"Good Writer, Bad Writer" on AAK!
Well, I thought the
dust had settled on the matter. The Korean had posted a "final word"
on the culturalism debate with Gladwell: "Until those questions are
resolved, I am standing by what I wrote."
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-thoughts-on-gladwells-response.html#comment-form This was from his last post
in his series of articles regarding Gladwell and his "culturalism".
But somehow, the final word is not truly final. He manages to add more to the
conversation by suspiciously writing about how readers ask him for writing
advice in " 'Good Writer, Bad Writer' on AAK!". Because he had
addressed this question earlier on his blog, it is rather strange and
suspicious, considering the timing. I believe that it is a ruse to go at
greater length about the Gladwell debate without making an official post about
it, just a way to sneak it in while pretending to have moved on from the issue.
I haven't seen the blog "Good Writer, Bad Writer" referenced on many
other sites after doing a Yahoo! search for it, so The Korean probably found it
by tracking links connecting to his site. Interestingly, the vast majority of sites that seem to mention it
are Korea-related sites that note "Ask a Korean" and his article
" 'Good Writer, Bad Writer' on AAK!". The remaining few that don't mention "Ask a Korean"
are an obscure site on education and a site administered by Cornell College in
Mount Vernon, Iowa, where the author teaches, and perhaps a few others. The
blog may be popular otherwise, but the writer teaches at a college that is not
particularly well known, so I find it highly doubtful that The Korean would
have stumbled upon it if the author had not written about him.
Luckily, Mr. Shawn Doyle, who is a writing
teacher, has been generous enough to use my recent post, Culturalism, Gladwell and Airplane Crashes as an example of effective writing. At his blog, Good Writer, Bad Writer, Mr. Doyle has reproduced the post, and kindly provided a play-by-play on the
rhetorical strategy that the Korean has employed as he wrote the post. If you happened to be one of the folks who
thought the Korean's writing was worth emulating, the post at Good Writer, Bad Writer would be helpful.
Self-praise
disguised as appreciation of another blogger. This is really just a
self-congratulatory post to make him feel better about what he wrote because I
am sure that he is aware that he did not present the best argument.
You
would have to be drinking a lot of Kool-Aid to believe that The Korean does not
put that much effort into his posts or that he truly thinks that his writing is
not "up to standard" or even "up to his own standards".
Look, no one is forcing him to blog. And he blogs out of pleasure, so he is
only going to post what he feels good about. His pride is too big to allow him
to post anything that would make him feel inept. It is very evident through his
tone and how he pontificates at length about his credentials that image is very
important to him. He has constantly trumpeted how he has learned English to a
level higher than most native speakers. I don't think he would be so bold in
stating that if he did not take pride in his own abilities. Believe me, he does
take A LOT of pride in his ability to speak English. A LOT. If you don't
believe me, go read his posts on that. Unfortunately, I know that he has
re-edited and deleted parts of one post that was particularly egregious in
trumpeting his accomplishment after reading the previous post on this blog.
Why, after all these years would he re-edit it? Damage control. So I don't
believe in this false humility. It is just an attempt to do damage control to a
situation that has escaped him.
He starts off his
post " 'Good Writer, Bad Writer' on
AAK!" like this:
The
Korean frequently receives questions along the lines of: "I think your
writing is great? How do I become a good writer?" For a few times, he has
tried writing a post in response to such questions, and felt too embarrassed to
continue. To be sure, the Korean does have a number of principles and
guideposts in his mind when he writes. He does strive to be a better writer
each time. But the truth is that his writing is still much lower quality than
he would prefer. Because this blog is a hobby, he never does put in the amount
of effort that he feels sufficient. Consequently,
a reader with sharp eyes can usually find persistent errors and rooms for
improvement in the Korean's writing. So it felt a bit silly to talk
about how to write well, when he was not even living up to his own standards.
Notice
the woe-is-me, whiny, and self-deprecating tone and how wishy washy it is
compared to his usual tone. Reading his later articles after this post, one can
certainly notice a tonal shift. Now, if you have read The Korean, he certainly
is not a wishy washy guy and has VERY strong opinions, so I know that this is
not genuine. Why does he do this? To protect his pride and excessively large
ego. To show what a humble guy he is, to garner the sympathy of readers. A far
cry from his usual chest-thumping and braggadocio that he douses us with. There
have actually been a few readers that have mentioned this aspect of his
personality in his comments section in much earlier posts. But his last post
did receive a lot more attention than usual as he was making accusations about
the famous author Malcolm Gladwell. "Ask a Korean" was known before
then, but not as much as after he had started the debate with Gladwell. Now,
you are bringing in a whole new set of readers who did not know or care about The
Korean until someone of interest, Gladwell, was brought into the equation. I
haven't checked his comments lately, but I did notice that he did receive a lot
of disagreement from readers at one point. So it is disingenuous to say that
"based on the reception the post had, it appears that the strategy worked
this time." Maybe for some readers, but definitely not all. He tries to
make the reader believe it through that statement. Nice try, but I am not
buying it. I really don't believe that he was trying to emulate Justice John
Roberts unless he is as arrogant as The Korean. I have never read anything by
Justice Roberts, but I find it highly unlikely that someone in his position
would write something so ham-fisted and arrogant. Correct me if I am wrong.
Regardless, we must judge The Korean based on his own arguments and not some
false comparison to someone else. I did not find his argument
"amazing" though I did find it "infuriating" because of the
arrogance displayed.
So it feels amazing (and a bit infuriating) when he
finishes reading an opinion by Justice Roberts, and feels halfway convinced of
the Justice's arguments before snapping out of it. Accordingly, the
Korean attempts to deploy this style when he tries to write a strongly
opinionated piece. Based on the reception the post had, it appears that the
strategy worked this time.
He
starts off his post by feigning humility and insecurity in his own writing
abilities, but in the above passage, his ego returns once again. He uses the
weight and authority of a Supreme Court Justice to give credibility to his own
argument, saying that it is his writing style that we need to be understanding
of and not how he constructed his argument. He covertly tries to get the more
discerning reader to change their opinion about his argument this way: Reader, if you felt put off by my argument, here's
why: I try to emulate the style of Justice Roberts who writes in a way that
could be construed as a chain of trains crashing down into a "conclusion
[that is] undeniable." Nice dodge there. So his writing is not a
bloody axe wielding against Gladwell, but an emulation of "one of the
greatest writers that the Supreme Court has seen since Robert Jackson." So
one should not be critical of The Korean because his writing emulates the
chaotic and bombastic style of Justice Roberts who is a writer of great
magnificence, so by extension The Korean's writing should be lauded so highly.
Yes, no false modesty there.
One tip that the Korean would give about writing is: have an arsenal
of several esteemed writers whose style you can emulate depending on the
purpose of your writing. For
the purpose of the Culturalism post, the Korean was consciously trying to write like Chief Justice
John Roberts, who is considered one of the greatest writers that the Supreme
Court has seen since Robert Jackson. I think Justice
Roberts writes like a freight train coming down a hill. At first, the
train would be stationary, sitting on top of the hill with no freight on it.
Justice Roberts would begin his writing by adding freight piece by piece onto
that train. After a certain point, the train would start slowly rolling
downward, unable to bear its own weight any longer. By the time the train
reaches the bottom of the hill--i.e. the conclusion of his writing--it moves
with such momentum and speed that makes the conclusion undeniable.
The
Korean is being disingenuous here. Instead of choosing to take responsibility
for his own bloody axe and deeply flawed argument, he chooses to lay the blame
on Justice Roberts. Look, if you really believe that it is important to imitate
"several esteemed writers whose style you can emulate depending on the
purpose of your writing", then you should choose them wisely and The
Korean is smart enough to do that although he does not take responsibility for
this. I don't believe for a second that The Korean tried to fully model his
argument on the style of Justice Roberts. I believe that it is possible that he
has studied some of Roberts' writings and that may have affected his writing
somewhat, but no one is forcing him to imitate anyone. He chose of his own
volition to write that way whether it was an imitation or not and for that, he
has to take responsibility and not blame some writing style. If a style doesn't
work for you, don't use it. And The Korean cannot blame his lack of English skills
as he may be tempted to do because he knows that it is good enough to judge
nuance and the like. So no, he cannot have his cake and eat it, too. You can't
say how great you are at something a billion times and then, say that you are
not good enough. The Korean is very arrogant about himself and his own
abilities, so to pull the false modesty card is disingenuous. He does not care
about truly being modest and respectful. He only cares about his image and ego
and I bet, he is not so audacious offline because he has a reputation to
maintain and an image to uphold. People who are so focused on image just don't
get it. Instead of focusing on image, why don't you just BE whatever you want
others to see you as? Then, you would actually BE it instead of PRETENDING to
be it and you wouldn't have to try so DAMN HARD. Big difference. He just keeps
digging his own grave and I believe that it will be a long time before he
actually understands the magnitude of his actions and how they have affected
other people. If Justice Roberts truly writes that way, he has a horrible
writing style and I don't understand why anyone would try to emulate him,
especially a lawyer who is paid to know better and prides himself on knowing
better than everyone else. He must not be a savvy lawyer because he does not
really know how to separate "smoke and mirrors" from making a strong,
solid argument. He's just too caught up in the game.
The
Korean ends his post with this statement:
Thank
you very much, Mr. Doyle, and thank you everyone for reading.
"Thank
you for buying my b.s. everyone" is what he is really saying. Thank you, Mr. Doyle, for giving me a way to validate
my posts to readers who may be more critical. Thanks for giving me the
"proof" to show that my argument was well reasoned. So even
when he is wrong, he's still not. If you want to see the flaws in his
reasoning, you can look at my previous post. His post is really just about
distorting the reader's perception so that he or she will believe that his
argument only appears flawed because of his own lack of effort and writing
style and not due to any other critical errors in his reasoning. Yes, I may have erred a bit. But please forgive me as
this blog is only a hobby and I was trying to emulate Justice Roberts who has a
style that can be described as a 'freight train coming down a hill'. So even
when it is my fault, it really is not my fault. Even when I make a flawed
argument, I am not really making a flawed argument. It is all justified and
should be justified in your head, reader. I see.
As a
lawyer, he needs to be a "master" of discourse, but it really is not
that hard to see where his argument fails if you actually look at what he is
saying and how he is saying it. The only thing he masters is confusing
sheep-like readers who hang on to his every word unquestionably as well as
overwhelming your mind with so much verbiage that you may get confused and
concede if you are not astute enough. Instead of arguing his point, he chooses
to use a blowhorn so that you can't even reflect on what is being presented to
you. He chooses to dominate the whole conversation so that you will be
overwhelmed and give in to his "argument". Because he is THE Korean
and so he must know everything about Korea. His "Good Writer, Bad Writer"
post really hit it on the head and further confirmed for me that he is really
not interested in the truth, but doing a shadow dance of smoke and mirrors. I
did mention in my earlier post that he is not interested in the truth, but
controlling the narrative. So he is not simply stating an opinion, but
generating his own propaganda. This is much worse than the kvetchpats I have
written about, which you probably know that I don't have great love for. MUCH
WORSE. Because he is not some lost and confused English teacher muttering about
his lot in life. He is a well-educated lawyer who is spouting off his opinions
as if they are credible and legitimate. That is much more dangerous and much
more worse than an embittered English teacher who is just whining out of his
own self-inflicted misery. He is presenting his own opinions as if they are
irrefutable fact and it is misleading to readers who buy it hook, line, and
sinker.
The
reason I decided to write about this debate even though I had long been aware
of The Korean's style is due to the
sheer audaciousness and hubris displayed by The Korean, which was much more
than he usually displays on his blog and that is A LOT. I really do think that
he gets off on knowing that he has some influence over the media and the public
because he has a well-known blog and believe me, he really does care about how
many people read his blog despite his contrived and often unsolicited denials.
He is able to be so audacious and arrogant because he is anonymous and able to
say whatever he wants without any fear of recrimination and consequences to his
own personal or professional life. On the other hand, Malcolm Gladwell is a
well-known figure. His face and name are known. People would be able to
recognize him on the street. Plus, he has made a career out of writing. That is
his bread and butter. The Korean does not rely on his blog for a living though he
has made professional contacts and connected to professional opportunities
through the blog. So he gets all the perks of fame without any of the hassles.
He can write whatever he wants without being held accountable to it. The most
that can happen if he went too far is that his host deletes and shuts down his
blog. He can still write and still blog if that happens. Gladwell cannot
continue writing as before. His credibility is marred as a journalist and too
many people lack the critical thinking skills to notice how flawed The Korean's
argument is. At least, Gladwell takes responsibility for what he writes and is
in the line of fire if it doesn't work out. The Korean isn't. He chooses to
abuse the power of anonymity so that he can say whatever he wants without any
sense of regard or accountability towards others. And that is why he is so open
and brashly audacious and arrogant. It is highly doubtful that he would be that
way in real life because he is smart enough to know how that will be perceived.
For all
his braggadocio, The Korean fails to recognize that he isn't the best person to
argue for his superiority based on his terms, which are about academic
achievement and career success. Sure, he did attend some nice schools, but that
was after he was having problems at a Korean high school and forced his parents
to come to the U.S. to have a future. (He wrote a post about this where he
bragged about how he learned English in two years and what preceded that. I
have tried to find it, but he deleted and edited out that part.) He had
mentioned that he had hated Korea at that time and had problems with the school
system, which caused him to have difficulty adjusting despite getting good
grades, so he had both failures and successes in his high school career. I'm
sure that older readers of his blog will remember the difficulties he
mentioned, but it has been edited out from his blog. I would not be surprised
if The Korean had gone back and re-edited many of his posts so that they would
appear more modest than originally. Because he did re-edit one such post.
Success or not, one doesn't have to be a jerk about it. That's a large reason
why some people don't like him. There are some people who make you feel like
greatness is possible and inspire you. There are others who use their own
success to diminish others. Obviously, the Korean is from the latter camp. I'm fucking amazing and YOU SUCK, little people.
One would think that someone who has gone through their own humbling
experiences would be more understanding of others. More like, so long, suckers!
As for
Gladwell, I'm sure that he will continue writing books. I am not the biggest
fan of his work, but I have enjoyed some of his writings. The main flaw that I
see with him is that he sometimes oversimplifies things. I can understand
wanting to create an elegant explanation for something that is easily
accessible, but some things just aren't that simple. His writing is about
elegant simplicity, but you can't always apply that approach to developing an
argument. What Gladwell should have done is consulted with more Korean language
and culture experts to get their input on it because culture isn't always so
obvious to the outsider. He incorrectly assumed that he would be able to
discern it as one would studying an animal or some other physical phenomenon,
but culture is not that obvious. Even if he is good at understanding a lot of
his own Western culture, he would have to understand Korean culture to
determine what role it played in the plane crashes. He might have interviewed a
few experts for the plane crash chapter of his book "Outliers", but
it wasn't enough. I get that he was saying that it was the hierarchical ASPECT
of Korean culture that interfered with communication between pilots. The
problem was that he said that it was Korean culture that was the problem. That
is what The Korean and some others had a problem with and that is why they
labeled him "culturalist". I won't go that far, but as a writer he
should have been sensitive to the error of overgeneralization or at least, the
perception of such.
I felt
that it was important to share my thoughts about The Korean because he was so
audacious . I know that no one in his real life would have criticized him
because he presents a different persona in real life. He really needs to
understand what he is doing to others and has done for a long time. He is not
just overly picky and critical. He outright bludgeons dissenters with a bloody
axe until their voice is murdered. As an internet critic, he is a mass murderer
worse than OJ Simpson. Strangely, he will allow people who openly insult him
like calling his wife a "Mongolian" in the pejorative sense to
continue commenting on his blog, but go on the attack with people who have
granular differences in opinion. It is a twisted sense of libertarianism. It's
like he hates and bashes you if you disagree with him, but will put up with a
direct insult for some reason. Disagreement is a threat to his sense of being
right, but an outright insult can be dismissed as wrong, so he doesn't care as
much, never mind how civil the disagreer may be. It's totalitarianism of
thought. The Korean is a totalitarian about his beliefs. There is no
contradiction between his libertarian aspect because that is what he has deemed
as acceptable and right. But for many things, his vision is very black and
white. My way is the right way and there is no
room for disagreement when it challenges my sense of rightness.
