Forum Discussion
- I'm reading the book now, depressing as h*ll
Nothing wrong with the writing or the author. She has camped alongside some of these people and documented their condition and how they got there. So far it's mostly about the crash of 2008, divorces, illness that contributed to their current plight.
These are hard working people that do what they can to find work, not hand outs.
It's about the message, not the messenger. fj12ryder wrote:
toedtoes wrote:
I had to go back and re-read the article, thinking I had missed something.
The writer of the article was not the messenger. She didn't tell us anything. Heck, she didn't even provide us with a book review let alone any quality information.
The book may have all the answers, but the article doesn't say "here are some short excerpts but you need to read the book". Instead, she used the book as a divine reading and expects the reader to take what is written in the article as gospel because it was pulled from a book that may or may not be well researched.
The article is basically a Q&A with the author of a book. The author of the article asked author of the book some questions and then printed her responses. The author of the article contributed very little other than posing questions.
I would suggest to the author of the article that the "little" contribution of determining what questions to ask is a MAJOR part of journalism and quality writing.- i read the original NEW YORK TIMES article on the RTR and nomads
online last week, more accurate and informative
plus i read the review of the book mentioned
the article mentions the book, but is NOT by the author of the book
and is not the article linked to in the first post
if i can find it again, i will post the link TechWriter wrote:
toedtoes wrote:
No, I haven't read the book. But if reading the book is a requirement for understanding the article, then the article is poorly written.
Yes, reading the book would be a requirement before criticizing it or the author.
I didn't criticize the book or the book's author. I criticized the article and the article's author. Two different things.toedtoes wrote:
I had to go back and re-read the article, thinking I had missed something.
The writer of the article was not the messenger. She didn't tell us anything. Heck, she didn't even provide us with a book review let alone any quality information.
The book may have all the answers, but the article doesn't say "here are some short excerpts but you need to read the book". Instead, she used the book as a divine reading and expects the reader to take what is written in the article as gospel because it was pulled from a book that may or may not be well researched.
The article is basically a Q&A with the author of a book. The author of the article asked author of the book some questions and then printed her responses. The author of the article contributed very little other than posing questions.toedtoes wrote:
No, I haven't read the book. But if reading the book is a requirement for understanding the article, then the article is poorly written.
Yes, reading the book would be a requirement before criticizing it or the author.TechWriter wrote:
toedtoes wrote:
The writer of the article was not the messenger. She didn't tell us anything. Heck, she didn't even provide us with a book review let alone any quality information.
The book may have all the answers, but the article doesn't say "here are some short excerpts but you need to read the book". Instead, she used the book as a divine reading and expects the reader to take what is written in the article as gospel because it was pulled from a book that may or may not be well researched.
So you didn't read it either, eh?
No, I haven't read the book. But if reading the book is a requirement for understanding the article, then the article is poorly written.toedtoes wrote:
The writer of the article was not the messenger. She didn't tell us anything. Heck, she didn't even provide us with a book review let alone any quality information.
The book may have all the answers, but the article doesn't say "here are some short excerpts but you need to read the book". Instead, she used the book as a divine reading and expects the reader to take what is written in the article as gospel because it was pulled from a book that may or may not be well researched.
So you didn't read it either, eh?Fizz wrote:
Lot of smug, condescending comments here.
Thousands of poor souls out there, down on their luck through no fault of their own.
How many have read the book?
Shoot the messenger much?
The writer of the article was not the messenger. She didn't tell us anything. Heck, she didn't even provide us with a book review let alone any quality information.
The book may have all the answers, but the article doesn't say "here are some short excerpts but you need to read the book". Instead, she used the book as a divine reading and expects the reader to take what is written in the article as gospel because it was pulled from a book that may or may not be well researched.- Lot of smug, condescending comments here.
Thousands of poor souls out there, down on their luck through no fault of their own.
How many have read the book?
Shoot the messenger much?
