Talk:Nickel and Dimed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] peer review

In response to your request for comments, here are my reactions:

1. well-written in terms of basic grammar, syntax, writing style, consistency, encyclopedic (or book review) tone.
2. Interesting topic. My familiarity with the book is limited to having read the original article in Harper's from which the book was expanded, plus a long desriptive review in the NYRB. At least by those, I think your facts are accurate and balanced.

My suggestions

1. Give a 1-2 sentence summary of her main message related to each of her jobs. You did that for most, but it would round out the summary and reduce some vagueness. It doesn't have to be a list and you have a good start. I am imagining perhaps another 5-10 sentences in the article.
2. There is one sentence that seems like a problem to me: With the odds stacked on her side, a college education culminating with a Ph.D. in biology, a car, only one person to support, and initial funds, Ehrenreich fails to sustain a suitable lifestyle. "a suitable lifestyle" is way too vague. Does she mean suitable to her middle class tastes, or is she arguing that any 40 hour a week job should pay enough to afford ___, ___, and ___? Is she arguing for raising the minimum wage, for requiring better benefits in low end jobs, or something else?

Overall, nice job. Your work here will be welcome. alteripse 04:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

The "Criticism" section is entirely unsourced. Anyone can come up with reasons why this book is good reporting, is poor reporting, gives an accurate picture of the lives of low-wage earners, misconstructs the lives of low-wage earners and so on. Unless the section is backed up with sources it is original research and shouldn't be here. Pilatus 04:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now removed a few paragraphs from this section. The book is concerned with the economy of low-wage work. Her use of marijuana, contempt for her superiors, employers and the work itself and the low regard that she holds organized religion in have nothing to do with the aim of the book itself. In fact, the book is written by a journalist with a Socialist POV, not by a sociologist who aims to be impartial. This point has been made in the main article. Pilatus 13:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring much of what has been removed. Marijuana use is important because (as it originally said before its unwarranted deletion) part of the job search was a drug test. I'm including as reference an article by the Columbia Journalism Review, which is extremely critical of this book, and cannot be said to be POV.

The only thing about this article is that the entire thing is POV, and socialist-minded contributors seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism. Too bad - there's no room for isms here. --L. 19:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Students of literary criticism quickly learn to distinguish between the author and the narrator or a literary work. Even in clearly autobiographical literature the narrator is not the author. The same is true in journalism, the author is distinct from the issues raised.

Drug testing is mentioned in the "Minnesota" chapter on several occasions, together with personality testing, to make the point that retailers insist on conformity in their employees. Questioning this conclusion of hers is legitimate critism, criticizing the person for taking marijuana is not.

Same with the "lack of work ethic". Her imagining to be a "princess" and eventually walking out on her second waitress job on a busy night is meant to convey a sense of overwork. One can question that, one may even question the author's use of literary devices, but one cannot attack the author for the role she plays as a waitress.

You are also quoting selectively. The biographical piece on Mrs Ehrenreich from the CJR that you mention in the article (it's less a review on the book and more a biography of the author) cites in the end positive statements from the Washington Post and a Columbia sociologist. Don't let your political standpoint get the better of you! Pilatus 02:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with the serious lack of objectivity in the book. Pilatus 04:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This author/narrator dichotomy you introduce is a cop-out. This is not a piece of art; it is a piece of non-fiction intended to be journalism. Within journalism (and study the proceedings of libel cases if you don't believe me) a person's personal role and beliefs often become major issues, and cannot be seperated from their work. And by calling it journalism, it is open to criticism by professional journalists.

Don't play the political card on me - as my profile and edits indicate, I despise all political standpoints, and have gotten flamed by libertarians and communists alike on Wiki. And FYI, a criticism section by definition would include selective critical statements on the book. Don't expect to lavish praise on a book without expecting negative comments. The edits I made were well-needed and conductive to Wiki's mission. --L. 16:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The essay on Mrs Ehrenreich and her best-selling book that you are quoting in the article is actually heaping high praise on the author. The text says:

For Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed is something of a literary triumph. Her essays … seem one-dimensional when read in large doses. And while her books are absorbing and original, the writing isn't always stylish. Nickel and Dimed, however, shows us a veteran journalist at the very top of her game. The book has a sturdy architecture: four tight, compact chapters in which the prose achieves a perfect balance between wit, anger, melancholy, and rage.

It continues:

Ehrenreich is superb on the capricious and demeaning aspects of low-wage work. … Her descriptions of the work itself often have a jarring, peculiar originality. …

Stating that "even the Columbia Journalism Review gave the book an extremely negative assessment" is misreading the article fully. Your political ideas did get the better of you. You might find it disquieting that Mrs Ehrenreich "never studied journalism … and never relinquished her disdain for authority" and that it somehow detracts form the validity of her work". The CJR doesn't, rather the contrary. (I agree with you that Barbara "never embraced objectivity" and unlike the essayist find that it damages her credibility enormously.) Unless that is backed up by external sources saying do is dangerously close to original research and thus shouldn't be here. Pilatus 23:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pilatus, have you even bothered to read the Columbia essay im full?!? It attacks her for not discussing the "purges, executions, and show trials that characterized the Cultural Revolution" in her writings on China. They call her work prior to this book "one-dimensional" and not "stylish." Right after your "jarring" quote, the essay mentions "contradictory sentiments" and how her "compassion degenerates into spite." The final paragraph mixes insults with respect. In short, the article is giving her the most backhanded of praises, if this could be labeled praise at all.

Apparently, it is you who is allowing political sentiments and positive preconceptions of this book to color your interpretation of this article, and playing with irrelavent issues. "Students of literary criticism?" Accusations against me of political bias and original research? My friend, I am not impressed with long words and lawyerly nitpicking. --L. 00:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Does the essay really attack Ehrenreich for failing to discuss the horrors of the Cultural Revolution in 1974? That section of the text looks to me like a stock development story of the left-wing political activist - from someone whose "early journalistic output is indistinguishable from cant", moving in circles where "two … friends denounced [her]", that she left behind to develop "today's mature literary voice".

I also don't see her "compassion degenerating into spite" as "back-handed criticism", as you say. The essay clearly states that such sentiments are part of the journalistic tradition beginning with London and Orwell, they are a literary device to illustrate the "immutability of class boundaries" and provide "examples of reportorial honesty and, in Orwell's case, narrative sophistication". Besides, from Ehrenreich's standpoint, such behaviour is self-consistent, she implies that one must display solidarity with one's fellow workers, on everyone else one can heap scorn as much as one would like. Pilatus 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's get back to the marijuana issue and the "exiled princess" issue. I could make statements to the extent that these are literary devices used to make a point, and you use these to criticize the author and the book. Unless these statements are backed up by external sources these are original research in the sense of WP:NOR and should no be here. You say that "within journalism … a person's personal role and beliefs often become major issues, and cannot be seperated from their work. And by calling it journalism, it is open to criticism by professional journalists." I couldn't agree more. If any critic has made such statements they should be included with a reference to the source. If they can't be backed up with references they must go per Wikipedia policy. Pilatus 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"I could make statements to the sense..." - gee, what does that sound like? Sorry, but direct quotes from the book can't be considered original research. The author of the CSJ article would hardly have included their remarks unless they meant something.

Your arguments that the harsh words in the article is somehow not an "attack" remind me of the sophism of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. He once wrote that if someone's getting roasted over an open fire and feels pain, it's really only the guy's personal judgement and opinion that he's feeling pain from the fire.

This discussion is over. Your rewording of the CSJ article is acceptable, but I will brook no more of your deletions, which are clearly aimed at destroying all criticism against a book you admire. --L. 18:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"I could make statements" means exactly that. It means that I could put forward my own interpretation backed up by quotes from the text. Do read WP:NOR, especially the section "Origin of this policy", which states

It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.

If you find that in some review the author is criticized for smoking hashish or thinking of herself as a fairy princess by all means put it in. If this can't be backed up by external sources it must be left out per established Wikipedia policy that isn't open to discussion.

There are a number of things wrong with the article. What is missing is a summary of the last chapter "Evaluation" of that book as well as a critical commentary on that - backed up with external sources, otherwise someone will come and shout WP:NOR.

I also think that there are a number of things wrong with the book - the style isn't great, the author sets herself up for failure in order to make a point and it is full of inconsistencies (case in point: in the "Minnesota" chapter the aunt of a friend who moved to Minneapolis as a single mother manages just fine with an unskilled job and advises her to "seek out a church". When the author tries the same she fails and the church isn't helful for her). Unless I see these things in the literature somewhere they can't go in the article per policy.

I will look up sorces in the next few days to work on the article and look forward to your collaboration. Pilatus 19:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored last good version, 11/21/06

Hey folks. I realize there has been some recent discussion about the book in the sections above. However, it's clear to me that this article got off track a few months back causing the primary image and intro to be removed. Here's where the article seems to have gone astray. Someone removed these important elements, then vandalism occurred which essentially solidified the bad edits.

Here's my first restore, which brings back the bulk of the better version. Here's a second "fix-up", which reinstates the good edits that have recently been made. Hopefully this is agreeable to all the legitimate editors involved in this article. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)