Your title won’t only alienate Kingstonians, it’ll alienate many actual feminists. It’ll alienate people who haven’t made a decision yet on angry asian men and why we are angry.

Of course, our activism shouldn’t start with those uninterested in our movement at all. But it has to start somewhere and alienating potential allies is not a good place to start.

I mean, what has your title accomplished so far? It’s gotten us to spend a lot of time we could be strategizing on arguing the merits of an inflammatory title ;P

Xian,

I just sent an e-mail to your yahoo account.

So basically, I think there are two functions of a provocative title.

1. It brings in “moderates” who are interested in hearing a different perspective. These “moderates” are actively looking for something different, but they don’t have access to ideas that are different. The provocative title immediately identifies the article as being different.

2. It serves to reach “people like us” to let them know right off the bat that their ideas concerning the stereotypes perpetuated by Asian American lit are justified. They know that there is an intellectual contingent that supports their doubts about the current Kingstonian trend.

Yes, a provocative title alienates potential allies. But it also attracts potential allies, and it pulls in “moderates” who are curious. And we are right.

I’ve been reading this book on one of the greatest organizers of all time, Abraham Lincoln. His “Cooper Union” speech was one of the turning points in his bid for the Republican nomination. I think his closing sentence is applicable to us. He said:

“Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

Right makes might. I’m betting my next copper penny on Abe!

Moderation in language does not mean compromising your message or principals at all.

Your principles are not moderate. They are right. The question is how to strategically plan the victory of those principles.

Your title will reach people “like us”? Who like us needs to be pushed on this issue? Who like us is teetering on the fence of whether or not to plug sexist/racist quasi-feminist literature?

“Getting in people’s faces” is not a worthy goal. “Being right” in their faces is what’s necessary. Your title won’t only alienate Kingstonians, it’ll alienate many actual feminists. It’ll alienate people who haven’t made a decision yet on angry asian men and why we are angry.

Of course, our activism shouldn’t start with those uninterested in our movement at all. But it has to start somewhere and alienating potential allies is not a good place to start.

I mean, what has your title accomplished so far? It’s gotten us to spend a lot of time we could be strategizing on arguing the merits of an inflammatory title ;P

Can’t have an Asian American book without a rapist!

D,

I just checked your 10 Steps (plus 2 bonuses), and she’s employed 6 of them.

You wrote:

You might wish to describe his small and flaccid penis.

and

Mentioning some sort of rape act will only strengthen your characterization.

Well, Min Jin gets creative by putting these two characterizations into two separate Asian male characters. No wonder it was a bestseller!

I think what Xian was saying was that my article might be able to reach or change more “moderate” people if I made the title more moderate or “respectful.” Xian, is this correct? I think what D is emphasizing is that the “moderate” people are wrong on this issue.

I was thinking about this this morning, and I think my view is more “moderate” than the people who get mad at Asian men for not buying into the Kingstonian tropes that the publishing industry pushes. I’m more moderate than the “moderates.” Think about it–there’s an expectation that Asian men should buy anything that is Asian despite the fact that these representations tear us down. Who is moderate? Certainly it would be considered extreme if we were, say, white men or black men choosing literature that perpetuated stereotypes about us.

I was thinking about this this morning because I knew there was a subconscious reason why I chose a provocative–but true– title, and it both dovetails with what D is emphasizing and extends what Xian and I were talking about. For the Kingstonians, it re-calibrates their ideas of what Asian Americans want to see from their writers. For the people like us, it pulls us in because we know it’s not going to be the same old Kingstonian back slapping and high fives that goes on in Asian American lit circles as they tear down the Asian man.

So a provocative title reaches people like us. For Kingstonians, they’ll read it once and think to themselves “oh, another angry Asian male.” But eventually, some of them will have to listen to our perspective as well, especially if it’s backed by activism. Does this make sense?

I think it’s good to be strategic, but eventually you have to get into people’s faces, kind of like what the Fallout Central guys are doing. And yes, I totally know it takes a ton of time, money, and energy!

Also, being “moderate” or having middle-of-the-road views doesn’t mean you’re really “open-minded” or “compassionate.” It just means you’re not taking any strong stand.

Actually, the threesome part takes place at the very beginning of the book, around the time Casey’s “traditional” Korean father punches her in the face. I was still part of Min Jin’s cheering squad well after both scenes.

I turned sour mostly towards the end when I realized that nothing was going to get resolved. The white guys would still be the stereotyped carriers of masculinity, the Asian women would still “find themselves” by sleeping with every guy under the sun, and the Asian guys would just be props that enabled the white guys to shine. Oh, and the Asian rapist.

Xian, we’ve gotta meet up sometime later this year.