hrm.
On one hand I absolutely detest Andy Ho's writing: it's cluttered, it's unclear, it obfuscates any issue he argues. If Malaysia needed to win Pedra Branca they might do better if he argued Singapore's case.
On the other hand, I don't know if jumping into the fray of the raging gender/sexuality debate is a good move at all, given that I'm also in the middle of A levels. I sent an email to Andy Ho this morning about his article in ST today; I'm reproducing it here, and I guess I'll be expecting a reply over the next week, which I will probably post here too.
It might have been a bad move. Still, I couldn't let that article published today pass without a strongly-worded email from me. It's not so much the content I objected to (ok, it's an opinion column after all) but the horrible style. The abuse of language. Gah it reeked of journalese. He's a senior writer for crissake!
So this is what I wrote to Andy Ho.
-----
Dear Mr Ho,
I'm writing this letter in response to your most recent article in the Saturday edition of the Straits Times, and several others that you have written over the past few months. Despite not being part of the gay community I am slightly disturbed by the blatant logical incongruities that your article contains; to paraphrase Neil Armstrong, your writing often appears as one small slip of the pen, one giant leap of logic.
Firstly, I note that your opening paragraph references "homosexual sodomy". That to me raises two issues, one objective, and the other subjective. Of course, 'sodomy' refers to the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, and is synonymous with sin; this clearly highlights which side of the debate you are on, consciously or unconsciously. While this is not wrong in itself (your article is after all an opinion column), it might seem a tad early to poison the well, so to speak. The objective issue is that the term "homosexual sex" would do quite as well, having the advantage of neutrality and thus adding to your credibility (besides being faster to type!).
You also write that the debate in Parliament might be seen to "(legitimise) the identity politics of (homo)sexuality here." In what way is such a debate not already legitimate? You mention further on that "emotional interlocution that remains respectful can be woven into the patriotic fabric that binds us together" – in other words, such a debate (interlocution) can be part of an emerging democratic spirit, and I presume, legitimate. In this way your article seems, to my mind, clearly incongruous. (Besides, the phrase beginning "emotional interlocution..." appears to me to be a tad too clichéd for print; surely there could have been a better way of more clearly conveying your intent?)
Further on, you write that "identity politics turns sick when grievances transmute to ... demonisation". This is strangely ironic given that you also write in the very same article that the gay lobby "tends to reduce complex human beings to one trait - homoeroticism" - does that not count as demonisation? Even if, to you, it doesn't, does it not strike you as ironic that you have yourself reduced complex human beings (comprising the gay lobby) to one trait - seeing homoeroticism in everything? I am sure the poetry of Cyril Wong, for instance, is not all about homoeroticism.
I do agree with some of your points made, for instance the one about moving or negotiating between social groupings of age, race, religion and so on. However I find myself taken aback by your journalese directly following that: "But this fact is that which allows for non-conflictual give-and-take since our interest might differ on one dimension but map onto one another on a different one". This sentence inspires me to ask the slightly more incisive question, "What?" As far as I can decipher, your meaning is that the fluidity of these social groupings enables us to undertake non-conflicting "give-and-take" (reach a kind of mutual understanding?) since dimensions of our personal identity ( i.e. social groups that we belong to) can intersect with others' identities on many different levels - whatever that means.
I am concerned that (since I am currently sitting for my A-levels) my 12 years of primary and secondary education in English and 2 years of General Paper have not prepared me to understand n-dimensional sociological thought in a national newspaper; it strikes me as either a failure on the part of the education system, or an indictment of writing style. I would very much like to know if my interpretation above has captured the gist of what you intended to say.
As a journalist your mission is twofold - to educate and inform the public, and to (especially in your Review columns) espouse and develop a viewpoint. And as a senior writer you undoubtedly have a further mission - to use the English language to good effect. In your article I find obscure language (pharisaic, from the Pharisees; balkanises, after the Balkan states, referring to a splitting up; obstreperous, unruly and boisterous), quantum leaps of logic, and rather glaring incongruities in your argument, all of which certainly do not contribute towards putting your message across.
Most obviously, as part of a team that writes for a national newspaper, you serve as a role model for language use among Singaporeans, particularly students. However I feel, as a student of literature and the English language, your attitudes to language use are rather less rigorous than I would expect.
I have cited "homosexual sodomy" (sodomy is, according to the Collins Cobuild dictionary, sex between men, which renders "homosexual" redundant; alternatively, "homosexual sex" would have done better). Another example is "pharisaic" - relating to the Pharisees, suggesting a doctrinal, inflexible adherence to religious dogma, or hypocritically self-righteous according to the American Heritage Dictionary. You use it in the context of the group diametrically opposed to conservative Christian (religious) groups, which is jarring and odd to say the least. Besides, it is hardly a common word, and does everything to obfuscate and nothing to clarify your point. Furthermore, in your last article on this subject (on how gay traits might be passed on, I believe), you use the word "gayness" many times, which seems to trivialise the condition; why not use the more neutral word, "homosexuality"?
This email certainly contains harsh and damning language, and if I overstep my mark I humbly apologise. However I feel strongly that the journalistic mission which you have been entrusted with is simply not compatible with your use of the language or with the reasoning you employ, at least in this particular article.
I'm also attaching (below) a letter to the Forum I sent a few months ago which was not published (I suspect owing to its length!), on another of your articles on climate change. If you have the time to spare I would certainly appreciate a response to that as well.
Yours sincerely,
Rayner Teo
November 10th 2007
-----
I'm not attaching the forum letter to this post as well; it's waaay too long. But that article was really bad too, logical errors, omissions of fact and all.
I'd be interested to hear, what do you guys think? Was I right to speak up against the desecration of language - even on a hot-potato topic like that? (hot potato - A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences)
On the other hand, I don't know if jumping into the fray of the raging gender/sexuality debate is a good move at all, given that I'm also in the middle of A levels. I sent an email to Andy Ho this morning about his article in ST today; I'm reproducing it here, and I guess I'll be expecting a reply over the next week, which I will probably post here too.
It might have been a bad move. Still, I couldn't let that article published today pass without a strongly-worded email from me. It's not so much the content I objected to (ok, it's an opinion column after all) but the horrible style. The abuse of language. Gah it reeked of journalese. He's a senior writer for crissake!
So this is what I wrote to Andy Ho.
-----
Dear Mr Ho,
I'm writing this letter in response to your most recent article in the Saturday edition of the Straits Times, and several others that you have written over the past few months. Despite not being part of the gay community I am slightly disturbed by the blatant logical incongruities that your article contains; to paraphrase Neil Armstrong, your writing often appears as one small slip of the pen, one giant leap of logic.
Firstly, I note that your opening paragraph references "homosexual sodomy". That to me raises two issues, one objective, and the other subjective. Of course, 'sodomy' refers to the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, and is synonymous with sin; this clearly highlights which side of the debate you are on, consciously or unconsciously. While this is not wrong in itself (your article is after all an opinion column), it might seem a tad early to poison the well, so to speak. The objective issue is that the term "homosexual sex" would do quite as well, having the advantage of neutrality and thus adding to your credibility (besides being faster to type!).
You also write that the debate in Parliament might be seen to "(legitimise) the identity politics of (homo)sexuality here." In what way is such a debate not already legitimate? You mention further on that "emotional interlocution that remains respectful can be woven into the patriotic fabric that binds us together" – in other words, such a debate (interlocution) can be part of an emerging democratic spirit, and I presume, legitimate. In this way your article seems, to my mind, clearly incongruous. (Besides, the phrase beginning "emotional interlocution..." appears to me to be a tad too clichéd for print; surely there could have been a better way of more clearly conveying your intent?)
Further on, you write that "identity politics turns sick when grievances transmute to ... demonisation". This is strangely ironic given that you also write in the very same article that the gay lobby "tends to reduce complex human beings to one trait - homoeroticism" - does that not count as demonisation? Even if, to you, it doesn't, does it not strike you as ironic that you have yourself reduced complex human beings (comprising the gay lobby) to one trait - seeing homoeroticism in everything? I am sure the poetry of Cyril Wong, for instance, is not all about homoeroticism.
I do agree with some of your points made, for instance the one about moving or negotiating between social groupings of age, race, religion and so on. However I find myself taken aback by your journalese directly following that: "But this fact is that which allows for non-conflictual give-and-take since our interest might differ on one dimension but map onto one another on a different one". This sentence inspires me to ask the slightly more incisive question, "What?" As far as I can decipher, your meaning is that the fluidity of these social groupings enables us to undertake non-conflicting "give-and-take" (reach a kind of mutual understanding?) since dimensions of our personal identity ( i.e. social groups that we belong to) can intersect with others' identities on many different levels - whatever that means.
I am concerned that (since I am currently sitting for my A-levels) my 12 years of primary and secondary education in English and 2 years of General Paper have not prepared me to understand n-dimensional sociological thought in a national newspaper; it strikes me as either a failure on the part of the education system, or an indictment of writing style. I would very much like to know if my interpretation above has captured the gist of what you intended to say.
As a journalist your mission is twofold - to educate and inform the public, and to (especially in your Review columns) espouse and develop a viewpoint. And as a senior writer you undoubtedly have a further mission - to use the English language to good effect. In your article I find obscure language (pharisaic, from the Pharisees; balkanises, after the Balkan states, referring to a splitting up; obstreperous, unruly and boisterous), quantum leaps of logic, and rather glaring incongruities in your argument, all of which certainly do not contribute towards putting your message across.
Most obviously, as part of a team that writes for a national newspaper, you serve as a role model for language use among Singaporeans, particularly students. However I feel, as a student of literature and the English language, your attitudes to language use are rather less rigorous than I would expect.
I have cited "homosexual sodomy" (sodomy is, according to the Collins Cobuild dictionary, sex between men, which renders "homosexual" redundant; alternatively, "homosexual sex" would have done better). Another example is "pharisaic" - relating to the Pharisees, suggesting a doctrinal, inflexible adherence to religious dogma, or hypocritically self-righteous according to the American Heritage Dictionary. You use it in the context of the group diametrically opposed to conservative Christian (religious) groups, which is jarring and odd to say the least. Besides, it is hardly a common word, and does everything to obfuscate and nothing to clarify your point. Furthermore, in your last article on this subject (on how gay traits might be passed on, I believe), you use the word "gayness" many times, which seems to trivialise the condition; why not use the more neutral word, "homosexuality"?
This email certainly contains harsh and damning language, and if I overstep my mark I humbly apologise. However I feel strongly that the journalistic mission which you have been entrusted with is simply not compatible with your use of the language or with the reasoning you employ, at least in this particular article.
I'm also attaching (below) a letter to the Forum I sent a few months ago which was not published (I suspect owing to its length!), on another of your articles on climate change. If you have the time to spare I would certainly appreciate a response to that as well.
Yours sincerely,
Rayner Teo
November 10th 2007
-----
I'm not attaching the forum letter to this post as well; it's waaay too long. But that article was really bad too, logical errors, omissions of fact and all.
I'd be interested to hear, what do you guys think? Was I right to speak up against the desecration of language - even on a hot-potato topic like that? (hot potato - A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences)
Labels: Everything
posted by Unknown at
1:49 pm
3 Comments:
You are certainly right to speak up, even on a controversial topic like that. But I don't think that you are writing about the controversial issue - just Mr Ho's writings. Your email sounds appropriate too.
But well... nothing would change, would it? My guess is that he has received many emails like yours and would most probably consider your email a spam. Haha.
Anyway, my English is still work in progress - I'm not that good to be able to identify all his mistakes/clutter/unclear writing. I need to improve my English badly! Offer me some tips! =)
I'd like to read his reply, but I'm not sure whether you are allowed to post it here? After all, aren't emails considered private exchanges? I certainly do not want my replies to be posted on a blog without my consent.
Suggestions: maybe you could consider ignoring all of Mr Ho's articles - you'll feel better that way; or perhaps set up a new blog dedicated to analyzing his writings so that the public can be truly informed...
- Ming
if i dedicated a blog to pointing out the flaws in what he's written i'd probably face a libel action, from the insults i feel like hurling his way.
lol supposedly sph policy is that their columnists have to reply to readers' emails... so yeah, i'm expecting a reply.
i ignore his medical columns anyway, they take the most obscure issues and make them even more irrelevant. hard to achieve, but yeah.
well actually the gay lobby does tend to simplify things, and i don't think it's necessarily demonisation on Ho's part to accuse them of such. A tad simplistic argument there from you. But otherwise pretty cool!
Also, the singapore press is a cesspit of bad writing - just compare when they print the new york times editorials - the difference in quality is shocking.
adam
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home