Final Entry: Why Blogging and Face-to-Face Classes work together

This week marks the end of the AY2009/10 curriculum. This week also saw the last seminar for GEK1036 Cross-Cultural Communications and Discourse, a module I took for my GEM. I said it in my first blog entry and I'll say it again in my last blog entry: I believe that I made a great decision selecting this module among piles of other possible modules for my GEM. GEK1036 (specifically Dr. Deng) also gave me an opportunity to tap on a hobby that I've been meaning to start on: blogging. Blogging is a hobby that is perceived differently by many people, but I'd argue that blogging is generally treated for either two purposes:

1. Hobbyist diaries - posting photos, random rantings, casual socialising, etc. Think Xiaxue's blog, for one example. I find her blog loathsome because it has no values for reading. That's why I don't follow it at all. She is right about something: people hate her because they care enough to do so.
2. Critic columns - making provocative/controversial statements that matter to people, posting constructive criticism, forming visceral theories, etc.

I'd say that as a blogger (or prospective blogger), I lean closely towards the second category, and I have a strong view why blogs is more valuable if treated like the latter category. You see, blog is generically a medium for communication. For me, blog is another channel to reach the masses readily. For blogs to catch the attention of the readers, it SHOULD (I won't say MUST) be based on content that sets people thinking. This type of blog has information that is potentially or perhaps even more valuable, than the information you can study from a textbook or institutionalised teaching. What drives the latter category of blogs is opinions. Opinions speak for themselves, and they make lives more controversial, emotional... and interesting. Opinions are valuable assets in life itself  for me, because that's how I form an impression of people.

Think about it from this perspective: I recognise a person from his/her looks, but that's about it. Looks can be forgotten very easily, anyway. What makes a stronger impression on me is that person's opinions. Opinions colours the person's personality and the moment I can remember that person for his/her opinions, is the moment I actually start respecting him/her. Opinions are feasibly shared to other people through blogs, and I respect people who actually blog regularly on matters that stir people's emotions.

Then, there is the former category of blogging: The hobbyist diary. People who blog as hobbyists are not necessarily bad, but I believe that blogging is undervalued if used in this way (please note that I do respect that people are entitled to how they want to treat their own blogs eventually). It's because blog is communication, and communication is not really highlighted if the blog is used as a hobbyist diary. Chances are, people would just drop by the blog and give some superficial comments about posts. To me, it's fine but it doesn't justify the amount of effort I usually put in my blog entries, if any. For people who have been following this blog (including Dr. Deng), they would know that I'm naturally verbose, and to me this is a good thing. Typing doesn't hurt my fingers as much as writing, so I have the liberty to be verbose. I am not necessarily underappreciating hobbyist bloggers; I know some who really puts in insane amount of effort in making good blogs. I just find that the majority of hobbyist blogs don't fascinate enough for me to follow them as much as those who treat blogs as critic columns.

How is this tied to GEK1036 itself?

Dr. Deng stressed that he wants to see our sincere opinions on the idea of including blogging into our CA for the module. Simply put, he wants to know if it is a good or bad idea. If you must know, I'M ALL FOR IT. It's not necessarily because I naturally like blogging, but it's also because blogging is complementary to face-to-face seminars like forks to spoons. I believe that for a module that encourages INTERACTION, it's great to have a blog for several reasons:

• It's an alternative outlet for ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION

I've already explained the importance of opinions to me, so I'll further elaborate why is it important in the context of GEK1036. Here is my take on GEK e-Reflections: it's an alternative venue for people in the class to say something supplementary or complementary to what we learn in class. Whatever the students may say in the blog doesn't have to be directly linked to the topic discussed; it can also be something like "thinking along the side". Some people may have not realised this, but some of these side comments/opinions can be valuable to readers. For instance, people who have read my Men VS Women Theories may find my entry intriguing (I can't ascertain about this; hope they really do). It wasn't a significant contribution on my part; it's just something that I had been thinking about when I had a hard time sleeping at night. Seriously, that's what spurred me to write that particular blog entry!

• It's an alternative outlet for EXPERIENCE SHARING

It's somewhat linked to the first point, but I feel that this deserves to be separated for its own merit. Speaking about my Men/Women Theories, what also drove me to write that extensive entry is my personal experiences. These experiences, I'd argue, are better expressed on my blog because it's something possible since it's not something I would spontaneously recall during class. The classes can be very engaging; so engaging that I can't possible share all related experiences I have in my life. This is where blogging comes into play. Dr. Deng gave us the privilege to post an entry per week, which isn't a demanding requirement. Really, I can honestly say that I don't really feel like I put so much effort into this blog (contradictory to the entries I've written, perhaps). It's just a visual representation of what I have in mind, sequentially and spontaneously as I type. I type entries such as this as I think, and what I think include my personal experiences and how I can relate some of them to the topic of the week.

• It's an alternative outlet for RELATIONSHIP BUILDING

This is based on my personal experiences I have as a Japanese animation reviewer. Japanese reviewers are usually passionate people who follow Japanese animation closely and have very strong opinions on them (really, if you are a discerning watcher, you'd know what I mean). Their opinions and the desire to share the opinions with each other inspire them to be naturally bloggers. Here's a surprising finding: These bloggers feel like they really know each other, even though they've never met before. I submit reviews to NHRW and my moderator Sorrow-kun usually edit my reviews. We've been doing this for the last 4 years, and through his editings and opinionated entries on the forums, I feel like I know who he is. I feel that we're known each other for years, and yet we've never met each other before. He's based in Brisbane, Australia and if given the chance I'd love to meet this respectable blogger who've been buffing my writing skills and rendered me a discerning Japanese animation watcher. This also applies to the other reviewers/bloggers on my site; geographical barriers or not, we feel that we are familiar to each other because of our opinions on common interests. These interests are capable of being shared through blogs themselves (plus, forums as well).


What do I want to see more in e-Reflections for GEK1036?

Blogging to me is all about sharing (and perhaps criticising) opinions between bloggers and readers. So, the important implicit requirement for such blogging style includes receiving frequent comments for the entries. Comments serve as important tokens for bloggers because they feel appreciated that their heavily invested entries didn't go to waste (read: go unread). Eventually, people blog for others to read, and giving lots of comments demonstrates that your entries matter to the readers a lot. Blogging takes effort. Giving comments takes effort too. The longer is blog, the more effort is put. The longer the comment, the effort is put too. It's a complementary exchange of appreciation. Do you know how much I want to receive compliments to my blog? Seriously! If my blog entries don't get any comments, I feel like I'm writing for no reason. It's disheartening for bloggers like myself who writes long entries just to share my experiences and opinions, and not receive any form of appreciation from readers. It's all about communication and unity (COMMUNITY).

My last words...

Dr. Deng wanted to implement blogging/e-Reflections into the CA of GEK1036 because, as quoted from his own blog, he wants to make this module enriching and reflective for the students. Blogging is indeed a wonderful way, and I feel that this should be maintained for future students to come. Blogging is not to be seen as a chore; it should be seen as an opportunity both for Dr. Deng to have an impression of you, and for the blogger to embrace reflective thinking and opinion forming. Blogging is gone to waste the moment bloggers don't really put in much effort with their entries, or they completely ignore their readers for captivating topic discussions.

As a token of appreciation, I would like give generous compliments to Dr. Deng and the rest of the students in GEK1036 for making me a better person in terms of reflecting and sharing my experiences and opinions. This module is the one I keep looking forward to attend every week  in the semester, and it's one of those modules (along with Japanese language modules) that I don't feel like it's a drag to attend at all. I know that each time I enter the CELC building, I know that I will exit the place contented and rejuvenated with all the laughter and personally enriching learning I get. Thank you, Dr. Deng and fellow friends. I've had a blast taking GEK1036~!!!

Entry 9: CMC = Computer Mediated Communication, or Calling More Creativity?

In this week's seminar, we discussed how information technology has transformed (or deformed, depending on how you see it) how we communicate to each other. New terminologies such as letter homophones (OIC, brb, tl;dr, ROFL, *pats Nazrul's back*) give way for creativity and this is perceived by a handful of people to be the main cause for the decline of the English standards all over the world. Despite what these people say about how technology degenerates our proficiency, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is here to stay, whether you like it or not.  My fundamental belief stands: Technology is simply the medium of communication and blaming it for the fault of our proficiency decline is simply deft irresponsibility.

If anything, I believe that we have benefited more from CMC because on my part, it promotes a lot of unrestrained creativity (and yes, creativity is not always a good thing. I'll explain why). CMC is just like writing a letter or sending a fax document: It's all about the methodology. CMC is meant to be used or misused depending on the user, and I think that if the user's language gets deteriorated over time, there's only himself/herself to blame. Enough about this; like last week's blog entry I shall once again give my visceral theories as how CMC has introduced certain "creative" phenomena in how we communicate to each other nowadays:

• Theory #1: The "GREY AREA"

When using technology to communicate between two parties, the technology acts as an invisible "barrier" between them. This "barrier" is both a good and bad thing, and it depends a lot on how each party uses it to their own advantage. Have you ever experienced how your friend always respond that he/she is "on the way" (i.e. OTW) to a destination? You as the recipient would usually assume that your friend is arriving in a few minutes, but how many times have you gotten wrong on this assumption? Here's my advice: You can't make any concrete assumption when the response you have isn't concrete in the first place. "OTW" has a lot of intepretations: being 5 minutes away from the destination is a valid situation to respond with "on the way", being 30 minutes away from the destination is also a valid situation; heck, even just getting out of bed and preparing to leave the home is considered "on the way" too!

More importantly, why does this happen (so frequently)? What enables it to happen? It's the technology that acts as a intermediary. It's the same phenomenon when you conduct a mass discussion on MSN or Skype. When you have 5 people gathered on an online chatting room to discuss something, do you really  believe that all 5 people are seriously at the front of their screens? Not gonna happen. In fact, just look at the people currently on your MSN windows? Even though their statuses say that they're "online", they have as well be physically "offline". Their "online" status simply means they're "online" in terms of the technological intermediary, not in person. Or, he may be physically "online" in front of the screen discussing... while mentally "offline" with Facebook, Twitter, Friendster, myspace, Second Life, etc.

• Theory #2: The "CLOAKING DEVICE" (highlight to see)

Because of technology in CMC, anonymity is achievable. Anonymity in itself is a double-edged sword; it's both a good and bad thing. I don't want focus on the bad aspects of anonymity because it won't flow in this blog entry, which deals with creativity anyway. In creative sense, anonymity serves well for many users. Case in point: in the last few years, Japan has seen a rise in a number of live-action movies adapted from the works of anonymous writers who claim to be first-hand experiences of their lives. Examples of such popular recent movies include:

1. Koizora (Love Sky) - a love story about a high school girl who fell in love with a delinquent, and the hardships she experienced falling in love with him.
2. Densha Otoko (Train Man) - an otaku (Japanese geek) who gets to know one of the women who got harassed while on a train.

Koizora is adapted from what is known as a mobile phone novel (keitai shousetsu, 携帯小説), a popular mode of communication where anonymous writers write about their extraordinary experiences and share them through phone mails. Densha Otoko's premises are pretty much the same: it was originally written by a unknown otaku who claimed to helped out a group of women, and gradually gets to know one of the women he likes. He then continually asked for advice through online community forums, for some so-called Love 101 tips.

The fact that these authors are anonymous play an essential role in making this phenomenon feasible. Anonymity gives these writers a sense of security and nonjudgement from the readers that their work shall never be judged based on who wrote them, but simply what are written. In a simpler example, some people may find it harder to ask questions (intellectual or asinine) in person, and resort to using CMC to ask instead. I used the above examples instead because it illustrates how creativity can be expressed through anonymity. People always form first impressions in their minds about the creators or writers of certain works (bear in mind that I won't use "first impression" and "judgement" interchangeably; the two are related but entirely different things) , and this isn't always a good thing. Readers' impressions can quickly change for the worse if the real author of Densha Otoko - the man who claimed that the events are true - turns out to be say, a high-flying businessman.

• Theory #3: The Birth of "EMOTICONS" Σ(ﾟДﾟ)!!!

You may use it in daily life, or at least have used it once. I know I use it all the time. "Emoticons" (emotion icons) crop up along in daily CMC and it's fun to use it (although excessive use of emoticons is personally disgusting). Why do people use emoticons when they can clearly spell it out in words? Actually, that's the point: some things can't be pointed out in words, and they are called "nuances". These nuances can't be explained in words because communication is not about verbal cues after all (remember the nonverbal cues?). Communication holistically is about understanding both the apparent and non-apparent cues between parties, and sometimes in CMCs, what you see in your chat logs aren't everything. It can also be about "reading between the lines." LITERALLY.

In terms of emoticons, there is one thing I admire about the Japanese when it comes to CMCs: they're wonderfully creative with their emoticons. Their emoticons are radically different from Western emoticons possibly because they used the ASCII system to create their icons. Seriously, their icons are quirky and indirect, but at the same time, once you get the message, it smacks you right in the face with the punchline. Try looking at some of the Japanese emoticons usually made by 2ch members, and see if you can visualise the message:

（´-`）.｡oO( ... ) = wondering
ε=ε=ε=┌(;*´Д`)ﾉ = running
＿冂○ = bowing down in defeat or disappointment
!(★｀⊇´)-○))☆)ﾟoﾟ)/ = getting punched in the face

In a more extreme case (based on what I learned in my Japanese linguistics class), teenagers in Japan (I don't know if they still do this; perhaps they do) use emoticons as a form of "exclusive communication", where it's something only in-group people would understand. Let's face it; adults or people from the earlier generation would not use emoticons in their conversation (I think some are even against emoticons) and naturally, they won't understand them either. Teenagers use them among each other as a way to distinguish themselves from their parents. It's their way of being "cool". Sometimes, even Greek symbols to deftly disguise their Japanese texts are even welcomed because in that way, older people would not understand them at first glance. Yes, emoticons are a form of cryptography: it's about ciphering and deciphering texts, and the key in conveying the messages often lie in the teenagers' understanding itself. For instance, the text below is a genuine Japanese message that is written using 2 Japanese writing systems plus special symbols and Russian characters. I actually forgot what it meant; I used to remember it back in Japanese linguistics class （´-`）.｡oO( ... ).

ぉﾚ£∋ぅ⊇〃
飯食∧〃ﾅﾆ？
(≠ょぅﾚ£
ち⊇＜Ｕﾅょﾚヽ
τ〃Йё！！

• Theory #4: The (R)evolution of "FORUM DYNAMICS"

Online forums are the cornerstone of CMCs because it exemplifies many aspects of CMCs that are not practical or possible to do in face-to-face context. These aspects include forum jokes, "memes" (a phrase used to describe a catchphrase or concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet, Googled) and online flaming. Forum jokes that are practical only in CMC may come in the following manner:

Posted By: AC, 09:00:23HRS

@nutcase23

*shows a picture of K-On! season 2*

What do you think? Watching it?

Posted By: nutcase23, 09:00:25HRS

*burns K-On! poster, and flushes ashes down the toilet*

Forum jokes are not like real-time jokes because of synchronism. It's not something that happens at the moment itself and additionally, since your quotes are explicitly shown on screen, they can be tangibly reused in the form of "quotes". "Memes" are something more exclusive to CMCs because of how communities are possible now with the help of technology. These "virtual communities" create virtual jokes and concepts that are almost viral in terms of how fast they spread from one party to another. If you are a Japanese animation fan, you should understand the following messages:

"People die if they are killed."

The point of the line above is not the grammatical blunder; rather, it's the result of deplorable English translating or the awkward dialogue at the hands of a certain anime series. This "meme" is being used in anime community circles to illustrate how poor translation and subbing can backlash and be made into a laughing stock or worse, a new humourous phenomenon. Oh, just so you know, the line is taken from this scene:

• Theory #5: The reinvention of "WORDS"

epic: extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope
fail: to fall short

-- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Because of CMC and the flexbility that the CMC allows for people to communicate among themselves, certain words get a huge makeover on the kind of impact they now have mentally and socially. Take the words "epic" and "fail". Their proper definitions are stated explicitly above, but CMC has influenced and extended their meanings in such a way that they even change the way some people talk to each other IN PERSON! What kind of nuance is at play here? Look at the following and ask yourself what is the implication the creator of the posters are trying to say:

CMC has influenced the meanings of "fail" and "epic" (I'll just use these two words for the moment) in such a way that besides their definitions, they add more comical nuances to them. "Epic", in CMC, may connote something grand in scope, comic effect or extent of blunder; "Fail" may connote the warranted ridicule some subjects are entitled to get based on their asinine responses. There are a whole lot more examples to show how CMC has influenced some words in the lexicon, but these two words are the mosr prominent in many forums... at least to me.

Whether people love CMC or love to hate CMC, it's inevitably a new change that people brought to this world and something we embrace in our daily lives. Choices are in our hands to decide whether CMC plays a personal imporant role in one's lives; as an anime reviewer and an active member of various forums, it's an indispensible skill for me to understand and learn day by day. The one thing people may fail to realise is that, like all cultural studies, we all belong to at least one certain group of people. You may think that "Oh, I don't do these things. I'm completely neutral", but the thing is, you are not. Neutrality in CMC is actually a group in itself, if you think about it.

People cannot be neutral because we are inherently biased (remember this quote I made?). If you claim that you communicate neutrally in CMC, it simply means that you communicate in a plain way. Here's a poser: Because people are naturally biased, their wish to achieve a mode of complete unbiasness has led to the creation of technology (CMC) itself. Yet, it's not unbiased... only because the unbiased technology is being used by biased people eventually.

P.S. This may be the second last entry of this blog, seeing how this module and semester is coming to an end. Stay tuned for my final blog entry, coming soon.

Entry 8: Men-versus-Women Theories

Dr. Deng commented on my so-called "theory" that agreement is a positive phenomenon, but it doesn't imply that disagreement is a negative phenomenon. I added that under certain circumstances, agreement can be a bad thing and disagreement can be a good thing. Dr. Deng claimed that this is a great observation on my part, and I was extremely honoured to hear it. I like to make theories because honestly, everyone has their own theories. Either, they just choose not to voice them, or they simply want to be politically correct and tell themselves not to be judgemental. Here's my statement: People are actually naturally biased; it's just a question of how biased they are on certain things.


This seminar, I'd say, is the most entertaining I've ever had throughout my NUS life because we deal with the perpetual research on the differences in communication between males and females. Everyone deep inside knows that men and women talk differently (Admit it, people. We don't always talk on the same wavelength), but how are they different? Many researches have been done to observe and you know, I want to continue making my own "visceral theories" that either support or rebuke any previous researches and findings.


DISCLAIMER: These are just half-assed theories with some truth in them. Like all cultural studies, culture isn't about absolution, it's all about relativity. If you don't believe my theories, take them to real life and test them. In fact, please challenge my theories. And everyone, you don't be so politically correct all the time; otherwise, life is just boring.


Theory #1: Frequency varies between men and women.

The above diagram illustrates how men and women talk between themselves. The upper graph shows how men talk to each other, the lower graph shows how women talk to each other. Men take less frequent turns to talk compared to women within a given time length. Why? We men have a "know-it-all-ism/informative conversation". For example, when Man A and Man B are talking and it's Man A's turn to speak, Man A is likely to speak as much as he knows. The same goes for Man B. We feel good talking when we look back at the conversation and think that we've gained a lot of cerebral insight. When we talk about football, we talk in a cocky tone because we are contributing to each other's brains. The more tangible content we share, the better. That's why in a guy talk, the dude who says the least is seen as the sissy. When lions feast on a carcass, the one who doesn't fight a lot loses out. It's the same for men.


This is also why when men are together, there are moments of "dead air". Those "dead air" moments are necessary and in fact, because we have this, we sometimes think women are talkative. When two men have nothing to say to each other, we just don't say anything. It won't hurt our friendship, anyway. Why do you think we male friends can sit together on the bus and stay quiet for a number of moments? For women, it's different; when they meet, they feel the need to talk because well, they're friends. They think: "How can we NOT talk? We're friends!" Talking is relationship for women, but not for men. At least, most of the time. 


Women on the other hand, talk different. When Woman A and Woman B are talking, they take turns more frequently. For women, it's about "feel-each-other-ism/relational conversation". Unlike men, women talk but it's not all about the content. Rather, it's about everything other than the content. That's why they make a lot of turns talking (i.e. overlapping). That's why we men think they talk A LOT.


This brings to one topic I believe explains differences in communication styles between men and women. Women adopt "relational conversation" because they tend to collaborate and work together, hence opting to overlapping their conversational responses more than the men. The men challenges each other and that's why they don't somewhat help out with each other on the conversational responses.

Theory #2: Men are stupid; women are complicated. Really.

This theory usually applies to cross-gender conversations. We men judge based on what is being said. Explicitly. If something is not said, we judge that nothing has happened. Yes, we are kinda dumb. But the thing is, this is how we think: If you didn't say it, then why should we make assumptions that maybe the other party have hidden agendas? For women, it's the opposite. In many times, especially between couples, it's not about what the women say. What they didn't say is actually MORE important. Women see this as mutual/shared understanding: they don't say everything because the men are supposed to know the things she didn't say.

We men talk explicitly. When we talk, we exchange all information directly. It's like sharing gifts: we don't gift-wrap them, we just hand each other gifts bare. Women talk implicitly. When they talk, they exchange most information directly. In sharing gifts, they gift-wrap their messages to us men. Most of the time, we men may like the thought but the problem remains: sometimes, we men don't see the tied ribbon, or the women tied the ribbon too tightly. 

Theory #3: What people think and what people say are two COMPLETELY different things.

For men, it's a variation of Renee Descartes' adage: "We think, therefore we say." Seriously, if we think about something in a particular way, we say it accordingly. I said that men are dumb, and this is why we are dumb. Comedian Russell Peters thinks so too. More formally, thinking and saying are commonly thought to be one and the same. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Thinking and saying are just COMPLEMENTARY, but they're two completely different things.


Women however, treat the two entities differently. Just because they think something doesn't mean they would say the same thing accordingly. For men, saying IS thinking.  If we don't say, we don't think. Women however, think even when they don't say anything. Just watch Peters' joke here and tell me whether he's telling the truth.


Theory #4: Humans = monkeys, especially on the way men and women talk together.

Charles Darwin said that we humans were monkeys. I'd think that there's some truth in what he said. You see, when monkeys of different genders get together, the male monkeys instinctively try to outdo each other in the presence of the female ones. Truthfully, this isn't restricted to monkeys; it applies to all types of animals. The female monkeys however, stay quieter than the male ones. It's the same for human beings: Researches have shown that men indeed talk more in mixed-sex conversations. Males have inborn instincts to be more dominant than females in any species.


It's the same in classroom settings. In my Japanese classes, the men make more noise than the women. We male students in Japanese classes like to make noise periodically, that's how we make our presence felt. Women don't always see the point in doing this but to us men, making your presence means everything. Are the men doing this basically to impress the women for some reason? Maybe we do.


Theory #5: Men are defensive, women are protective.

defend: denotes warding off actual or threatened attack.

protect: denotes the use of something (as a covering) as a bar to the admission or impact of what may attack or injure.

Taken from Merriam-Webster, this can illustrate how men and women are indeed different in communication styles. What words would you normally associate with "mother"? What about "father"? Mother = protective; Father = defensive. When you think about it, it doesn't feel right to think fathers as protective, and mothers as defensive. Protective doesn't mean defensive, although they are closely intertwined in meaning. Why do you think all military bodies state that their purpose is to "DEFEND the country", not to "PROTECT the country"? Defending actually connotes attacking as well; that's why the US loves to hammer the Middle East and say that they're "defending the country".


Why am I talking about being defensive or protective? This illustrates how I think of former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher is often see as a strong (read: masculine) woman who fixed the UK during tumultuous times. Simply put, people say that she has male qualities. Here's my counter argument: Is she really masculine? Seriously? I don't necessarily think so; in fact, I'd say that she's more feminine than masculine. Women are inherently mothers in their own right, and they are naturally protective. Margaret Thatcher wasn't a masculine woman, she's a protective mother of her country. There's a subtle difference: If women see a strong need to protect something, they would do/say things that people may think as masculine (being firm on something). However, that doesn't mean they're masculine. If men don't fight back in the presence of something adverse, it would be the non-masculine way of doing things (you're not being righteously firm about yourself, which is the un-manly thing to do). Try using my theory for any other "masculine woman" you can think of: are they really masculine, or actually being protective of something that belongs to them?


Think about this: If a couple receives an offensive comment from a stranger about their child, who do you is likely to punch the stranger? Obviously, it's the man. Both the man and woman would naturally feel the need to look after their child's well-being, but their reactions may be different because of their natural instincts. The man would see punching the stranger as "defending his child". The mother would not do the same; she would make sure the child isn't hurt as a form of "protecting the child".


There's a grey area between being defensive and being protective, and this is reflected in how men and women generally talk differently. Men are indeed territorial both in action and words; this is why throughout history, men have waged more wars than women, and women just wouldn't understand why men like to... "fight". Fighting in words or action is a form of defending, not protecting.


Theory #6: Men and women both curse/swear, for different reasons.

Both men and women have their fair share of the use of probably every other expletive not found in the dictionary, and curses are not always used for bad purposes. Theory #6 is closely related to theory #5: women curse to protect; men curse to defend. Men curse each other and continue the cycle because we're challenging and defending our "turfs". For instance, if Man A curses Man B, chances are, Man A is trying to take Man B's territory. It's Man B's duty to defend his turf by exchanging curses too. This is applicable also in casual settings: When my friend curses me light-heartedly, he's poking at my territory. I'll just return the favour by poking his territory as well. This is why we men seem to curse a lot, sometimes to unnecessary extent, for communicative benefits. 


For women, they curse for a slightly different reason. They do so especially when they have something protect, both tangibly and intangibly. They don't curse as much as men do (arguable stance, perhaps) because they're protecting themselves and therefore, they see the need to curse less than the men especially when everything's fine the way it is. This is also why many men think it's undesirably masculine to see women curse when whatever they're protecting are not compromised (i.e. when their cursing are unjustified).


Theory #6: Men are more decisive than women, but not for all the right reasons.


Men are more decisive than women, and our communicative decisions seem brasher because of the fundamental rule: we are just more assertive/aggressive than women. It's being shown since the Stone Age. For instance, in mixed-groups in NUS, we men reach any decision more readily than the women. Why? It's possible related to my theory #3: women would deliberate rather than making any rash decisions. Men like to see things happen faster. That's why some people contend that men do make decisions quicker (and we make terrible decisions out of it too); women would take a step back and think more, thereby reaching to a decision slightly later. In fact, men are indeed stupid sometimes; we wouldn't even admit our terrible decision-making. This article, though somewhat unverified, has some truth in it on a neuro-scientific level too.


Theory #7: Men and women see "problems" differently.


Men and women both don't like problems; they make our lives less sweeter. The universal rule applies: regardless of sex, we talk about problems primarily as a form of venting frustration. It's not a good idea to bottle up your frustrations on problems to yourself; otherwise, you'll implode. Just watch Anger Management, which stars Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. 


The thing is, men see problems as challenges needed to be solved. That's why when men talk about problems between themselves, we are actually trying to look for solutions. That's it. Most of the time. You see, if we talk about problems alone, we feel that it's a big drag. Men who especially talks about problems all the time can be irritating to others; in fact, if men talk too much about their problems, they'll make themselves look very weak and it's a big blow to their manhood (in fact, this is also why in Japanese norm, men aren't supposed to do things to make themselves look weak, such as talking about personal problems for crying). This may apply to women too but it affects men on a greater scale.


For women, problems aren't necessarily meant to be solved. Problems can be seen as the common topic. Do you think that in a couple, when the woman is having a problem, the man should give her the solution or empathise her? If the man does the former, although he may have done a good thing, the woman feels like he doesn't understand her feelings. Women see problems as something that affect their feelings. Men see problems as something that affect their manhood.


So there you have it. These are my visceral theories that you may want to reflect on whenever you have spare time. Bear in mind that there's bound to be exceptions to my theories, but this doesn't completely negate my theories. It's the same if I say that Singaporeans are kiasu. You know that there are exceptions to this, but still you'd agree with this statement.


In the meantime, please make comments and in fact, flame me for my somewhat sexist theories. Speaking of which, sexism was one of the topic discussed in the seminar.

Entry 7: What does "being polite" really mean?

This week, our topic is on face and politeness, and you know what, I found that from a culturally vast point of view, politeness is like perfection:

Politeness: marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy.

Perfection: Freedom from fault or defect.

The above definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster, and they're readily understood by people. Simply put, people know what they mean intuitively. But can you give a universal example for each of them? It's not as easy as you think. The idea of "Ladies first" is commonly understood to be a form of politeness in probably any modern society.


However, in historic Japan (think late 19th century), especially in traditional areas such as Kyoto and Tochigi, it's rude for females to walk in front of men. People have criticised that this is somewhat sexist, but this was just how they do things back then. It's still observable these days, albeit more unusual. But were traditonal Japanese people necessarily rude with this instance? You can't say that, because females walking behind men was deemed the polite thing to do.


What about perfection? You can define it, but can you exemplify it? Invididual A can define say, the "perfect spouse". But if you ask Individual B the same question, you would get a different answer. Ask 1000 people the same question and you'd get 1000 different answers.


Let's be more relevant from here onwards. According to Leech (1983), there are 6 differents maxims to classify politeness:

1. Tact - minimise cost to others; maximise benefit to others
2. Generosity - minimise benefit to self; maximise cost to self
3. Approbation - minimise dispraise of other; maximise praise of other
4. Modesty - minimise praise of self; maximise dispraise of self
5. Agreement - minimise disagreement between self and other; maximise agreement between self and other
6. Sympathy - minimise antipathy between self and other; maximise sympathy between self and other

For discussion purposes, I want to "play around" with the above maxims.


Situation #1:
I have had a long day, and I receive a call from my mother to do some grocery shopping. Learning how tired I am, she changes her mind and tells me to forget about the errand. However, now I'm obliged to do the errand. 


This scenario challenges both the tact maxim and generosity maxim. Frankly, it's something I experience everyday too. Who's being tactful here: me or my mother? My mother wants to minimise cost to me now (tact), but I want to minimise benefit to myself (generosity).


Situation #2:
I praise someone generously because I really think this person is that admirable. The person doesn't feel comfortable with my praises and thinks I'm patronising her, so she rejects them. I don't take it well because I think she lacks self-esteem.

This scenario challenges both the approbation maxim and modesty maxim. I approve her because I feel like doing so; she deserves to be praised. Instead of being grateful, she feels a little uncomfortable and rejects my praises. I then think she's lacking self-esteem because by denigrating oneself, she's actually taking a beating at her own self-image.

The scenarios above show that tacit & generosity maxims, and approbation & modesty maxims are complementary (or "un-complementary") to each other.  Now, what about the agreement and sympathy maxims? I feel that there's a missing link between them. Thus, I think that there should be a seventh maxim: Distance maxim. My proposed maxim works as the following:

• Distance - maximise social closeness between self and other; minimise social distance between self and other

Social distance can affect the agreement and sympathy maxims, and I'll give scenarios to illustrate (NOTE: there is no sarcasm in play for the below scenarios):

Scenario #3:

My close friend and I watch a movie. I think the movie sucks big time, but my friend says it rocks. We argue (not quarrel) about it as a form of daily conversation.

Chances are, if the other is not my friend, I would've agreed but I didn't because of social closeness; he's my friend. If I had agreed instead, it'd be like I'm cutting the conversation. By disagreeing, we're creating a topic. Agreement is a positive thing, but this doesn't necessarily make disagreement something negative.

Scenario #4:

My close friend's long-sick dog has passed away. Rather than feeling sad, I feel happy for him because I'm happy that his pooch isn't suffering anymore (euphemistic, I know).

Social distance plays a part here because if the dog's owner is someone socially distant from me, I wouldn't use antipathy in a direct manner. Since he's my friend, I feel more readily okay to feel antipathy (although tact must come before becoming antipathic).

In terms of culture, nothing is absolute. The old adage "There are always two sides to a coin" applies to cultural (communication) studies and the above theory is just one of the ways to classify for research purposes. 

Entry 6: Which cultural system do you belong to?

You know, when I read back all the entries I've published for my GEK1036 blog, I've noticed a pattern. I actually observed from my previous blogs that rather than expressing my sincere thoughts and opinions for the topic of the week, I merely dissected what was discussed in the seminar. This isn't bad per se, but given the liberty I have at what to say (this is my blog), I feel that I'm under-utilising this privilege. I swear that I even sound docile for my own entries. So, for this topic (Communication System - Components & Representation), I'll try to make more visceral comments to each components of Hofstede's analyses (1980, 1984, 1991) and categories, which I personally feel are very questionable to begin with.


Power Distance

Hofstede proposed two categories for power distance which, in layman terms, it's how "thick" the wall between people of different status is. They are high power distance and low power distance. According to Hofstede's data, Filipinos and generally Eastern (not just Asian) people are found to adopt high power distance, while Westerners are more towards the low power distance. The standings for a number of a few countries are raising my eyebrow:

1. The index for Japan is 54, which is somewhere in the middle of the table. I've been learning Japanese for 7 years and have been to Japan to observe the social dynamics within 7 days. To me, this standing is a gross understatement. I would even argue that Hofstede's evaluation for Japan is quite flawed because it's very dated (this is done in 1980, anyway) and we can't really agree with something that dates back three decades ago. I think the Japanese have one of the highest power distance in the world; it's even reflected in their daily language. They have the phenomenon of keigo (Japanese honorifics) used extensively in business settings. For instance, the singular English pronoun "I" can be intepreted in at least 6 ways in Japanese ("watashi" = polite; "watakushi" = honorific; "boku" = casual masculine; "atashi" = casual feminine; "washi" = polite elderly; ore = impolite), for your information.
2. Singapore's index is 74? Not in this current time. I bet it's lower now, because I've seen plenty of cases where low power distance is observed, regardless of the environment. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the power distance isn't that high even in the military setting (read: National Service). God, I've even used coarse language in the presence of a few of my superiors. In fact, the idea of National Service being of conscript nature contradicts Hofstede's claim that we have high power distance. A lot of our superiors are also our friends outside the military setting before and after NS, anyway.
3. My friend strongly disagreed with Taiwan's index of 58. He said Taiwan should be above Singapore based on current circumstances. And you know, I can actually relate to his sentiments.

Uncertainty Avoidance
This proposed phenomenon refers to what degree of risk-taking a group of people would  inherently possess. According to his data, the Greeks, Portuguese, Japanese and French tend to avoid uncertainty; the Swedes, Danes and Americans are high risk-takers. According to stereotype, Asians are naturally people who opt for "safe choices", while the Americans have the "Cowboy Complex" to do reckless things. This may be true so I won't rebuke Hofstede's data, but here's what caught my attention:

1. Singapore in last place? Singaporeans loves taking heavy risks? Is this for real? We even beat the Americans?? I don't think so. This is a gross overstatement. Our Singapore ministers have commented several years ago (back when our economy was still alright) that we Singaporeans don't take risks often enough. Plus, since this data were taken in 1980, is it saying that we were originally risk-takers during those time? I find that really hard to swallow, actually. If anything, we should've belong to anywhere in the middle of the table.

Individualism VS Collectivism

Perhaps Hofstede's most extensive topic branch of the study of cultural components, this talks about the dynamics of a group of people. Individualism stresses "the moral worth of an individual" (wiki); collectivism emphasises the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals (wiki). Sounds deep, right? Actually, this topic is more of philosophical/political nature rather than just anthropological or sociological. Hofstede's data shows that the Americans are the most individualistic, while the Venezuelans and most Asians are the most collectivistic. I won't  rebuke this data either; for a long time, I feel that the Westerners are mostly individualistic while Asians have the more nucleus-like nature of being collectivinistic.



Here's a poser for you: Are we a community of human beings, or human beings that form a community? Same topic, different perspectives.

1. In the Singapore context, we used to have the kampung (Malay for "village") spirit but as we become more urbanised (read: westernised), we become more individualistic. This is not to say that being individualistic is a bad thing altogether, but there are some drawbacks to individualism. Being individualistic can also be seen as being selfish, and this is true to some extent. As Singapore becomes more individualistic, the "wall" between each of us gets thicker and in such sense, we somewhat drift apart. Heck, I don't even know who my neighbours are; all I know is that, when we hear Chinese dramas blaring next door, my family knows they're in their home. Our respective group representation constituencies (GRCs) make continual effort in fostering togetherness in a neighbourhood because they want to counter (not abolish) the negative forces that come with individualism.

1. Americans are stereotyped to preach independence and individual rights; after all, they are known as the country for free speech. I wholeheartedly agree that they're individualistic; how else would you explain their mindset that elicits the common following question: "You're a grown man, and you still live with your mother?", heavily parodied Principal Skinner of The Simpsons . Living with your parents isn't an undesirable thing in Singapore; it's actually something worth looking up to. It doesn't help with the fact that since Singapore is a small country with limited land resources, that collectivism is in favour in Singapore (read: living with your parents even as an adult).
2. In Japan, it is a commonly understood belief that one's actions is strongly reflected on his/her parents. A Japanese celebrity was dishonourably humiliated when he was caught for possessing/consuming drugs several years ago, and his parents came to publicly apologise for their son's actions. If this had happened in US context, the parents would've come into the limelight to defend their children's innocence.

Masculinity VS Femininity

This refers to the extent masculine or feminine traits prevail. By masculine, it stresses on assertiveness and advancement and pretty much the opposite for feminine. According to Hofstede's data, the Japanese have the highest index for having the "thickest" wall between masculine and feminine traits. Sweden is right at the opposite end of the spectrum. Here are my comments for some countries:

1. I completely agree with the Japanese data; the Japanese have a strong distinctiveness in their masculine and feminine traits. It is even reflected in their daily language. In English, there is only one personal pronoun for yourself (i.e. "I") but there are masculine and feminine variations in Japanese for that same pronoun ("boku" = masculine; "atashi" = feminine). However, if females use the masculine pronoun, it may mean that they want to be treated as equally as their male counterparts. Yes, using different pronoun does render an effect to those around him/her. If males use "atashi", they would appear very feminine and their social context, weird. Furthermore, it is common for Japanese males not to voice out their private emotions in conversation, especially if it may render himself looking weak. Being masculine in Japan is about knowing how to keep mum over feelings of displeasure, i.e. "sucking it in".
2. Machismo is a positive masculine trait in Latin America, something I know that Priscilla would agree with me. This may explain and justify Hofstede's data.
3. Singapore may personally still be somewhere in the middle, like Hofstede's data.

High Context VS Low Context

Proposed by anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1976), high context means most of the shared information is either internalised in physical context, whereas low context means information is shared explicitly. Stereotype would classify high context as being "vague" and low context as being "indiscreet". Oriental people are known to be very high contexted, and for Japanese context, I can really relate to this notion:

1. According to CNA Japanese bureau chief Michiyo Ishida from Tokyo, when Japanese businessmen respond to an offer "I'll think about it", it implicitly means they would take the offer, but if it's "I'll consider it", it means they are declining it. Plus, the Japanese dislike direct confrontation both physically and in speech. This explains why they don't often make eye contact in business context (staring is very confrontational). Plus, their Japanese honorifics is a form of not being confrontational (for one, it's used with a passive tone).
2. Americans are known to be low context. They just say it as it is, since being honest is good. They can be brutal, but even this is desirable to some extent. Even their language is somewhat direct in nature (which explains their "linear" contrastive rhetoric discussed in the previous seminar). Just watch the reality TV show The Apprentice to know what I mean.

The topic is very broad, and this is just one way of seeing culture in macro view. It's very interesting just like the last topic, and I'm really looking forward to what we have for next week.


P.S. Oh wow, I've actually exceeded the minimum requirement of 8 blog entries set by Dr. Deng. How verbose can I be...?

Entry 5: Is your line straight, parallel, swirly, erratic or just off-track?

I apologise for publishing my entry for the week later than usual; it's been a hectic week with projects, assignments and midterm papers getting in the way post-midterm break. This week's topic is Written Discourse, and before I wrote this post, I went through the blogs of others in GEK1036. Many find this topic hard to understand, but on the other hand, I find this topic pretty interesting. In fact, it's one of the most interesting topic (and phenomenon) we've ever had. Perhaps I say this because I'm a Japanese animation (anime) reviewer and I can actually relate to this on a personal level. I love to write reviews on anime titles at The Nihon Review as AC, and my fellow reviewers and I criticise our works constructively. Mind you that this isn't an anime blog; we do edit each other's review entries meticulously. Our administrator/editor Sorrow-kun is an Australian graduate who is really particularly with our reviews' cohesion, balance between succinctness and elaboration, grammar and vocabulary, and other written discourse structures. We reviewers here regard each other's reviews as literary works, not as personal journals.

Putting aside my leisure hobby, let me explain what were discussed in last week's seminar. The first thing I noticed when I looked through the handout, is the all-familiar rhetoric visual diagrams. Frankly, these diagrams were the first to catch my attention when I took the module CS2301 Business and Technical Communication a year ago. The textbook, which I believe Dr. Deng is one of the writers, features this diagram and since then, I've been eager to know more about it (hence, taking this module as my GEM). According to Kaplan (1972)'s research findings, there are five types of paragraph development, and I'll go through each of them and relate my own thoughts:

1. English linearisation is an English expository discourse where it's basically as follows: topic statement > examples and illustrations > developing central idea for proving/arguing subject > tying all the structures together. As a writer, this is how I write my reviews; plus, I would like to extend my gratitude to Sorrow-kun for buffing up my writing skills joining NHRW a few years ago. 
2. Parallel construction is natively Semitic, and it involves series of parallel coordinate clauses. To those most familiar with English linearisation writing technique (like most of us Singaporeans), this development would often be seen as repetitive and "waffly".
3. Circularity is natively Oriental (Chinese/Japanese), and the topic is perceived in varying angles and intricately indirect. This is very much the opposite of English linearisation, and I'll elaborate more about this later on.
4. Digressive freedom is all about being liberal with what's being written, often complemented by extraneous materials. There are no rules on the direction course of a sample, but usually it should come back on topic eventually.
5. Digressive Nazi (self-proclaimed) is natively Russian, and it's the more extreme case of digressive freedom.

We can all relate to English linearisation given our dominantly English writing background, but what is exactly "constructive parallel writing"? Here's an instance: "I was in this room, and I took the chair out from it." This is generally English-linear, but if written in parallel manner, it can be phrased in two ways: semantic subordination ("I was in this room. I took a chair out from it") or grammatical subordination ("The chair was taken out from the room I was in"). To us this is English butchery awkward English but to Semitic readers, this may seem naturally valid. Why this is so? Perhaps it's based on historic writing styles. In their native Semitic language - Hebrew and Arabic - this is their nature of language. So this begs another question: Does this mean that writers with Semitic background tend to write like this, or is it their literal transcription coming into play? Actually, this is debatable and it's up to you to decide. In a nutshell, parallel writing is about seeing a situation in parallel perspectives.

In the example of semantic subordination, the original sentence is broken up into two rather than linking to just one sentence. English writers will criticise this as being superfluous (something Sorrow-kun often criticise my works for), but if one puts the two clauses together, it becomes a singular line a la English linearisation. It becomes parallel if broken into two; simply put, the two clauses concern basically the same topic and they complement each other in the same course of direction. In the example of grammatical subordination, the "boy" becomes the central pivot of the two clauses. The two clauses still progress in the same direction, with the central pivot relating them together.

Circular writing is very contrary to linear writing; rather than writing in a straight progressive direction, circular writing is about not writing in implicitly straight fashion. It is said that this writing style is adopted because writing out of individual self-expression is deemed "socially harmful" (in my previous entry on spoken discourse, I had a hunch on how there's a hint of censorship in Chinese writing, whereas there's a hint of freedom of speech in English writing. I guess my hunch was pretty accurate). By being indirect, it connotes eloquence and commendable effort by the writers. This is where the old adage applies: "There are two sides to every coin". What is seen as straightforward by English writers, is seen as shallow and ineloquent to Oriental writers. What is seen as multi-dimensional by Oriental writers, is seen as poorly digressive by English writers.

The indirectness/suggestiveness of Oriental writing involves heavy use of rhetorical questions (questions that warrants no answers), analogies and anecdotes, and they're used for various intentions. By being indirect, the readers are supposed to inherently understand what the writer is addressing about. Why do the writers do this? This is because being direct is deemed forward (read: brash) and lacking delicacy. But for English writers, being indirect is considered being extravagant and even pretentious. This apparent discrepancy is commonly observed because of the cultural backgrounds each party may come from. Oriental writers may not favour direct writing, especially if it deals with something disruptive and controversial to the eyes of the readers (or even the environment, given certain circumstances). English writers hate this form of writing, and favours direct writing. After all, under current circumstances, anything disruptive or controversial actually works for them; that's why English writers gain readership: through generating controversy. Oriental writers would get flamed instead.

Then, there's further discussion on inductive (Oriental circularity) versus deductive (English linearisation) argument methods. As a reviewer, I adopt the funnel-like deductive form of argument. Take a look at one of my reviews and Sorrow-kun's. Observe how we begin the review with something general in the first paragraph (though still related to the anime in topic), and then proceed further in a more focused manner. The deductive method is pretty much opposite, but the more important thing to ask is, why the difference in argument methods? Is it because English linearisation favours specification while Oriential writing favours generalisation? Or, is it because in terms of argumenting points, English linearisation favours seeing "a tree as a collection of leaves" (leaves = arguments) and Oriential writing favours seeing "a leave that constitutes to a tree"?


The last part of the seminar highlights the differences between English and Chinese letters. English writers strong favours succinctness a.k.a. "cutting to the chase". By being succinct, it connotes the idea of being straightforward and they want to do this because English letter writers believe that the motif of a letter speaks for itself. Chinese writers however, highly regard points related to the motif just as much. That's why they opt to write about other things first, before explaining the actual motif. If they choose to write like English writers would, it would appear shallow, ineloquent lazy-writing. Basically, the rationale is still the same as what is covered above.

This phenomenal difference between English and Oriental written discourses is something I find fascinating. I don't understand Chinese at all so I don't understand the complexities of what goes in written discourse in terms of English-Chinese transliteration, but I do understand on an intermediate level another Oriental language, Japanese. Japanese is very much similar to Chinese in terms of indirectness/suggestiveness, and they is a rationale behind it.

P.S. You may want to take a look at this comprehensive article dealing with written discourse and Japanese transliteration. It's a gem I came across while finding some material to talk about for the week's blog entries.

Entry 4: Tell me a bedtime story...

The second part of our topic of the week, is personally a lot more interesting (but sadly, due to time constraints, this subtopic wasn't comprehensively discussed during the seminar). Why is it interesting to me? Maybe it's because I write reviews of Japanese animation as a hobby, and my reviews are regularly edited and revised by an Australian editor, Sorrow-kun (my editor's moniker).


Researches have shown that there are some common observations in the differences between English and Chinese narratives, and it's intriguing. Both exhibits the same structural template: an orientation, initiating and complicating events, a high point and a coda. The thing is, the delivery and presentation of a situation is particularly different in informative, narrative and evaluative senses:

1. English writers adopt a more specific and elaborate approach in character identification, whereas Chinese writers tend to use non-specific references and are restrictive in giving information (by this notion, I assume that English writers favours description and elaborative detail; Chinese writers favour generalisation and minimal details).
2. English writers use proper names to identify characters and explicit define relationships, whereas Chinese writers prefer using specific time orientation in narrating a story (emphasis on character development again for the Westerners).
3. English writers focus a lot on the action of the characters using active phrases to develop the storyline, whereas Chinese writers highlight overt temporal sequence using temporal connectors for the same purpose (I'd say that English writers use characters as "chess pieces"; they actively influence how the game (i.e. the story) shall progress. Chinese writers use them as "elements" of a chain of events; characters are just details.)
4. English writers compose texts which are implicitly presented, whereas Chinese writers compose them and incorporate moral statements often explicitly pointed out (I'd assume that English writers write to entertain the readers; Chinese writers write to impart messages of virtues.)
5. In general, English writers are writer-responsible in providing more information elaboration, whereas Chinese writers are more reader-responsible in providing less information elaboration (English writers write what they want to write; Chinese writers write what the readers should read. Do I sense a tinge of censorship from the Chinese writers, and a tinge of freedom of speech from their English counterparts?)

These findings are very intriguing, and I shall give instances to explain my opinions (I would take Japanese animation/anime as alternate visual version of narrative stories). I am an anime reviewer with considerably strong opinions in dissecting all anime to a certain degree, and I have a strong liking towards certain anime titles with a good storyline and great characters. Seeing as how English writers emphasise on character development in point 1), this is essential to me because characters drive the story. Weak characters are those I can't relate in person; I can't see how a story with minimal description can render a story great. This also explains for point 3); characters directly influence the story for them, and I see it under the same light as well.

For point 4), I'd insinuate that English writers write as a way to express themselves liberally. English writers tend to make a lot of controversy because of this; they don't write to please the readers. In fact, controversy is actually good because it sets the readers thinking and voicing out their counter-opinions. This may not be true for Chinese writers; they write, bearing in mind the readership that ensues post-publishing their work. Controversy isn't favoured for Chinese writers and readers (in fact, in Asia as well) because with controversy comes tension, and it's deemed undesirable.  For point 5), English writers elaborate because the key here is visualisation through words. Think Twilight, written by American English writer Stephanie Meyers. Here's a sample of her writing style:

And then Edward stepped out from the trees, his skin faintly glowing, his eyes black and dangerous. He held up one hand and beckoned me to come to him. The wolf growled at my feet. I took a step forward, toward Edward. He smiled then, and his teeth were sharp, pointed.

Bella Swan, Twilight, Chapter 7, p.131

Meyers' writing style is known to be copious with vivid descriptions and active phrases, and she uses characters as the main driving force in developing the story. Meyers displaces herself from the story and lets protagonists take charge of it. Another famous author Stephen King has even rubbished her superfluous writing style by saying the following:

"It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because they're not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet." 

Her active, descriptive style is distinctive because readers don't just read her story; they actually watch it because her descriptive writing enables them to. It wouldn't have worked if she had adopted the Chinese narrative style.

Point 5) is also something for one to ponder over. Writers aren't restricted only to paper; think about writers of movies. Randomly pick a Chinese movie (i.e. movie written by a Chinese writer with a Chinese background). Chances are, you'll find that the movie would contain some sort of moral statements. Think Hero, Little Red Flowers, Fearless and even the upcoming Confucius. Now, think of an English movie (i.e. movie written by an American/English writer with a Western background). Chances are, you'll likely find a movie that's for merely entertainment. Even if it has a moral statement, it's masked so that it's intepretative.

Take Avatar, for instance. There are so many ways to intepret Avatar; some see it as lavish entertainment, while other take it for something even deeper. The message(s) present in the movie is undeniable but subliminal. So many people from different bodies have criticised the movie for various reasons: the "White Messiah", ironic environmental issues (the movie is about saving Mother Nature, but the movie is rumoured to have created a lot of pollution in the process), and even sexist allegations. This controversy is actually desirable; just look at how much money the movie is raking in, even now!


I'm pondering on whether I should write for the topic on "Listener Responses". This is another topic that I feel like discussing in a separate entry.