Author Sherman Alexie Wants to Punch You in the Face

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by carld

For me it's solely his comment about hitting someone because he doesn't like the way they are reading. Even as a joke it's crass and offensive. He made it even worse by saying that he should have said "man" in his so-called joke instead "woman." As if violence against men is somehow okay.

Taking something literally instead of metaphorically?

When someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does that literally mean one could eat an entire horse or that one is so hungry that one could eat a large amount?

Hmm....

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

]
I still don´t get why you get so upset, I say things all the time that are´t meant to take literary.

Instead of writing angry letter to a publisher of an athor you have not read, nor have any interest in reading ignore him or even better send him (mr alexie) a letter explaining that yes a reader is a expensive device bu so is cellphones, iPods, netbooks etc.

Ditto!

Also another point I tried to make. I had no idea why earlier on the thread people were talking about writing to his publisher. Either leave aside his comments (probably the best option) or write a letter to him instead of the publisher.

What's the publisher go to do with this?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

Taking something literally instead of metaphorically?

When someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does that literally mean one could eat an entire horse or that one is so hungry that one could eat a large amount?

Hmm....

When someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", it isn't quite so personally threatening.

Yeah......I'm bothered by anyone who says something that threatening. Or......"I could just KILL you!!"

[JasonB]

For me it's solely his comment about hitting someone because he doesn't like the way they are reading. Even as a joke it's crass and offensive. He made it even worse by saying that he should have said "man" in his so-called joke instead "woman." As if violence against men is somehow okay.

I agree with this. Not just the hitting somebody remark and then changing it to a man, but what reads like a condescending attitude towards how something was being read. (In fact, to put a reverse spin on things, I'd almost say that he was being elitist in his comment about not liking others who are elitist - because he was looking down at somebody who was doing something differently than what he would do / like.)

Of course, that's just the tone of voice that comes across on the screen. If we could actually hear him speak the words - he might have a joking inflection, as well as a little chuckle, and the entire meaning of what he said could be changed completely. So, it's not really possible to know.

I will say, though, that my initial emotional reaction to the words was one of distaste and dislike for somebody who would make such a comment. That may be unwarranted (and I could change my mind if I could be corrected in some way) but that's what I felt.

As for his actual work, knowing somebody's personality does put a different spin on things. If you read a book that's all about forgiveness and tolerance - but was written by a card-carrying member of the KKK who's been known to be a vocal demonstrator and proponent of that organization - you're going to view it in a different light knowing where the author is coming from and why they wrote it as they did...

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

When someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", it isn't quite so personally threatening.

It is if you're a horse.

Disclaimer: I have no real interest in this story. Just stirring the pot!

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

Taking something literally instead of metaphorically?

When someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does that literally mean one could eat an entire horse or that one is so hungry that one could eat a large amount?

Hmm....

Doesn't matter whether you take it literally or metaphorically. Instantly disliking, hating, or even thinking violent thoughts against someone else simply because they own or use a particular type of technology is just wrong.

If they use it in a manner that is rude (like the idiots who take cell phone calls in the theater and then sit there talking away at the top of their lungs), then fine, there's a person I could learn to dislike. But, thinking ill of someone only because they choose to read an ebook? Just sitting there quietly reading and enjoying their book, and this bozo decides that he doesn't like that person? Nevermind actually hitting them, just wanting to hit them solely for reading on an ebook device? Simply thinking less of the person because of the manner in which they get their reading content?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around that one. It makes about as much sense to me as hating someone (instantly) because of the color of their skin, or who they love, or what country they come from. It's simply and utterly stupid. How would he feel, I wonder, if I said that his looking like a Native American just made me want to hit him? Even if I had no intention of really hitting him, I think it would be an unforgivable thing to say.

Oh, and no, it wouldn't matter whether it was a man or a woman who was the target of that sort of thinking. It's the type of thinking that screws people up, and I don't care to read the writings of someone quite that screwed up in his thinking.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

Taking something literally instead of metaphorically?

When someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does that literally mean one could eat an entire horse or that one is so hungry that one could eat a large amount?

Hmm....

While I strongly disagree with his opinion on ebooks, the main problem I had with his comment about wanting to hit people is that it's dreadfully uncreative. I don't take it literally. I understand that he's trying to evoke his strong dislike for ebooks, but I expect more from an award-winning author. If he said that he was so hungry he could eat a horse I would also look at him sideways. It's a bit trite.

[lisreed]

This is currently on his blog. While I think what he said was wrong , what he is saying now I think is good and showing he is willing to check it out. I think overall he is another person who feels threatened by ebooks. I can understand that. Half my reading is regular paperbooks and always will be. I do not have the disposable income to begin with to buy all my books I read and I love swapping books online and with friends.

Anyway this is currently on his blog:

Sherman's message in response to a New York Times article that is, in part, about his participation on a panel at BookExpo America in New York last Thursday and his joke about Kindle: In the aftermath of my recent public comments about my fear and loathing of Kindle and its kind, I have received a few dozen amazing, passionate, and compelling emails about the power and beauty of electronic books (and many more hilarious ones questioning my sanity, my morality, my anger management ability, and my writing skills). I have been especially humbled by those Kindle readers who, because of various physical issues, can only read with the machines. While I still have serious qualms about the technology, I have been challenged and emotionally moved enough to take a long-requested meeting with the folks at Amazon and Kindle and listen to their arguments for the machines. I'm on Amazon's list of most-requested authors whose fiction is not available electronically, so now, thanks to the beautiful emails I received, I will do my best to enter the meeting with an open mind. And I definitely promise that I will not beat up anybody at Amazon or Kindle.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by lisreed

This is currently on his blog. While I think what he said was wrong , what he is saying now I think is good and showing he is willing to check it out. I think overall he is another person who feels threatened by ebooks. I can understand that. Half my reading is regular paperbooks and always will be. I do not have the disposable income to begin with to buy all my books I read and I love swapping books online and with friends.

Anyway this is currently on his blog:

Sherman's message in response to a New York Times article that is, in part, about his participation on a panel at BookExpo America in New York last Thursday and his joke about Kindle: In the aftermath of my recent public comments about my fear and loathing of Kindle and its kind, I have received a few dozen amazing, passionate, and compelling emails about the power and beauty of electronic books (and many more hilarious ones questioning my sanity, my morality, my anger management ability, and my writing skills). I have been especially humbled by those Kindle readers who, because of various physical issues, can only read with the machines. While I still have serious qualms about the technology, I have been challenged and emotionally moved enough to take a long-requested meeting with the folks at Amazon and Kindle and listen to their arguments for the machines. I'm on Amazon's list of most-requested authors whose fiction is not available electronically, so now, thanks to the beautiful emails I received, I will do my best to enter the meeting with an open mind. And I definitely promise that I will not beat up anybody at Amazon or Kindle.

He still sounds like a puffed up idiot to me. He has "qualms" about the technology?? Yeah, I bet a lot of people said that when Gutenberg's press made reading available to the unwashed masses.

He's willing to listen to Amazon's arguments for the machines?? Who the hell gives a rat's patootie WHAT he thinks pro or con regarding ebook readers? Did someone decide he was the end all and be all of reading?

Is he stupid enough to think that as new readers come on the market, the used one's won't be there at a price even the poor can afford? Ummm, that's what sort of happens, you know, that's the only part of the trickle down economy that actually functions. There are certainly a lot of books to be had at much better prices online than in your basic bookstore. Not to mention all the free goodies (oh, of course, I forgot, they give away all of the classic literature for free at most book stores .... riiiiiiight).

Oh my .... why my whole concept of this man has changed!! There you have it ... he's "willing" to consider the ebook reader. Why that makes him positively a saint (and if you can't hear the sarcasm dripping off my fingers, then shame on you).

The man's still a git. Probably the type of person who had "qualms" about indoor toilets whenever those first came out. WHAT?? You mean some people might have the technology to crap indoors??? The very THOUGHT!!!

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

He still sounds like a puffed up idiot to me. He has "qualms" about the technology?? Yeah, I bet a lot of people said that when Gutenberg's press made reading available to the unwashed masses.

He's willing to listen to Amazon's arguments for the machines?? Who the hell gives a rat's patootie WHAT he thinks pro or con regarding ebook readers? Did someone decide he was the end all and be all of reading?

Is he stupid enough to think that as new readers come on the market, the used one's won't be there at a price even the poor can afford? Ummm, that's what sort of happens, you know, that's the only part of the trickle down economy that actually functions. There are certainly a lot of books to be had at much better prices online than in your basic bookstore. Not to mention all the free goodies (oh, of course, I forgot, they give away all of the classic literature for free at most book stores .... riiiiiiight).

Oh my .... why my whole concept of this man has changed!! There you have it ... he's "willing" to consider the ebook reader. Why that makes him positively a saint (and if you can't hear the sarcasm dripping off my fingers, then shame on you).

The man's still a git. Probably the type of person who had "qualms" about indoor toilets whenever those first came out. WHAT?? You mean some people might have the technology to crap indoors??? The very THOUGHT!!!

Hahaha! You're on a roll and I love it!


Don

(I absolutely refuse to mention outhouses and corncobs.)

[MickeyC]

I flew from LA to Honolulu yesterday. Damn, I wished he'd been on that flight. He'd had me plus another Sony owner and a Kindle 2 owner to deal with. A good time would have been had by all (all eBook reader owners, that is).

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

When someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", it isn't quite so personally threatening.

Try seeing it from the horse's perspective!

Edit: Dammit, no.guru stole my joke.

[carld]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

Taking something literally instead of metaphorically?

I'm very well aware of what a metaphor is. "I wanted to hit her," isn't one.

Carl

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Try seeing it from the horse's perspective!

Edit: Dammit, no.guru stole my joke.

That's the second time this week I've been accused of that on MR. If I keep it up, I may be able to work this into a reputation.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

When someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", it isn't quite so personally threatening.

Yeah......I'm bothered by anyone who says something that threatening. Or......"I could just KILL you!!"

desertgrandma, I'm sure you know that context and the delivery style is really important in knowing how deeply to take something.

Let's keep it focused in perspective ;-)