OK, I'll state my conclusion first: I have precisely zero issue with ACM's tone. I do occasionally disagree with her on content, but that's obviously not what this post is about (which is unfortunate, since content is far more important than tone, which is a point I will make later in this absurdly long post--you've been warned).
1. I think a lot of people misunderstand the target audience of ACM's posts. Dungeonwriter above, as well as others, often seem to treat her posts as if they're arguments made at the authors of the books she shreds, but they're really not. Her argumentative opponents are not authors but other readers who might disagree with her (the "neckbeards," if you will). So comparisons to what's appropriate in a civil debate and etc. to me are inappropriate.
2. In particular, the point people often seem to make--and I think this includes Inverarity in this blog post--is that her rhetoric is not likely to convince the authors of the books she critiques. Well, yeah, duh. But that's not the point. ACM is not trying to make Bacigalupi learn more about Thailand before writing a book set there; rather, she's trying to show other readers that Bacigalupi didn't bother learning enough about Thailand before writing a book set there.
3. So in that regard, does her rhetoric help or hurt her cause? Well, here are some salient points to consider:
(a) She almost certainly only has the readership and attention she does because of her vitriol. The people who would ordinarily read her but are turned off by her rhetoric, like Shinygobonkers, appear to be outnumbered by the people who wouldn't have heard of her if not for her rhetoric.
(b) Her rhetoric serves to emphasize the point that the stuff she calls people out for doing really is not ok. Things that seriously bother those who are oppressed are oftentimes seen as not a big deal to those who are not. If you're not Thai, it may not ordinarily seem a big deal to you that Bacigalupi screwed up the language (on the first page). Had it not been for ACM's fake death threats, I might've just gotten the impression she was mildly irritated as opposed to majorly pissed off. That makes a difference.
(c) As Inverarity says, a lot of the people who criticize her (not Dungeonwriter or Shinygobonkers above, but others) are doing it disingenuously. I highly doubt they would be more amenable to ACM's criticisms even if she phrased them in the queen's own English. If you make a concerted effort, it's always possible to find a phrase in someone's rhetoric that might be considered problematic under certain lights, and use it to dismiss the entire thing.
(d) Hey, it's far more entertaining than laying out critiques in boring prose. This I imagine is what leads to (a). Also it causes a lot of authorial meltdowns (R Scott Bakker obsessed over her for months without her doing much of anything after her critique), and what would we do without those?
4. Seriously, it's the internet for crying out loud. Flame wars have a long and venerable tradition dating back to its founding. More to the point, reviewers who make a habit of criticism are known for being vitriolic. Simon Cowell, anyone? How about the Nostalgia Critic or Zero Punctuation? Honestly, I don't think her rhetoric is all that extreme, considering this context.
5. As I said at the beginning of this (absurdly long) post, content is far more important than tone. And everyone knows this. The reason the "tone argument" gets used is that, if someone completely ignores the content of a critique and only complains about its tone, then they very likely cannot actually respond to that content and are desperately looking for a distraction. If Liz Williams and everyone else could respond to ACM substantively, they would. That doesn't necessarily mean that ACM is right--maybe it just means they're bad debaters--but it does tell you something.
6. ...OK, I will admit that I have been known to stoke the rhetorical fires myself from time to time, so my defense of ACM has a certain self-interest to it (you could call it "solidarity" if you're feeling kind).
*phew* I apologize for the insanely long post. If you read the entire thing, thanks; I hope it was worth your while. :)
no subject
1. I think a lot of people misunderstand the target audience of ACM's posts. Dungeonwriter above, as well as others, often seem to treat her posts as if they're arguments made at the authors of the books she shreds, but they're really not. Her argumentative opponents are not authors but other readers who might disagree with her (the "neckbeards," if you will). So comparisons to what's appropriate in a civil debate and etc. to me are inappropriate.
2. In particular, the point people often seem to make--and I think this includes Inverarity in this blog post--is that her rhetoric is not likely to convince the authors of the books she critiques. Well, yeah, duh. But that's not the point. ACM is not trying to make Bacigalupi learn more about Thailand before writing a book set there; rather, she's trying to show other readers that Bacigalupi didn't bother learning enough about Thailand before writing a book set there.
3. So in that regard, does her rhetoric help or hurt her cause? Well, here are some salient points to consider:
(a) She almost certainly only has the readership and attention she does because of her vitriol. The people who would ordinarily read her but are turned off by her rhetoric, like Shinygobonkers, appear to be outnumbered by the people who wouldn't have heard of her if not for her rhetoric.
(b) Her rhetoric serves to emphasize the point that the stuff she calls people out for doing really is not ok. Things that seriously bother those who are oppressed are oftentimes seen as not a big deal to those who are not. If you're not Thai, it may not ordinarily seem a big deal to you that Bacigalupi screwed up the language (on the first page). Had it not been for ACM's fake death threats, I might've just gotten the impression she was mildly irritated as opposed to majorly pissed off. That makes a difference.
(c) As Inverarity says, a lot of the people who criticize her (not Dungeonwriter or Shinygobonkers above, but others) are doing it disingenuously. I highly doubt they would be more amenable to ACM's criticisms even if she phrased them in the queen's own English. If you make a concerted effort, it's always possible to find a phrase in someone's rhetoric that might be considered problematic under certain lights, and use it to dismiss the entire thing.
(d) Hey, it's far more entertaining than laying out critiques in boring prose. This I imagine is what leads to (a). Also it causes a lot of authorial meltdowns (R Scott Bakker obsessed over her for months without her doing much of anything after her critique), and what would we do without those?
4. Seriously, it's the internet for crying out loud. Flame wars have a long and venerable tradition dating back to its founding. More to the point, reviewers who make a habit of criticism are known for being vitriolic. Simon Cowell, anyone? How about the Nostalgia Critic or Zero Punctuation? Honestly, I don't think her rhetoric is all that extreme, considering this context.
5. As I said at the beginning of this (absurdly long) post, content is far more important than tone. And everyone knows this. The reason the "tone argument" gets used is that, if someone completely ignores the content of a critique and only complains about its tone, then they very likely cannot actually respond to that content and are desperately looking for a distraction. If Liz Williams and everyone else could respond to ACM substantively, they would. That doesn't necessarily mean that ACM is right--maybe it just means they're bad debaters--but it does tell you something.
6. ...OK, I will admit that I have been known to stoke the rhetorical fires myself from time to time, so my defense of ACM has a certain self-interest to it (you could call it "solidarity" if you're feeling kind).
*phew* I apologize for the insanely long post. If you read the entire thing, thanks; I hope it was worth your while. :)