to sir suller =]

just a thought. I'm not actually defending my work. Just want you to know where Im coming from.

1) Yes, I THINK that the intended readers should be the scholars. Why write for the scholars? Simple, because you are referring to them and their ignorance, wrongdoings and everything.It is therefore right to write back to them so that they'll realize these negative things that have been a part of their ideology for countless years.


Thus, it is best if the writer critiqued the travelogue in English. Not that I'm negating the average people but what i/m trying to say is that if the critic wants her/his work seriously and to reach its maximum potential and hopes that it will bear fruit, I think that the critic should have been written in English rather than in english. Why? It is because when s/he wrote the critique in english there is a possibility that these western people (whose actions are the ones being questioned)will not take it seriously. Whereas if it was written in English, there is an advantage of the writer being fully understood by the western people.Therefore,they will realize that we are no inferior for we know how to fight back. It's like this...say that you are trying to wake up your sleepy board mate...if you would only say "joy, wake up.", I'm pretty confident that joy would say "yes" but would not really wake up. BUT if you would say "joy, oh mu gosh it's 8:30, we are late in our long exam" Of course joy would wake up and race to the bathroom to take a bath.

And yes I took the critique seriously because I feel the need to fight against IP discrimination. If the critic was not to be taken seriously, then why did the writer critiqued the travelogue in the first place? Don't tell me that s/he was just playing around with her/his pen and just wrote out of boredom. Why would a writer write if he does not want her/his work to be taken seriously?