially French ones, do deliberately write things that are hard to understand for no other reason than just that. I can tell the difference between somebody struggling to express themselves and somebody who is an obscurantist.
Anyways, all writing is persuasive in some way. You have a world in your head. You are trying to make the readers see that world. How do you do it? That's the main question. You don't "change" readers, you convince them.
I don't know what is the difference between changing and convincing. And I think generally it's more about unconvincing them of the things about which they are already convinced than about convincing them of something positive.
On January 28 2013 08:22 SamsungStar wrote: It IS very stream-of-consciousness. I guess it's kind of like showing your work in math? They want to write out their entire train of thought so other professors, etc can follow their theory? It really does make for some horribly dry prose though, and confusing as hell.
But unlike math, the answer can't even be stated independently of the work. I don't know what you've been reading, but academic writing gets a lot more interesting once you get used to it and can read it more naturally. Takes a while to get to that point, however.
|
I've enjoyed reading this, and I will resist the temptation to challenge Babylon's statement that "Ayn Rand gets props for her writing..." I will add that if one peruses JSTOR and similar article databases with enough frequency, something I do on a daily basis as part of my research, it becomes woefully apparent that a large portion of academic writers have absolutely nothing good to say, and the veneer of academic writing is perhaps one of the best ways to cover that up. Don't get me wrong, there are practically an infinite number of useful and intelligent articles out there, waiting to be stumbled upon and read, but I would not go so far as to say that "truth" is the primary motivator in academic writing; instead, it appears to this reader as more of a focus on avoiding the "untruth", whether that take the form of overly narrow subject matter, obscurant language, or ulterior agenda (I'm looking at you here, identity studies).
I'll end with an exhortation that one considers the usefulness of pedantic and obscurant language before shrugging off some of the more nonsensical writers. In some cases, especially in regards to the likes of Deleuze and Derrida, that intense feeling of anger a reader can get after reading a particular silly sounding line of overly wrought words can lead one down some very intriguing paths, but only if one lightens up a bit, so to speak. The difference between an egotistical, overly self-indulgent postmodern proselytizer and a mischievous fellow who simply wants to play a game with words can be all in the reader's head.
|
On January 28 2013 09:14 Grettin wrote: Your brother's show is pretty cool
Haha yeah, I really like it. Next season's gonna be even better :D
|
On January 28 2013 09:58 farvacola wrote:I've enjoyed reading this, and I will resist the temptation to challenge Babylon's statement that "Ayn Rand gets props for her writing..." I will add that if one peruses JSTOR and similar article databases with enough frequency, something I do on a daily basis as part of my research, it becomes woefully apparent that a large portion of academic writers have absolutely nothing good to say, and the veneer of academic writing is perhaps one of the best ways to cover that up. Don't get me wrong, there are practically an infinite number of useful and intelligent articles out there, waiting to be stumbled upon and read, but I would not go so far as to say that "truth" is the primary motivator in academic writing; instead, it appears to this reader as more of a focus on avoiding the "untruth", whether that take the form of overly narrow subject matter, obscurant language, or ulterior agenda (I'm looking at you here, identity studies). I'll end with an exhortation that one considers the usefulness of pedantic and obscurant language before shrugging off some of the more nonsensical writers. In some cases, especially in regards to the likes of Deleuze and Derrida, that intense feeling of anger a reader can get after reading a particular silly sounding line of overly wrought words can lead one down some very intriguing paths, but only if one lightens up a bit, so to speak. The difference between an egotistical, overly self-indulgent postmodern proselytizer and a mischievous fellow who simply wants to play a game with words can be all in the reader's head.
LOL epic post. And LOL at Derrida. God, I hated reading him. Although the whole semiotics field is pretty cool to think about from time to time. As a fiction writer though, I find my use of language to be much more instinctual and nothing at all like how semiotics breaks it down. Ofc beneath that, there is probably the fundamentals of semiotics at work.
But yeah, I agree with farva 100% about academic articles.
|
Criticize Ayn Rand for her ideas, but there's a reason why everyone, even high school students, understand her philosophy. It's not just that her philosophy is incredibly simple; it's that her writing is clear, and she unashamedly pushes them in her writing. I personally don't like her style, and I don't like her ideas, but I can't deny that she is easier to read than most philosophers.
I'll clarify on some of my points though:
1.) Yes, academics are concerned with adding papers to their CV. However, they will typically not add a badly supported paper to their CV if they can help it. A lot of the times, however, they simply can't, which is why you have so many "empty articles" floating around that never add anything to the discussion; all these articles do is rehash older arguments while trying to pretend that they are saying something new. (Also, you have a horde of graduate students just trying to get published, and a horde of assistant profs trying to get tenured, etc.)
2.) Yes, academics do obscure certain facts in an attempt to build a better argument. But it is a rhetorical strategy, and one that many academics do not use well, because their entire article is badly written anyways, so everything is obscure! As you say, farva, there is value to obscurant and pedantic language, but I think that value lies in how that language is employed. (And, naturally, the readers' perception of how and why that language is being used.)
3.) I can go on and on about the flat-out technical details that make some papers more difficult to read, some easier to read. It's not even about the content and the ideas; it's just how the papers are written. Even at the most microscopic level of basic sentence construction and word choice, many articles do not efficiently communicate ideas, even to other academics who understand the jargon.
4.) Sam, I don't think academic writing gets better. It just gets more tolerable, which is not the same as "better." I think the more you (general "you") convince yourself that it gets "better," the more you end up writing like them, because you think that it's "okay." And, well ... yes, it's okay, if you're okay with people a.) ignoring you, because they can't understand what you're saying, b.) misunderstanding you, because they can't understand what you're saying, and c.) misrepresenting you, because they can't understand what you're saying.
---
Sam, re: change vs. convince, I'll just quote what you said back at you:
My philosophy is that you don't change your story so that people like it, you change people so that they like your story I phrased it the way I did, because I disliked your initial usage of "change." You can't change people so that they like your story when they dislike your story to begin with and don't even continue reading it because they think it has no value. There's no way you can change anything if you can't convince them to keep reading in the first place. Sure, maybe "changing" people is your end goal, but at the most basic level, you just need to convince people that what you have to say is interesting. After that, maybe you can work your magic.
---
Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with hack writing, so long as you realize that you may be forgotten after your death. Except for the lucky few, like Alexandre Dumas (who was paid by the word). In the end, though, it depends on your goal, I think; some people write just to tell stories and don't really care about the words themselves except as a medium of communication, and I think that is perfectly fine.
There are also some people who call themselves hack writers even though they (in my opinion) have good control over the English language ... I think a lot of people just use the term "hack" to emphasize that they're not out to write highbrow "literary fiction."
|
I thought that people who enjoy absurdism would appreciate the French pseudo thinkers. I'm surprised. I mean they should be funny with all their complicated and nonsensical words right ?
|
On January 28 2013 10:44 Boblion wrote: I thought that people who enjoy absurdism would appreciate the French pseudo thinkers. I'm surprised. I mean they should be funny with all their complicated and nonsensical words right ?
No, you're conflating things. But if you are going to get anything out of Derrida (e.g. because he's the most obvious) the only way to do it is to get in on his joke.
@farv btw do you like Barthelme? Have we talked about this?
On January 28 2013 10:32 SamsungStar wrote: I find my use of language to be much more instinctual and nothing at all like how semiotics breaks it down. Ofc beneath that, there is probably the fundamentals of semiotics at work.
Yeah, luckily it's up to me to tell you what you meant and not up to you to tell me what you meant :D This is a false dichotomy between "instinctual" and "semiotic" use of language. You cannot escape my critical clutches, don't worry.
On January 28 2013 10:39 babylon wrote: 4.) Sam, I don't think academic writing gets better. It just gets more tolerable, which is not the same as "better." I think the more you (general "you") convince yourself that it gets "better," the more you end up writing like them, because you think that it's "okay." And, well ... yes, it's okay, if you're okay with people a.) ignoring you, because they can't understand what you're saying, b.) misunderstanding you, because they can't understand what you're saying, and c.) misrepresenting you, because they can't understand what you're saying.
Nah, you just haven't broken through yet A lot of stuff that most people would think was nonsense makes total sense to me, and is really interesting. But I've got a lot of theory under my belt. I actively enjoy reading it.
Sam, re: change vs. convince, I'll just quote what you said back at you: Show nested quote +My philosophy is that you don't change your story so that people like it, you change people so that they like your story I phrased it the way I did, because I disliked your initial usage of "change." You can't change people so that they like your story when they dislike your story to begin with and don't even continue reading it because they think it has no value. There's no way you can change anything if you can't convince them to keep reading in the first place. Sure, maybe "changing" people is your end goal, but at the most basic level, you just need to convince people that what you have to say is interesting. After that, maybe you can work your magic.
This is why you have to trick them, by pretending to write "just a story," but actually by the time they finish reading "just a story," they have been changed, and after they have been changed, then they "like your story," i.e. the actual story. I like Freud's notion that Art is about making one's own fantasies, which are abhorrent to the Other, able to be communicated in the light of day.
|
Nah, you just haven't broken through yet A lot of stuff that most people would think was nonsense makes total sense to me, and is really interesting. But I've got a lot of theory under my belt. I actively enjoy reading it. I haven't been very clear, apparently. I'm not talking about ideas or theories. I have stated before that I don't care about content. What I'm talking about is the English text and how readers interact with that text. Words on the page, sentences on the page, what is the subject, can your readers conceive of that subject as an active participant in the "action," where is the verb, does your verb describe meaningful action, where is the old information, where is the new information, how does that information flow, and does that information flow in a productive manner? Readers do not read text the same way writers write text. Readers will miss cues, they will miss signals, and they will just flat-out miss or misinterpret information that you, as a writer, want to communicate. When readers encounter reams of badly written sentences, they will become confused, they will slow down, they will become annoyed, and eventually, they will just stop reading.
I pick on academics, because they are notoriously concerned with ideas and unconcerned with their readers. That's absolutely fine. They place more value on the ideas. They are, after all, primarily academics, not writers.
This is why you have to trick them, by pretending to write "just a story," but actually by the time they finish reading "just a story," they have been changed, and after they have been changed, then they "like your story," i.e. the actual story. I like Freud's notion that Art is about making one's own fantasies, which are abhorrent to the Other, able to be communicated in the light of day. Which is as I said. You can't change readers if you can't convince them to read past the first page of your writing in the first place. Only after convincing them to keep reading can you "change" them, if you want to, if you care to.
|
maybe readers should get better at it
|
Why should they? It's not their job to hack through bad writing to get at the "good stuff." In fact, they're not even obligated to look at an article or a book or a blog or a newspaper. The fact that they do is, in my opinion, blessing enough.
|
but if you're a bad reader, you can't tell the difference between writing that is bad and writing that is merely hard.
|
On January 28 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play." Show nested quote + Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
That's beautiful, as well as very hard to misinterpret. It's about a general truth, samsungstar, not about you. This ancient chinese dude was not trying to provide insight about your specific situation.
|
On January 28 2013 13:00 sam!zdat wrote: but if you're a bad reader, you can't tell the difference between writing that is bad and writing that is merely hard. Bad readers will be bad readers. Bad readers can choose to read whatever they want to read. They're not my concern.
Generally, you don't actually write for the lowest common denominator. You choose a subset of readers you want to address and target your writing towards them. In academia, that's usually other academics (which is why you can get away with using field-specific jargon); in fantasy, that's usually fantasy readers who are familiar with the genre (letting you subvert some very common fantasy tropes); for YA lit, that's usually children and teens (who generally have shorter attention spans, which means you will probably need to be very careful with how you pace the story so they don't get too bored).
I mean, there are certainly ways to layer your writing so that a bad reader can still follow the main plot but a better reader will get more out of the book.
|
Re: "bad readers" again -- as an example, think about historical pastiches and ask, "Who is the writer writing for?" and "What readers will actually enjoy reading these books?"
About layering stories so that there are different levels of interpretation, you should read up on Umberto Eco.
I really don't think academics have much of an excuse to write nigh-on incomprehensible papers/books though. (At least historical fiction writers can say, "We're being historically accurate!") If another expert in your field is having difficult reading something you've written and comprehending it, then you've got a problem, lol.
|
ok, well, I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore
|
I think what we're "arguing" about is just how to allocate responsibility between the reader and writer. I just come from the extreme "it's the writer's responsibility to be intelligible!" and you come from "it's the reader's responsibility to be intelligent!"
|
I think it's the writer's responsibility to infuriate and tantalize the reader into putting effort into understanding the text. the writer is something like a seductress playing hard-to-get
|
|
On January 28 2013 13:44 sam!zdat wrote: I think it's the writer's responsibility to infuriate and tantalize the reader into putting effort into understanding the text. the writer is something like a seductress playing hard-to-get
Speculative fiction is entertainment, pure and simple. Any aspirational goals beyond that are merely icing on the cake. Some readers like to be infuriated and tantalized. Some readers don't. There's no one right answer to this argument here because writing can be anything under the sun, and to be honest I've seen pretty much every permutation manage to succeed on some level or another.
Steven Erikson would probably be one of the best examples of a nearly incomprehensible, infuriating, and tantalizing fantasy writer, who tries to hit really big themes and meanings etc and uses obscure ways of writing. Is he as popular as A Game of Thrones? Hell no. But he does have his own fanbase.
In general though, that type of writing is considered bad in F/SF. Why? Because for the vast majority of people, it is not entertaining to be confused and infuriated.
|
On January 28 2013 13:40 babylon wrote:I think what we're "arguing" about is just how to allocate responsibility between the reader and writer. I just come from the extreme "it's the writer's responsibility to be intelligible!" and you come from "it's the reader's responsibility to be intelligent!"
And yeah, it's pretty much this. The #1 reason I am resistant to the approach of "it's the reader's responsibility" is because it leads to lazy writing. It's also the #1 shitty excuse a new and crappy writer will use to explain why nobody likes his/her work. I can't tell you how many times I saw kids in college classes utterly convinced they were the next Shakespeare churn out some overwrought, overly elaborate crap to mask the fact they were really writing a simple story about adolescent angst. And when nobody liked it or even wanted to read past the 1st page, they were convinced nobody understood their genius and he was surrounded by a world of morons. It really doesn't lead to anything good when you start to take that approach to writing.
Much better to master the fundamentals, learn how to entertain and capture an audience, THEN learn how to layer in more meaning and sophistication. There's a sequence to it.
|
On January 28 2013 13:03 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play." Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
That's beautiful, as well as very hard to misinterpret. It's about a general truth, samsungstar, not about you. This ancient chinese dude was not trying to provide insight about your specific situation.
The ancient Chinese dude was never the subject in question. The intentions of that modern Chinese dude sam who decided to post a Zhuangzi quote very much was. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. I specifically said the reason I didn't like that quote in that context was because of it's genericness. You're now responding saying the quote is a general truth, and not about me, which in essence means you're paraphrasing me to tell me I'm wrong.
|
On January 28 2013 10:14 SamsungStar wrote:Haha yeah, I really like it. Next season's gonna be even better :D
Thanks for teasing. Just watched the last episode of Taiwan.
|
On January 29 2013 02:29 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:44 sam!zdat wrote: I think it's the writer's responsibility to infuriate and tantalize the reader into putting effort into understanding the text. the writer is something like a seductress playing hard-to-get Speculative fiction is entertainment, pure and simple.
Maybe the kind YOU like
On January 29 2013 02:37 SamsungStar wrote: that modern Chinese dude sam
I'm not chinese, just well-read
|
On January 29 2013 03:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 02:29 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 13:44 sam!zdat wrote: I think it's the writer's responsibility to infuriate and tantalize the reader into putting effort into understanding the text. the writer is something like a seductress playing hard-to-get Speculative fiction is entertainment, pure and simple. Maybe the kind YOU like I'm not chinese, just well-read
You are a good person, Sam! And I'm not saying spec-fic is ONLY entertainment, but it is its first purpose.
|
On January 29 2013 02:37 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:03 UniversalSnip wrote:On January 28 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play." Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
That's beautiful, as well as very hard to misinterpret. It's about a general truth, samsungstar, not about you. This ancient chinese dude was not trying to provide insight about your specific situation. The ancient Chinese dude was never the subject in question. The intentions of that modern Chinese dude sam who decided to post a Zhuangzi quote very much was. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. I specifically said the reason I didn't like that quote in that context was because of it's genericness. You're now responding saying the quote is a general truth, and not about me, which in essence means you're paraphrasing me to tell me I'm wrong.
essentially, yes, I am. It doesn't have to be about you and be specific to be a well told and genuinely revealing anecdote, and sam's intentions have to be presumed to be in accordance with the chinese dude's or he wouldn't have posted it.
|
On January 29 2013 03:51 UniversalSnip wrote: sam's intentions have to be presumed to be in accordance with the chinese dude's
now, now, let's not open up this can of hermeneutic worms
|
I don't have anything against complicated writing done well, written with a specific purpose in mind, but it is just too often the case that authors try to blame the readers for not "getting" them. And sure, they certainly don't at a level, but at some point along the line, if most readers (even the targeted audience) can't "get" what an author is trying to say, then the fault lies with the author. They can't all be "bad readers," and it's far more likely that the author is simply failing to communicate the point.
|
I don't allow my students to use the phrase "what the author is trying to say"
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On January 29 2013 04:12 babylon wrote: I don't have anything against complicated writing done well, written with a specific purpose in mind, but it is just too often the case that authors try to blame the readers for not "getting" them. And sure, they certainly don't at a level, but at some point along the line, if most readers (even the targeted audience) can't "get" what an author is trying to say, then the fault lies with the author. They can't all be "bad readers," and it's far more likely that the author is simply failing to communicate the point.
This makes a lot of assumptions that may not be true.
Besides, if the author's intended audience (which surely exists as you yourself said earlier) truly is very narrow, it is very possible that from the author's POV, there really -are- that many "bad readers," defined here simply as readers who are not in the author's intended audience and don't understand the writing.\
And I think you're combining two issues here; a lazy author blaming the readers for not "getting" them is a separate issue from the merits of the work, and should be evaluated separately.
On January 29 2013 03:47 SamsungStar wrote:
Speculative fiction is entertainment, pure and simple.
And I'm not saying spec-fic is ONLY entertainment
Hm.
|
On January 29 2013 05:11 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 04:12 babylon wrote: I don't have anything against complicated writing done well, written with a specific purpose in mind, but it is just too often the case that authors try to blame the readers for not "getting" them. And sure, they certainly don't at a level, but at some point along the line, if most readers (even the targeted audience) can't "get" what an author is trying to say, then the fault lies with the author. They can't all be "bad readers," and it's far more likely that the author is simply failing to communicate the point. This makes a lot of assumptions that may not be true. Besides, if the author's intended audience (which surely exists as you yourself said earlier) truly is very narrow, it is very possible that from the author's POV, there really -are- that many "bad readers," defined here simply as readers who are not in the author's intended audience and don't understand the writing.\ And I think you're combining two issues here; a lazy author blaming the readers for not "getting" them is a separate issue from the merits of the work, and should be evaluated separately. Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 03:47 SamsungStar wrote:
Speculative fiction is entertainment, pure and simple.
Hm.
SC2 is a fun game, pure and simple. SC2 is also an esport. I don't see any reason why there is a conflict in making those two statements. SC2 could focus purely on game balance, but if the game isn't at all fun, who is going to play it? In essence, that's my point about spec-fic.
|
On January 29 2013 03:51 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 02:37 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 13:03 UniversalSnip wrote:On January 28 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play." Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
That's beautiful, as well as very hard to misinterpret. It's about a general truth, samsungstar, not about you. This ancient chinese dude was not trying to provide insight about your specific situation. The ancient Chinese dude was never the subject in question. The intentions of that modern Chinese dude sam who decided to post a Zhuangzi quote very much was. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. I specifically said the reason I didn't like that quote in that context was because of it's genericness. You're now responding saying the quote is a general truth, and not about me, which in essence means you're paraphrasing me to tell me I'm wrong. essentially, yes, I am. It doesn't have to be about you and be specific to be a well told and genuinely revealing anecdote, and sam's intentions have to be presumed to be in accordance with the chinese dude's or he wouldn't have posted it.
/facepalm. I don't even know what you're complaining about. Sam didn't understand what I was referring to when I said MSM, so he posted something that didn't really relate. I told him I didn't think it related, we clarified, and life went on. Yet, for some reason, you're now trying to argue the merits of Zhuangzi's teachings, which were NEVER in question.
|
it totally related!
edit:
If that was always a lie to begin with and the work never was unified, then if you know that and still want to produce a work of your own, do you produce random fragments and discontinuous remains, or do you first imagine a unified thing and then deconstruct yourself?
fredric jameson
|
On January 29 2013 05:47 sam!zdat wrote:it totally related! edit: Show nested quote + If that was always a lie to begin with and the work never was unified, then if you know that and still want to produce a work of your own, do you produce random fragments and discontinuous remains, or do you first imagine a unified thing and then deconstruct yourself?
fredric jameson
lol uh huh. totally related...
|
On January 29 2013 05:11 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 04:12 babylon wrote: I don't have anything against complicated writing done well, written with a specific purpose in mind, but it is just too often the case that authors try to blame the readers for not "getting" them. And sure, they certainly don't at a level, but at some point along the line, if most readers (even the targeted audience) can't "get" what an author is trying to say, then the fault lies with the author. They can't all be "bad readers," and it's far more likely that the author is simply failing to communicate the point. This makes a lot of assumptions that may not be true. Besides, if the author's intended audience (which surely exists as you yourself said earlier) truly is very narrow, it is very possible that from the author's POV, there really -are- that many "bad readers," defined here simply as readers who are not in the author's intended audience and don't understand the writing.\ And I think you're combining two issues here; a lazy author blaming the readers for not "getting" them is a separate issue from the merits of the work, and should be evaluated separately. DISCLAIMER: Mostly about academic writing. Samsung, you can ignore this post, lol.
It's fine if your targeted audience can understand you; that is not what I'm talking about. There is always going to be selection and self-selection, and you can't write for everyone, nor should you; you should write towards your audience. But what happens if the author's intended audience does not understand the writing? This is what I am primarily concerned with, and this is especially the case for many academics, who call each other out on torturous, convoluted writing and yet write the same way themselves, simply because, "It's fine for other people to spend so much time thinking about my writing, because I have Very Important Ideas, but please don't let me do the same with someone else's writing, because, dammit, it's a waste of my time." A very prominent scholar in my field published a book two years ago, and numerous professors and students in my department have just given up on it, because it's too dense. Sure, it makes brilliant points, but when everyone's churning out article after article, book after book, there's only so much you can read. You might as well set aside the unclear articles and focus on the ones that actually deliver their points well, the ones that don't insist on putting their main subject two lines away from their tiny, weak meaningless verb.
If you believe that it's a reader's responsibility to be a "good reader," i.e. to "think" about your ideas, then at what point is it your responsibility to make sure the reader gets far enough along in the reading process to actually care to think about your ideas?
Let me just be blunt here: when someone stops reading an article, because it takes too much effort to process the text (NOTE: I am not even talking about the ideas), it's because that person has decided the text has no value, and therefore, the content of that text has no value. That means they've just passed a snap judgment on the ideas in an article based purely on the text, which has become so great an obstacle to them that they just don't give a shit about your thoughts anymore.
If that person is not in your intended audience, that's fine. Give them the finger and move on with your life. But if that person is in your intended audience, you have a problem.
|
out of curiosity what's your field
edit: oh and when I said that about "trying to say" before I forgot we were talking about nonfiction, that's different
|
|
|
|