So this afternoon I listened to the #indieke livestream at Radio Bangsar Utama. The issue began as a word fight on twitter from a mainstream book reader about the state of the alternative media books. Backlash ensued from alternative readers and writers, who subsequently invite the mainstream media enthusiast to go on a live forum. As I listen, I construct a rebuttal to her statements via twitter. So these are the claims given to the English-Speaking Critics towards the Alternative Media:
1) The Alternative media is killing our native language with use of street slang, self-stylized expression and local urban dialect.
-Actually language will always change. Take English for example. Wonder why English is so successful as a worldwide method of communication? Because it changes. It began as a language of the Anglo-Saxons (that's German, mind you) and ended up being what it is right now, added with more and more borrowed words each day. From Latin to Spanish Chinese to even Malay (amok is in the English dictionary, btw), as the language travels the world the vocabulary grow too.
When a language changes, don't try to stop it. English is successful because it accepts change, not resist it.
If you say our language can't change, that it can't fit in and adapt to the communicative ways of its daily users, then the language will remain in it's "original form", become obsolete, die and can only be seen in ancient texts just like Sanskrit.
2) The Alternative media has rather improper themes portrayed in their books, eg sex, violence, drugs, desensitizing the readers.
-let me tell you something--this is no different than English books. JK Rowling writes Harry Potter, but she also writes Casual Vacancy--literally a dictionary of profanity (LOL). Also, if we wanna talk about "old" literature, the original Grim Brother's fables are dark and violent, different from the "edited" ones we read now. It's not that it's wrong that the fables are dark, it's actually befitting the environment of people back then--they like dark stories. And this goes the same for the alternative media industries. They like "these" kind of stories and thus, it's the one published mostly.
3) what about "trash smut" novels? Like Lelaki Eksistensial or Rahsia Victoria that glorifies on fornication?
-Rahsia Victoria prides on sex and alpha males and dicks. It's not what "the writer is reduced to", but rather it's a satire towards those very community he potrayed. Also, to those "feminists" who got offended with Lelaki Eksistensial and stopped reading after a few pages, I suggest you go back and read the whole story-- the main "bad" character did get what his karma at the end.
It's something that is accepted in the litreature world--that some books are "safe", while some books are "too dark" and some are "too smut". And even this level of tolerance differs to one another. Some accept these scenes as long as it is essential to the story line, while some don't mind if it appears every dozen pages! "Writers and publishers are no moral police, leave it to the readers to decide", said Alif, a writer for the Hero antology.
3) the Alternative media has poorly-made books that lack proper editing, eg wrong spelling and such, because writers are too lazy to edit their books.
-So I'm reading a book about the Guide to Book Publishing now:
-and surprise, surprise, it does highlight the importance of having a proofreader. There is no such thing as "your book, so edit yourself" in the publishing industry. Not only proofreader are needed in the alternative book publishing, but also in the academic publishing such as scientific journals and books. Some critics detest the writer who does not want to double check their work by saying "we spent our nights brainstorming ideas and make them appear on paper, we don't have time to go through it to proofread". But the truth is, even in academic setting, writers WILL miss their error. Even if they double, triple check. Familiarity breeds negligence, and the more the writer reads over his own writing, the more his eyes "skip through" the errors.
A tip from an academician on how to self-edit is to let the written work sit over for a few months, leave it alone, forget about it, then come back to it and you will usually see it's errors. But how do you do that in a fast-paced working environment? Thus a proofreader is always needed.
4) On why don't we have "mature" rating on our books.
Some claim that books, like video games and movies should have maturity rating on it. Such as "parental advisory, explicit content" or "16 and above". I agree to this mostly, because books also dealt with wide range of issues similar to movies and games that have maturity rating. (However, I think I know why we never do those maturity rating things to book--because we assume that all books are beneficial, and all readers are mature!) Also, i'ts not hard to differentiate a book nowadays--the books are divided in teen, adult, and children section in the bookstore. If a book with sex scene has landed in the children section instead of the adult, well, that is the fault of the bookstore and not us.
Still, they are books that you might not show your kids until they get older and more understanding of the issues (this goes to both mainstream and alternative media) so a rating can be done. But beware--this rating, some claim, can even work in reverse in the alternative writing industry. The more the book is deemed unsuitable, the more it is sought after!
Still, they are books that you might not show your kids until they get older and more understanding of the issues (this goes to both mainstream and alternative media) so a rating can be done. But beware--this rating, some claim, can even work in reverse in the alternative writing industry. The more the book is deemed unsuitable, the more it is sought after!
5) About the thin line between criticizing and insulting.
Some argue that these critics are not criticizing, rather they are insulting. By using words such as "trash" "disappointment" and such, they leave no room for improvement in the alternative media industry. Also, they fear that when they criticize, the "sensitive" writer will be "butthurt", do a backlash and launch an attack on them.
While alternative media writers and readers are straight-shooting, urban-slanging direct criticizes, they do accept insult that is constructive. Critic the idea, not the person. Although in this situation, sometimes people do go overboard with the criticism and go to full-blown insult which agitates the writer even more. An emotional fight ensues on both sides and then--who wins?
So this thing goes both sides--critics must critic the idea and not the person; and the writer must accept the critic as a comment on their work and not an attack on their self-worth. Also, critics, don't fret--even if the the writer knows the criticism is constructive, he sometimes might lash out emotionally. This is normal as everybody has emotions right? But he will calm down soon when the emotions go away.
That is all, and while I bet nobody reads in English nowadays, I still feel this might reach bigger audiences by writing in English.
