Misrepresenting a Memoir as a How-To Book

Yesterday, I wrote about two articles over at the Wall Street Journal. One is about a psychotic, over-achievement mom, the other a relaxed, permissive, cool mom. Subconsciously, I felt as though WSJ wanted me to choose between them.

The first of those articles was by Amy Chua, author of a new book allegedly espousing the benefits of raising children the Chinese way. This involves pushing kids brutally hard and fiercely prescribing all their activities. Reading the article, I got the strong impression that this woman was proud of heaping both work and shame upon her children.

A flurry of criticism has followed its publication. Among all the online arguments comes this piece by Jeff Yang, writing at the San Francisco Chronicle.

The more I re-read the Wall Street Journal article, the more I felt like I wasn’t getting the whole story. The “excerpt” made the book seem like a harsh diatribe against American parenting standards and a handbook of Ancient Chinese Secrets for fixing your lazy, sullen, Wii-addicted kids…There was little, if any humility in the Journal piece. Something was definitely missing.

Then I saw a tweet by Jen Wang, who blogs at Disgrasian about her own “hardass Asian mom,” in which she also noted a disconnect between the Journal story and the book from which it was supposedly excerpted. When I reached out to her for details, she explained, “The book isn’t a how-to manual, as the Journal excerpt would have you believe — it’s a memoir. As such, you’ll see some truth in it, and you’ll also see glaring blind spots and a sometimes-woeful lack of self-examination. That truth, instead of making you hate Chua, will cause you to reflect on your own upbringing — and your own parenting style, good and bad. And I think this is especially important for Asian Americans who feel that they were parented Chua-style, and are bitter about it — that is to say, most of us.” (Yang, emphasis mine)

That same piece includes the best criticism of Amy Chua’s WSJ piece I’ve read. It’s by… Amy Chua.

“I was very surprised,” she says. “The Journal basically strung together the most controversial sections of the book. And I had no idea they’d put that kind of a title on it. But the worst thing was, they didn’t even hint that the book is about a journey, and that the person at beginning of the book is different from the person at the end – that I get my comeuppance and retreat from this very strict Chinese parenting model.” (Yang)

What gives?

I know what it says, but Amy Chua didn't compose this awful summary.

It turns out that my impressions were wrong. How, exactly, does an article, published in a major newspaper, say “By Amy Chua” when it is actually a summary of a book by Amy Chua?

Blogging is made for summaries, by the way. Typically, bloggers cherry pick the focus-paragraphs from other stuff, but they’re clearly quoted and sourced. You may disagree extensively with the conclusions, but it’s clear what’s what. If, for instance, I misrepresent an author, I get the heat. Who do you think is getting the heat at WSJ? Someone, probably. But, hell if I know who.

This is a pretty rookie mistake. Was it sloppiness, willful distortion, or naïvete? I know I have to read between the lines with the Journal, but I always reckoned on standard bias. But, when I can’t trust the by-line, that’s a bigger deal. And, it raises another question: What the hell was the point of publishing this?

The Journal has no place for, “How a Fender Strat Changed My Life.”  It wants piano and violin, it wants Chua’s college-resume worldview.  Sometimes it has no choice but to confront a Mark Zuckerberg but they quickly reframe the story into the corporate narrative.  “The Google boys were on to something, but to make it profitable they had to bring in Eric Schmidt…”  The WSJ is operating well within the establishment, right wing, artists-are-gay and corporations-are-not context.  It wants kids who will conform, who will plug into the machine (albeit at the higher levels), it wants the kind of kids who want the approval of the kinds of people who read the WSJ. (TLP)

That’s by The Last Psychiatrist and he may be on to something. But, back to Yang at the Chronicle:

I consumed “Battle Hymn” in a single sitting, and Wang is absolutely right. It’s a riveting read, and nothing like what the Journal “excerpt” suggests. There’s still plenty to be horrified by at in the actual book, but even more, as Wang noted, to think about – and laugh at, as odd as that may seem to those who haven’t yet read it: Far from being strident, the book’s tone is slightly rueful, frequently self-deprecating and entirely aware of its author’s enormities. (Yang)

There are so many lessons in this experience that it’s hard to list them all in my mind. But, if I ever write a memoir, I hope some asshole doesn’t cut together all my ugliest moments.

Incidentally, my Buzz network (and Nicholas Schiller in particular) deserves the credit for enlivening the discussion around my last post. Next up: What parenting wisdom can we salvage from this mess?