6 ms·

I'm about 25% of the way through Strangers. The negative review you've given seems to be a content-free screed: most of what the writer criticizes is fairly in

by haliax 10y ago

I'm about 25% of the way through Strangers. The negative review you've given seems to be a content-free screed: most of what the writer criticizes is fairly innocuous phrasing (e.g. "my Tea Party friends" rather than "my friends"). The only substantive point is the claim that she lumps people into overly broad categories, but honestly, I've yet to see that. Do you have any sources that dislike the book and point out flaws in her analysis?

protomyth 10y ago
I guess if you considered the link I provided a "content-free screed" then I'm not sure what to say. Your example was not a good characterization of the review.
- CalChris 10y ago
  You didn't engage the content of the book. You just said you didn't like it because liberals did. That's content free. The phrase that comes to mind is epistemic closure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure You will only accept a description of your reality from inside of your reality. Contrast that with the author who actually moved to Louisiana and lived there to find out what they think. Advantage the author.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    > You didn't engage the content of the book. You just said you didn't like it because liberals did. That's content free. No, I think its a poor choice when you are trying to tell the story of a people so that you can gain an understanding of them and they don't like or agree with the book, but their opposite number does and sees it as a revelation. Living among the natives to write a book is an old ploy that has been done poorly for a long time, but since I live here full time, clocking hours isn't really part of my argument. Confirmation bias would be a nice way to put it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Again, that's not engagement. That's judgment and whether you live 'there' matters not a whit. BTW before you can cite confirmation bias you have to engage the material. She did. You didn't.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        This is pretty fruitless and really you are just jumping all over. If her going to live some place matters (as you seem to indicated in the comment you made), but my living here doesn't, then I am confused. I view the content of the book with a belief that she didn't look through her subjects eyes and thus failed to live up to an true description of the people. I'm a bit sensitive to that type of thing since I've seen it more than once from another culture I grew up in. anyway, I'm done with this as I don't have an idea what your definition of "engagement" is and since I'm having flashbacks to running into trouble with the changing meaning of "socialize", I'll go think pleasant thoughts.
- graeme 10y ago
  I read the review. Mostly, it seemed to be summarizing the book. Then, as the OP noted, there are a few nitpicks of phrasing. Would you care to summarize the review?
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    Also, I don’t see how protomyth concluded that Carlos Lozada was one of the “people it claims to report on” (i.e. Tea Party supporters / working-class rural whites). From what I can tell Lozada is a journalist turned newspaper book reviewer who was born in Peru, lives in DC (previously NYC), has a masters degree from Princeton, and thinks Trump is a “totalitarian”. E.g. see another of his reviews, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/06/09/how-does-donald-trump-stack-up-against-american-literatures-fictional-dictators-pretty-well-actually/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/06/09...

by haliax 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

I guess if you considered the link I provided a "content-free screed" then I'm not sure what to say. Your example was not a good characterization of the review.

CalChris 10y ago
You didn't engage the content of the book. You just said you didn't like it because liberals did. That's content free. The phrase that comes to mind is epistemic closure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure You will only accept a description of your reality from inside of your reality. Contrast that with the author who actually moved to Louisiana and lived there to find out what they think. Advantage the author.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > You didn't engage the content of the book. You just said you didn't like it because liberals did. That's content free. No, I think its a poor choice when you are trying to tell the story of a people so that you can gain an understanding of them and they don't like or agree with the book, but their opposite number does and sees it as a revelation. Living among the natives to write a book is an old ploy that has been done poorly for a long time, but since I live here full time, clocking hours isn't really part of my argument. Confirmation bias would be a nice way to put it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
  - CalChris 10y ago
    Again, that's not engagement. That's judgment and whether you live 'there' matters not a whit. BTW before you can cite confirmation bias you have to engage the material. She did. You didn't.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      This is pretty fruitless and really you are just jumping all over. If her going to live some place matters (as you seem to indicated in the comment you made), but my living here doesn't, then I am confused. I view the content of the book with a belief that she didn't look through her subjects eyes and thus failed to live up to an true description of the people. I'm a bit sensitive to that type of thing since I've seen it more than once from another culture I grew up in. anyway, I'm done with this as I don't have an idea what your definition of "engagement" is and since I'm having flashbacks to running into trouble with the changing meaning of "socialize", I'll go think pleasant thoughts.
graeme 10y ago
I read the review. Mostly, it seemed to be summarizing the book. Then, as the OP noted, there are a few nitpicks of phrasing. Would you care to summarize the review?
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Also, I don’t see how protomyth concluded that Carlos Lozada was one of the “people it claims to report on” (i.e. Tea Party supporters / working-class rural whites). From what I can tell Lozada is a journalist turned newspaper book reviewer who was born in Peru, lives in DC (previously NYC), has a masters degree from Princeton, and thinks Trump is a “totalitarian”. E.g. see another of his reviews, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/06/09/how-does-donald-trump-stack-up-against-american-literatures-fictional-dictators-pretty-well-actually/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/06/09...