<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Radical Acceptance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/radical-acceptance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/radical-acceptance/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 17:23:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: heather</title>
		<link>http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/radical-acceptance/comment-page-1/#comment-10858</link>
		<dc:creator>heather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/?p=14101#comment-10858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not going to say anything about the story; enough has been said about it already by many others. There are some good elements to it, but, as some have said, there&#039;a a lot that&#039;s formulaic, derivative, cliche-ish. I want to focus on the writing. The jacket describes American Dervish as &quot;brilliantly written.&quot; On the contrary. Akhtar&#039;s use of language is stunningly poor, for someone who calls himself a writer. It&#039;s awkward and clumsy. &quot;All at once my feet were lost and there was no ground.&quot; (p. 220) Huh? Does this mean &quot;All at once I lost my footing and the ground went out from under me.&quot; How about &quot;...a short man in a red suit and wavy salt-and-pepper hair....&quot; (p. 289) I&#039;ve never seen someone wearing wavy salt-and-pepper hair, have you? Seriously, this is a misplaced mofidifer, one of the simplest of writing mistakes. Why is it even here? Why didn&#039;t Akhtar catch it himself when he worked on polishing his work? Oh, polishing; hmmm. Not a word that seems to apply. Nor does the idea of working with an editor, apparently. Worse than clumsy anbd awkward is ugly; this is some of the ugliest writing I&#039;ve ever come across. &quot;...smoke pouring from his mouth.&quot; (p. 291). The man is exhaling cigarette smoke! It isn&#039;t a forest fire. &quot;...egg-shaped eyes....&quot; (p. 319) What the heck is an egg-shaped eye? &quot;...her insides ravaged with cancer.&quot; (p. 19) Cancer ravages the body, not just your internal organs—or, as Akhtar so nicely puts it, your insides. In summation, I could cite hundreds of examples of poor writing in this book, but my point is not to draw attention to a few occasional lapses. I want to draw attention to the bigger issue of the author&#039;s lack of facility with language. It isn&#039;t enough to have a story to tell; a writer has to be able to express that story using the medium of his/her craft: words. If you don&#039;t have a natural ability, then for goodness sake get yourself a good editor, because this is just embarrassing, an affront to all of the really good writing in this world. Please, reviewers and readers: No more with the &quot;brilliantly written&quot; nonsense.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not going to say anything about the story; enough has been said about it already by many others. There are some good elements to it, but, as some have said, there&#8217;a a lot that&#8217;s formulaic, derivative, cliche-ish. I want to focus on the writing. The jacket describes American Dervish as &#8220;brilliantly written.&#8221; On the contrary. Akhtar&#8217;s use of language is stunningly poor, for someone who calls himself a writer. It&#8217;s awkward and clumsy. &#8220;All at once my feet were lost and there was no ground.&#8221; (p. 220) Huh? Does this mean &#8220;All at once I lost my footing and the ground went out from under me.&#8221; How about &#8220;&#8230;a short man in a red suit and wavy salt-and-pepper hair&#8230;.&#8221; (p. 289) I&#8217;ve never seen someone wearing wavy salt-and-pepper hair, have you? Seriously, this is a misplaced mofidifer, one of the simplest of writing mistakes. Why is it even here? Why didn&#8217;t Akhtar catch it himself when he worked on polishing his work? Oh, polishing; hmmm. Not a word that seems to apply. Nor does the idea of working with an editor, apparently. Worse than clumsy anbd awkward is ugly; this is some of the ugliest writing I&#8217;ve ever come across. &#8220;&#8230;smoke pouring from his mouth.&#8221; (p. 291). The man is exhaling cigarette smoke! It isn&#8217;t a forest fire. &#8220;&#8230;egg-shaped eyes&#8230;.&#8221; (p. 319) What the heck is an egg-shaped eye? &#8220;&#8230;her insides ravaged with cancer.&#8221; (p. 19) Cancer ravages the body, not just your internal organs—or, as Akhtar so nicely puts it, your insides. In summation, I could cite hundreds of examples of poor writing in this book, but my point is not to draw attention to a few occasional lapses. I want to draw attention to the bigger issue of the author&#8217;s lack of facility with language. It isn&#8217;t enough to have a story to tell; a writer has to be able to express that story using the medium of his/her craft: words. If you don&#8217;t have a natural ability, then for goodness sake get yourself a good editor, because this is just embarrassing, an affront to all of the really good writing in this world. Please, reviewers and readers: No more with the &#8220;brilliantly written&#8221; nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
