Basket.

Singaporean man believes he has discovered the meaning of life

And believes he can describe it - a topic he personally says has "puzzled and troubled" countless through the ages - in a book that is less than 100 pages thick. So he is either the greatest philosopher ever to live, or is deluded into believing that he is the greatest philosopher ever to live.

I think I'll go with the latter description.

I mean, look at his writing (his introduction is available in the link above, and I assure you the rest of his book is not a magical improvement). It is absolutely terrible.

I posted a comment to that effect. You can find it under the comments on his latest post. Surprisingly, he allowed it, but had this to say:



Chun Wee,

do you have statistics that prove only terrible writers use vanity press to publish books and all traditional publishing writers are great writers?

Are you implying that Virginia Woolf who used vanity press to be a terrible writer?

If you think I'm a terrible writer, then do state what of my writing is terrible and how to improve it. Otherwise, it is just your opinion and not a fact to make the accusations. :)


I thoughtlessly pasted over my reply, which is now awaiting his approval for publication on his site, but here is the gist of what I said.

Basically, he missed the point completely. Nowhere did I say or even imply that all writers who use vanity presses are terrible, nor that all writers who use actual publishing houses are great writers. But think about this: a vanity press is a publisher that accepts money to publish. A publishing house is an organisation that pays writers to publish their works. Which do you think is more concerned about quality? Which do you think has a better chance of producing good quality work? Obviously the publishing houses, because they are spending money in the hope of making a profit. Of course they would be more stringent about the quality of manuscripts they received. Vanity presses, on the other hand, are paid by writers to publish. Do you think they will be as concerned about quality? The money's already in their pockets.

Undeniably, publishing houses have produced dreadful works as well, and it would be quite the generalisation to condemn as worthless all texts produced by vanity presses. However, since publishing houses definitely have more stringent criteria of acceptance, it must be concluded that any texts produced by them are likely to be of higher quality than any produced by vanity presses.

It would also be interesting to know whether the author took his manuscript to any publishing houses? If he did, how many? Was a vanity press his last resort or did he simply decide not to take his chances with the publishing houses, knowing they would not accept his drivel?

I would also like him to present me with evidence that Virginia Woolf ever used vanity presses. But it really isn't important; just a historical tidbit, because that isn't the point, as I never stated or implied anywhere that every single person who uses vanity presses is a poor writer.

He, however, is one, and that ought to be clear enough just from the introduction he posted on his website.

Let us begin with the first sentence.

The topic of the meaning of life is undoubtedly the most discussed as well as the most profound that has left countless people puzzled and troubled across the ages.

That is a horrible sentence. Clumsy, convoluted and poorly punctuated (that is, not), it is a mouthful for any reader. I suggest:

The question of the true meaning of life has intrigued and perplexed humanity down the ages.

Original: 29 words.
My version: 15 words.
Says: Exactly the same thing.

Following that, let us look at this particular paragraph:

The topic of my first book was intended to be on consciousness and its enhancement. I researched on consciousness so that I could help people enhance their consciousness, better navigate through their lives and avoid many of life's problems. I theorised that there is a consciousness mechanism in the mind that I self-named as 'CMech' that leads to our interpretation and awareness of our reality. Before I could finish up my manuscript on the topic I was overwhelmed by the many books dealing with the meaning of life and happiness topics in the bookstores I visited. The interest of people to understand the meaning of life and to find happiness in these books were so great I felt I had to provide my own contribution towards their understanding.

This is an absolutely terrible paragraph. Mr Tang seems not to understand that good writing is about keeping things simple. Simple phrasing, cool, clear expression and short, easy sentences. He also seems to love the word "consciousness", maybe because it strokes his ego to use such a "big" and "deep" word. Anyway, let us see how we can make it all better:

I intended the topic of my first book to be the enhancement of consciousness. I researched on consciousness so I could help people out in this regard, aiding them in navigating through life and its many obstacles. I theorise that there is a mechanism in the mind, which I will term "CMech", that controls our awareness and interpretation of reality. While conducting my research for this book, I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of works dealing with the topic at hand. I was inspired by this fascination with the meaning of life, and felt that I had to add my contribution towards the subject.

Written on the fly, not very good, but still a lot better than the original, I believe. This is just picking at his expression; it's not even criticising his writing style. Notice how his sentences have a tendency to switch topics entirely; one sentence he speaks of this mechanism in our minds, and the very next he is talking about how intriguing this topic is and how that is an inspiration to him. His paragraph is thusly incoherent and lacks focus. That is very poor writing.

I am obviously not going to spend any more time to correct his awful work. Just read it though, and you will probably be able to understand why he needs a vanity press. No sane publisher is going to give him an advance for that pile of drivel.

My advice to Mr Tang: spare the world your pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Go ahead and believe yourself to be a great writer and philosopher if you want to, but do it in private.