Publishing choice
In reference to Bradley Winterton’s book review of Rahul Jacob’s travelogue (“Going to lots of places and none at all,” Feb. 22, page 14), Winterton wonders very early on in his piece why Jacob did not publish this book in the West.
“The first thing to strike you about this book is its publisher. Shouldn’t the travel editor of the FT [Financial Times] be able to get a London or New York publisher for his book?” Winterton asks. “Did its being published in India mean that it had been turned down by more prestigious houses elsewhere?”
As someone who has also published a book in India, I take offense at this statement. My publishers in India have been nothing short of professional and they have given me the kind of attention and help that I do not think I would have received in either London or New York. In addition, India has one of the fastest growing populations of readers and a long history of storytelling — and is truly an exciting place for writers. So I do not understand the importance Winterton seemed to place on publishing in the capitals of the corporate world.
Even in the US, very often the best books are discovered and published by the small non-profit presses and the university presses. While the old saying asks us not to judge a book by its cover, the better advice perhaps is not to judge a book by its publisher, let alone by where it is published.
TSERING NAMGYAL
Iowa City, Iowa
Bradley Winterton replies: How nice to hear again from my old friend Tsering Namgyal! But I’m sorry he finds fault with what I wrote about publishing options in my book review. When he was working at the Taipei Times and looking for a publisher for his own first book some years ago he asked for my help, and I don’t remember him expressing a very strong preference for an Asian publisher at that time.
I’m glad he’s happy with the Indian publisher he eventually found, but the fact remains that a publisher from one of the old publishing centers such as London or New York is going to get a book far wider exposure than most Asian publishers are likely to be able to manage at present.
The key is distribution, and admirable though the best Indian publishers may be, and with growing potential in the new global situation, their ability to get books into bookshops throughout the English-speaking world, through no fault of their own, still can’t compare with that of the globally established publishers.
Rahul Jacob’s book was fascinating, and I realize he may well have made a deliberate decision to favor an India-based company with his debut publication (though Picador India is in fact a part of the Pan Macmillan publishing group). Nevertheless, I can’t help noticing that Picador India still doesn’t have its own Web site, and that Jacob’s book isn’t at the time of writing available through either Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. None of this bodes well for its wide distribution, though I realize — and hope — the situation may change for the better in the near future.
Defending Heritage?
I could not help but chuckle at Rupert Hammond-Chambers becoming the front man and stepping up to defend The Heritage Foundation in the “retirement” of Dr John Tkacik (Letters, Feb. 22, page 8).
The picture Hammond-Chambers paints would have us think that Tkacik’s “well-researched, principled” work and Heritage’s “reputation” would be a marriage made in heaven, so why did they divorce?
Hammond-Chambers is the perfect front man; as president of the US-Taiwan Business Council, he is removed yet affected by the implications of the affair. It does not take much to guess the priorities, political alliances and concerns that he would have in Taiwan. He can state that it would be “wholly implausible” for the foundation to be influenced and not have to bear any responsibility when something later hits the fan.
As a co-signer with Tkacik and 23 others to the two open letters to Taiwan’s minister of justice and the third open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), my sources indicate otherwise and support Cao Changqing (曹長青). There is a simple solution: Have the director of The Heritage Foundation not talk “towards the point” but state simply and unequivocally that Tkacik’s “retirement” was not influenced in any way by funding, pressure or influence from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People’s Republic of China or any other source. If it’s true, that is not that big of a limb to go out on.
JEROME KEATING
Taipei
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS