Taking Sides
John Avedon’s book, which is reviewed in this issue, should be a major contribution towards an understanding of the Tibetan question, which, despite having been treated by a host of books, articles and newspaper reports over the past three decades, remains a matter for controversy. However, judging by the reviews that have appeared in the Western press, it seem doubtful if people who have already taken one side or the other will change their minds after reading it. Reviewers who are firmly behind the Tibetans, such as Jonathan Mirsky writing in the New York Tiems, have boundless praise for the book; while ‘respected Sinologists”, such as John Gittings in the London Guardian, instead of discussing the book itself, insist on advising the Tibetans to be reasonable and declare themselves ‘overseas Chinese.”
It is true that Avedon is unhesitatingly for the Tibetan cause, and not a bit ashamed of it. Most of his research was conducted among Tibetans in exile, who were evidently able to convince him of the falsehood behind the well-publicised Chinese claims. He has found a compelling story to tell and he wants as wide an audience for it as possible. Hence the straightforward narrative, instead dwelling at length over a word or a figure—a device which impresses the expert but generally tends to leave the lay reader cold.
Problem with writing for the masses is that one has to go into sufficient background stuff to make sense of the period under consideration. This part usually provides fertile ground for experts to engage in bouts of nit-picking. It will be unfortunate if Avedon is similarly subjected to scholarly dissection, for such exercises will only get in the way of disseminating much truthful and important information. Happily, it has not yet happened. Maybe the experts are still busy checking the facts. Perhaps, for a change, they find nothing to offend their sense of truth in this particular work. Or it may even be that they are reticent about launching into yet another endless and unresolvable debate. They deserve the sympathy of everyone—particularly of those editorial writers who are rapidly running short of topics to pontificate on.
John Avedon’s book, which is reviewed in this issue, should be a major contribution towards an understanding of the Tibetan question, which, despite having been treated by a host of books, articles and newspaper reports over the past three decades, remains a matter for controversy. However, judging by the reviews that have appeared in the Western press, it seem doubtful if people who have already taken one side or the other will change their minds after reading it. Reviewers who are firmly behind the Tibetans, such as Jonathan Mirsky writing in the New York Tiems, have boundless praise for the book; while ‘respected Sinologists”, such as John Gittings in the London Guardian, instead of discussing the book itself, insist on advising the Tibetans to be reasonable and declare themselves ‘overseas Chinese.”
It is true that Avedon is unhesitatingly for the Tibetan cause, and not a bit ashamed of it. Most of his research was conducted among Tibetans in exile, who were evidently able to convince him of the falsehood behind the well-publicised Chinese claims. He has found a compelling story to tell and he wants as wide an audience for it as possible. Hence the straightforward narrative, instead dwelling at length over a word or a figure—a device which impresses the expert but generally tends to leave the lay reader cold.
Problem with writing for the masses is that one has to go into sufficient background stuff to make sense of the period under consideration. This part usually provides fertile ground for experts to engage in bouts of nit-picking. It will be unfortunate if Avedon is similarly subjected to scholarly dissection, for such exercises will only get in the way of disseminating much truthful and important information. Happily, it has not yet happened. Maybe the experts are still busy checking the facts. Perhaps, for a change, they find nothing to offend their sense of truth in this particular work. Or it may even be that they are reticent about launching into yet another endless and unresolvable debate. They deserve the sympathy of everyone—particularly of those editorial writers who are rapidly running short of topics to pontificate on.
posted by editorla at
9:09 PM
<< Home