It would seem hat this topic will not die as long as there are OCD haters out there. Would any of you guys have done any better? It’s real easy to demean and criticize from your high perch. As a poster has said and I agree, the large majority of Thais love and revere HMK. Even if you haters don’t.
Your topic looks very interesting and I look forward to reading your book. I think, however, that your response to this reviewer is a bit overwrought. You come off as a bit insecure. My first impression of the review was positive and didn’t pay much attention to his problems with the style of your writing.
It’s interesting that you say you wrote in a more creative style, yet your response to this reviewer is classic, clinical academic writing. I suggest you let it be and let your audience throw it around a bit to make sense of it. Let it breathe—this is also part of the creative process.
I don’t understand what it has to do with Thaksin approach idea. He’s just a business man who try to run the country for his benefit (quoted statement). How much the budget was spent on the rice scheme which a big chunk of them fall into his corrupted politician’ hands (even his Cambodian friends), while only a small fortune was left for poor Thai farmers and might cause a down scaling the country rating (check-out the Reuter news).
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for reading my book and bringing it to the attention of readers at New Mandala. I am writing to provide my own perspective on the review to give it some context. When I originally decided to write my biography of Narin in the style of creative non-fiction, I recognized that an audience would need a certain degree of broad mindedness to appreciate the nature of my project. The very act of writing a book of Thai history in a style that differs so radically from the accepted contemporary norm is bound to disturb or confuse certain people. After the book was published, however, I was pleasantly surprised at the positive reactions that I received from a number of respected academics in the field.
Nonetheless, this review perfectly reflects the fact that an unconventional approach is not always appreciated or even understood. In his review, Arjun writes, ‘The meandering style, while often entertaining, gets tiresome, at least for the academic reviewer.’ I would suggest that a more accurate statement would be that the style gets tiresome for the particular author of the review, and to attribute his own personal reactions to academic reviewers in general is misleading. For example, I have received highly favorable responses to the book by Chris Baker (who reviewed it in the Bangkok Post) and Grant Evans. Arjun might be surprised to hear that in the positive reviews, the strong point of the book is stated to be the very style that he seems to have so much objection to.
Whereas Arjun appears to be genuine and well-intentioned in his critique, in my mind, the overriding feeling reflected in his review is that he ‘just doesn’t get it’ and has little if any idea of why anyone would write a book in such an odd fashion. For example, he writes:
‘Prompted by Narin, it seems that perhaps Dr. Koret is laboring under the fallacy of the imitative form: when writing a book about a man regarded by his peers as unstable, the author must replicate the subject’s zaniness in the narrative.’
This seems, how should I put it, awfully exotic as an explanation behind my writing. It sounds like he is fishing. I would suggest, however, that he read the appropriately-titled ‘Notes on the Content and Style’ at the beginning of the biography for a much more straightforward explanation. It really is not any mystery.
He writes further: ‘The book’s opening chapter, detailing events at the end of Narin’s bureaucratic career in 1909, intersperses italicized paragraphs describing events in the Buddha’s life, for, as Dr. Koret asserts, “Narin’s tale is in many ways comparable to the life of the Buddha” (page 2). This strange and rocky beginning is distracting, and it is not clear what the goal is.’
I recognize that reviews of this sort are by their very nature subjective. However, I wonder if the fact that the reviewer does not understand the goal of the chapter and finds it distracting is more of a statement on the book or the reviewer himself and the level of the reviewer’s understanding. The analogy with the Buddha’s life (which the reviewer does not seem to recognize is followed up in the final chapter of the book) is a statement on the nature of Narin’s intentions, and the odd and at times seemingly self-contradictory manner in which he acts upon those intentions. This in fact is a major theme throughout the book and most definitely not a distraction. (If he does not understand this, I take it that he similarly does not understand the placement of the quote of Prince Mahidol at the beginning of the chapter or the chapter’s final sentence, which comment on the same theme.) As the author, I cannot say what percentage of the readers understands the ‘goal’ behind my comparison with the life of the Buddha and overall treatment of chapter one. However, it has not confused other readers that I have spoken with in a discussion of the work, and therefore the question remains: Is the chapter ‘strange and rocky’, ‘distracting’, and ‘unclear in goal’, or rather does the reviewer not understand the book?
Whereas the emphasis of my book is on Narin, I do agree with the reviewer that it is unfortunate that there is not more mention of the motivations of his daughters in becoming novices or monks. Actually, these motivations were described in my original version of the book. However, when the book was shortened, this is part of what was taken out.
In his review, Arjun sets himself up to be a scholar knowledgeable about Narin. However, the following sentence reflects the limitations of that knowledge. (It also makes me wonder if he read my book in any detail.):
‘He also for a time lived as a good bourgeois, investing in and operating a steamship company.’
In reality, Narin invested and operated that steamboat company specifically because of his belief that foreigners should not monopolize the mail boat trade in the region. He certainly did not invest and operate it to be ‘a good bourgeois’ and make any money. As a matter of fact, from the information included in my first chapter, it is obvious that Narin took on this enterprise knowing full well that the most likely result would be that it would end his highly promising career in government service, and drive him into bankruptcy. In other words, Narin may have been crazy, but he certainly was not stupid. (Incidentally, I compared Narin’s establishment of the steamboat company with the Buddha forsaking all earthly attachments. If the reviewer did not understand ‘the goal’ of such a comparison with the Buddha, he may have genuinely believed that Narin was involved with the steamboat company to make money!)
Finally, I think that the simplest way to understand the reviewer’s criticism of the way I have chosen to write my biography is to view it in the context of the style that is made use of by the reviewer in his own writing. Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect that the author of the above review, written in this type of language, would appreciate a more imaginative style of writing. I am neither criticizing him for his style, nor particularly surprised that a person who writes in this manner would have ‘difficulties’ with either The Man who Accused the King of Killing a Fish or creative non-fiction in general.
Forests are being destroyed every year and everything is clear to me. At least I DO NOT hide behind a false name. Have you actually got the courage to use your real name?
Clarification: ‘having been’ a full-time researcher at KPI etc.
Ref. Central Administrative Court, Case 889/47: If you’re feeling brave, you’ll find I was the plaintiff against KPI.
The title refers to an incident related in the book in which Narin takes the Siamese monarch to task for a publicized fishing trip, as Narin sees the act of killing an animal as inexcusable for a king who is supposed to uphold Buddhism.
Thaifarang, can you please tell us which office you are working for at KPI, what your official position is, and what you are doing “full-time research” on?
“Has anyone ever thought about whether it will” – and readers actually like this crap.
Ditto the simplistic rubbish that follows from Herr Weber re the alledged “invisibe hand”:
Dude, I gotta tell ya (even if the Red Shirts wont’)this is Thailand and the average Thai knows what is what (in Thailand at least) and they genuinely respect the King.
Because I’ve been living here with Thais and working with Thais and speaking in Thai with old and young at the soi coffee shops where it costs 10 baht a glass and researching this country for over 30 years as well as being a full-time researcher at King Prajadhipok Institute – a state funder think-tank and political training centre – that’s how.
According to your linked article, the Dems didn’t cause a loss of ’65 billion baht a year’ – that’s the proposed losses for their plan if the Dems got elected. The Dem rep claimed ‘Bt58 billion over the past two years’.
As for your other claims, can you link us to articles?
It is a wonderful thing to share with others that being a Malaysian or ex-Malaysian like many others still concern over election result. Like an old saying,”biar jauh dimata tapi dekat dihati”. The PR coalition has made tremendous inroads to rural east Malaysia proven by ground supports that gained for every campaign leading to the election as well as rally to condemn the election fraud. It is the delineation that allows BN reps to win more seats. Look at the constituencies they contested, some may have a low density and if you consolidate a few of them and you will be surprise to know that the total count of voters is equivalent to 1 constituency won by a PR rep. There is no way to match that because delineation is professionally designed for a consolidate win. Please forgive me for the harsh response but I’m just like you too.
What do you mean when you say that “The Choice” is “a blog that is supportive of Prime Minister Najib Razak”? Have you not noticed their own self-description? They characterize themselves as follows: “‘The Choice’ has been created by a group of concerned writers united by a single vision: To build a dynamic news site that is beholden to no-one.” Do you doubt them? Are you suggesting that they are trying to pass off a partisan stance as unbeholden independence? Surely nobody anywhere near “official circles” would ever dram of doing such a thing! How could such a thing ever be possible? It is simply inconceivable to any ordinarily sound mind. Even to contemplate such a possibility is mind-boggling. If it is not independent and unbeholden, on how many more things would people then have to change their minds? That is just too much to ask, too much change to have to grasp.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why Thailand needs its king
It would seem hat this topic will not die as long as there are OCD haters out there. Would any of you guys have done any better? It’s real easy to demean and criticize from your high perch. As a poster has said and I agree, the large majority of Thais love and revere HMK. Even if you haters don’t.
Review of Man who accused king
Peter,
Your topic looks very interesting and I look forward to reading your book. I think, however, that your response to this reviewer is a bit overwrought. You come off as a bit insecure. My first impression of the review was positive and didn’t pay much attention to his problems with the style of your writing.
It’s interesting that you say you wrote in a more creative style, yet your response to this reviewer is classic, clinical academic writing. I suggest you let it be and let your audience throw it around a bit to make sense of it. Let it breathe—this is also part of the creative process.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
and again more on rice pledging from bangkok pundit : http://asiancorrespondent.com/109707/thai-rice-pledging-moisture-content-and-corruption/
Royal power arrangement
I don’t understand what it has to do with Thaksin approach idea. He’s just a business man who try to run the country for his benefit (quoted statement). How much the budget was spent on the rice scheme which a big chunk of them fall into his corrupted politician’ hands (even his Cambodian friends), while only a small fortune was left for poor Thai farmers and might cause a down scaling the country rating (check-out the Reuter news).
Review of Man who accused king
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for reading my book and bringing it to the attention of readers at New Mandala. I am writing to provide my own perspective on the review to give it some context. When I originally decided to write my biography of Narin in the style of creative non-fiction, I recognized that an audience would need a certain degree of broad mindedness to appreciate the nature of my project. The very act of writing a book of Thai history in a style that differs so radically from the accepted contemporary norm is bound to disturb or confuse certain people. After the book was published, however, I was pleasantly surprised at the positive reactions that I received from a number of respected academics in the field.
Nonetheless, this review perfectly reflects the fact that an unconventional approach is not always appreciated or even understood. In his review, Arjun writes, ‘The meandering style, while often entertaining, gets tiresome, at least for the academic reviewer.’ I would suggest that a more accurate statement would be that the style gets tiresome for the particular author of the review, and to attribute his own personal reactions to academic reviewers in general is misleading. For example, I have received highly favorable responses to the book by Chris Baker (who reviewed it in the Bangkok Post) and Grant Evans. Arjun might be surprised to hear that in the positive reviews, the strong point of the book is stated to be the very style that he seems to have so much objection to.
Whereas Arjun appears to be genuine and well-intentioned in his critique, in my mind, the overriding feeling reflected in his review is that he ‘just doesn’t get it’ and has little if any idea of why anyone would write a book in such an odd fashion. For example, he writes:
‘Prompted by Narin, it seems that perhaps Dr. Koret is laboring under the fallacy of the imitative form: when writing a book about a man regarded by his peers as unstable, the author must replicate the subject’s zaniness in the narrative.’
This seems, how should I put it, awfully exotic as an explanation behind my writing. It sounds like he is fishing. I would suggest, however, that he read the appropriately-titled ‘Notes on the Content and Style’ at the beginning of the biography for a much more straightforward explanation. It really is not any mystery.
He writes further: ‘The book’s opening chapter, detailing events at the end of Narin’s bureaucratic career in 1909, intersperses italicized paragraphs describing events in the Buddha’s life, for, as Dr. Koret asserts, “Narin’s tale is in many ways comparable to the life of the Buddha” (page 2). This strange and rocky beginning is distracting, and it is not clear what the goal is.’
I recognize that reviews of this sort are by their very nature subjective. However, I wonder if the fact that the reviewer does not understand the goal of the chapter and finds it distracting is more of a statement on the book or the reviewer himself and the level of the reviewer’s understanding. The analogy with the Buddha’s life (which the reviewer does not seem to recognize is followed up in the final chapter of the book) is a statement on the nature of Narin’s intentions, and the odd and at times seemingly self-contradictory manner in which he acts upon those intentions. This in fact is a major theme throughout the book and most definitely not a distraction. (If he does not understand this, I take it that he similarly does not understand the placement of the quote of Prince Mahidol at the beginning of the chapter or the chapter’s final sentence, which comment on the same theme.) As the author, I cannot say what percentage of the readers understands the ‘goal’ behind my comparison with the life of the Buddha and overall treatment of chapter one. However, it has not confused other readers that I have spoken with in a discussion of the work, and therefore the question remains: Is the chapter ‘strange and rocky’, ‘distracting’, and ‘unclear in goal’, or rather does the reviewer not understand the book?
Whereas the emphasis of my book is on Narin, I do agree with the reviewer that it is unfortunate that there is not more mention of the motivations of his daughters in becoming novices or monks. Actually, these motivations were described in my original version of the book. However, when the book was shortened, this is part of what was taken out.
In his review, Arjun sets himself up to be a scholar knowledgeable about Narin. However, the following sentence reflects the limitations of that knowledge. (It also makes me wonder if he read my book in any detail.):
‘He also for a time lived as a good bourgeois, investing in and operating a steamship company.’
In reality, Narin invested and operated that steamboat company specifically because of his belief that foreigners should not monopolize the mail boat trade in the region. He certainly did not invest and operate it to be ‘a good bourgeois’ and make any money. As a matter of fact, from the information included in my first chapter, it is obvious that Narin took on this enterprise knowing full well that the most likely result would be that it would end his highly promising career in government service, and drive him into bankruptcy. In other words, Narin may have been crazy, but he certainly was not stupid. (Incidentally, I compared Narin’s establishment of the steamboat company with the Buddha forsaking all earthly attachments. If the reviewer did not understand ‘the goal’ of such a comparison with the Buddha, he may have genuinely believed that Narin was involved with the steamboat company to make money!)
Finally, I think that the simplest way to understand the reviewer’s criticism of the way I have chosen to write my biography is to view it in the context of the style that is made use of by the reviewer in his own writing. Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect that the author of the above review, written in this type of language, would appreciate a more imaginative style of writing. I am neither criticizing him for his style, nor particularly surprised that a person who writes in this manner would have ‘difficulties’ with either The Man who Accused the King of Killing a Fish or creative non-fiction in general.
Why Thailand needs its king
Forests are being destroyed every year and everything is clear to me. At least I DO NOT hide behind a false name. Have you actually got the courage to use your real name?
Why Thailand needs its king
Are you one of those people who can’t see the trees for the forest? ;-)>
Royal power arrangement
Clarification: ‘having been’ a full-time researcher at KPI etc.
Ref. Central Administrative Court, Case 889/47: If you’re feeling brave, you’ll find I was the plaintiff against KPI.
Review of Man who accused king
The title refers to an incident related in the book in which Narin takes the Siamese monarch to task for a publicized fishing trip, as Narin sees the act of killing an animal as inexcusable for a king who is supposed to uphold Buddhism.
Review of Man who accused king
No mention of fish. Anyone care to expand?
Why Thailand needs its king
Thaifarang,
Are you one of those military people ordered to write absolute bollocks on web sites to bolster the esteem of the king?
Royal power arrangement
Thaifarang, can you please tell us which office you are working for at KPI, what your official position is, and what you are doing “full-time research” on?
Why Thailand needs its king
Emotive and simplistic Red fairytale dressed up as enlightened opinion. What are you teaching there at ANU ??
Why Thailand needs its king
“Has anyone ever thought about whether it will” – and readers actually like this crap.
Ditto the simplistic rubbish that follows from Herr Weber re the alledged “invisibe hand”:
Dude, I gotta tell ya (even if the Red Shirts wont’)this is Thailand and the average Thai knows what is what (in Thailand at least) and they genuinely respect the King.
Royal power arrangement
PS: I also have an MA in International Development from an Australian university, dude.
Royal power arrangement
Because I’ve been living here with Thais and working with Thais and speaking in Thai with old and young at the soi coffee shops where it costs 10 baht a glass and researching this country for over 30 years as well as being a full-time researcher at King Prajadhipok Institute – a state funder think-tank and political training centre – that’s how.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
According to your linked article, the Dems didn’t cause a loss of ’65 billion baht a year’ – that’s the proposed losses for their plan if the Dems got elected. The Dem rep claimed ‘Bt58 billion over the past two years’.
As for your other claims, can you link us to articles?
Pakatan Rakyat must rethink strategies
Dear Lynette,
It is a wonderful thing to share with others that being a Malaysian or ex-Malaysian like many others still concern over election result. Like an old saying,”biar jauh dimata tapi dekat dihati”. The PR coalition has made tremendous inroads to rural east Malaysia proven by ground supports that gained for every campaign leading to the election as well as rally to condemn the election fraud. It is the delineation that allows BN reps to win more seats. Look at the constituencies they contested, some may have a low density and if you consolidate a few of them and you will be surprise to know that the total count of voters is equivalent to 1 constituency won by a PR rep. There is no way to match that because delineation is professionally designed for a consolidate win. Please forgive me for the harsh response but I’m just like you too.
Clive Kessler’s analysis on UMNO’s strategy and a correction
“Dream”, not “dram”. That sentence should read: “Surely nobody anywhere near “official circles” would ever dream of doing such a thing!”.
Clive Kessler’s analysis on UMNO’s strategy and a correction
What do you mean when you say that “The Choice” is “a blog that is supportive of Prime Minister Najib Razak”? Have you not noticed their own self-description? They characterize themselves as follows: “‘The Choice’ has been created by a group of concerned writers united by a single vision: To build a dynamic news site that is beholden to no-one.” Do you doubt them? Are you suggesting that they are trying to pass off a partisan stance as unbeholden independence? Surely nobody anywhere near “official circles” would ever dram of doing such a thing! How could such a thing ever be possible? It is simply inconceivable to any ordinarily sound mind. Even to contemplate such a possibility is mind-boggling. If it is not independent and unbeholden, on how many more things would people then have to change their minds? That is just too much to ask, too much change to have to grasp.