I’m writing a book, much of which I’ve posted online. It’s called SQUEAKY WHEELS and it consists of a number of essays in which I expound upon a lot of the red-hot Culture War issues that we all love to get worked up about. I invite everyone to read some of them and respond with whatever criticism you think is warrented. Otherwise, how will I learn?
A message board is included and I’d like to get some discussions going in there, but responses back on this thread are OK to start with.
Good response so far, but the thing is, while I’ve had hundreds of additional hits, no one has actually been able to stand up to the powerful rhetoric that is SQUEAKY WHEELS.
I don’t get it. It can’t be that hard.
Ok, I will start.
Some of your paragraphs are too long. It makes it hard to read. The one I am talking about should be easy to spot.
Overall, it is fairly well written but I can’t figure out who the audience is. It sounds like a sociology 101 textbook in parts and an insidious piece of political propaganda in others. Many of the topics you are trying to cover would require much longer length to adequately cover. You throw all kinds of loaded words and concepts out there and, maybe in is just the Doper in me, but I want to scream cite!
Overall, the approach seems muddled although I am not exactly sure what is supposed to achieve yet. A semi-academic work would require more research citations and a political commentary needs to be spiced up a little perhaps with anecdotes or witty political observations.
“The ones I am talking about should be easy to spot.” There are many long paragraphs.
From your lengthy essay on ‘truth’:
‘The ancients believed that the Earth was flat…’
“The sphericity of the earth is proved by the evidence of … lunar eclipses,” Aristotle says.
Thank you, Shagnasty. I can see how my heavy paragraph structure makes things less readable much of the time. I’m trying to break them up in the re-write process.
As for cites, maybe you can tell me which assertions I’ve made that are more in need of cites and I can focus on shoring up these weak points.
As for who my stuff is directed at, I’d rather get a load of the responses from various different points of view.
OK, now it will only be a day or so until I re-activate the “Family Planning” essay and you’ll all be able to revisit your favorite issue that starts with an “a”.
Criticism? Ask and ye shall receive.
I agree with this. Without identifying an audience, it’s hard to identify a tone. As a result, much of what you’ve written seems a little unfocused. I’ll take the Middle East essay by way of example. Some of it is merely bland (“We’re talking about a tremendously complex challenge”), some of it works over well-tilled earth (“But the Muslim world is angrier and more threatening than they were on the eve of 9/11, and this is largely the result of the Bush administration’s policies…”), and some of it simply barmy (“Sometimes I wonder if the likes of Pat Robertson might be the ideal parties to be sent to talk to certain conservative Islamist factions…”).
In short, you’ve got something that’s too long to be a newspaper editorial and too un-punchy to be a blog entry. I don’t think it’ll pass muster as a piece of scholarship, either.
And copy-editing – don’t neglect it (“redcuto ad absudum”).
All fair enough, and well-appreciated.
As for who the audience is supposed to be, I’m not sure myself. Exactly the kind of people who would refuse to read it, I guess. And my mother.
But seriously, I think there’s a hunger out there for issue analysis that is more in-depth than editorials and blog entries, but which doesn’t require you to read an entire book on one narrow topic.
FYI, the essay “Monday Morning in the Middle East” wasn’t intended for the book; I stuck it in there in place of the main Middle East essay which needs to be re-written.
That’s a good thing isn’t it? Warm and sunny. 
I was only just wondering, wasn’t I? I wasn’t very serious and I’m not talking about official negotiations. It’s just that these types dominate the conversation on both sides and yet they talk past each other. I would be very interesting to lock them in a room and force them to debate face-to-face.
Could you clarify that a little? I do tend to ramble on and flog a point to death, if that’s what you mean.
What I quoted there was a double typo from the gun essay. Should be “reductio ad absurdum.”
Re: the Robertson thing – it’s a funny suggestion, but doesn’t necessarily read as funny in the context, which is reasonably sober overall.
You describe the Branch Davidians at Waco as "A doomsday religious cult run by David Koresh, a megalomaniac who had “married” a half-dozen underage girls, had illegally converted a number of assault rifles to full auto and their huge arsenal may have included some illegal explosives as well.
I don’t think that’s accurate. I don’t recall him “marrying” any underage girls (I believe one or two underage girls claimed to have had sex with Koresh, although their claims were never corroborated), converting rifles to fully automatic or having illegal explosives, or having an “arsenal” (I believe they were selling guns, so having a large amount of guns as invetory made sense). I could be wrong about this, but you need to check your facts to make sure.
Overall, though, the tone off the book isn’t all that professional. It comes across as a guy ranting on a webpage, not as a scholarly treatment of any subject. The subjec I read, on guns, was not in-depth nor very well researched. It was merely a collection of incomplete personal reactions to some issues of gun control. Why would I want to read a book saying the same thing that I can read anywhere else on the web? An author needs to have an original voice or do some original research.
Out it goes.
(See how that works?)
I do recall precisely those things being reported, but since you flagged it, I’ll go back do some checking. These are all rough drafts yet and some of them were written years ago. You all are helping by highlighting areas that need work.
You are right, [n]Renob**. Shoddy research has resulted in me grossly under emphasizing the size of the Branch Davidian’s arsenal.
The Guns essay isn’t my best, but I’m outraged by the outrage and felt compelled to draw a line in the sand.
The essay that I’m most proud is the Culture essay, yet so far I’ve gotten no response at all to it, so some of you might want to check that one out.
OK class, the Family Planning/Abortion essay is now available, but it’s still mainly an older draft and it’s pretty sprawling.
I’ve decided to unplug the Guns essay for now since it is primarily a cranky rant and doesn’t make a very good first impression. I’ll make it and some of the other unplugged essays available upon request.