Talk:Tom Heehler

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1. When Clovis Sangrail complains that Heehler is the author of only one book, he betrays a bias against debut authors, who, by definition, are the authors of only one book. I can find nothing in the wiki guidelines that precludes debut authors, so I respectfully take issue with his primary criticism. Here's what the guideline says:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Here then, are the secondary sources:

The Chicago Tribune

The Winnipeg Free Press

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The Fayetteville Observer

Clovis Sangrail will be tempted no doubt, to remind us all that these secondary sources are speaking highly of Heehler's book and not of Heehler himself, which is a little like speaking highly of Michael Jordan's jump shot, but not of Michael Jordan.

2. Mr. Sangrail also dismisses critical acclaim coming from a blog, when in fact the acclaim comes from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer blog, and from the Fayetteville Observer blog. An editorial distinction should be made between the highly respected blogs of established newspapers, and a blog that any old person could create. The "bloggers" Sangrail dismisses are Raymond Rundus, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of North Carolina (nine years as department head) and Midge Raymond, whose literature has been nominated for three pushcart prizes. So, while Sangrail is "technically" right, I think he's missing the point. Heehler's writings are notable (Professor Rundus says of his writing technique, "How absolutely fascinating." -- to say nothing of the praise Heehler's received from the Chicago Tribune and the Winnipeg Free Press. Are they "blogs" too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjayfal (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are misquoting "How absolutely fascinating.". That is not stated about Tom's writing style, but the fact it is dedicated to his Mom. As the blog also contains correspondence with Tom it is also questionable whether it is truely independent.  If you were interested in developing literary content in wikipedia, perhaps you would be better off creating a page for Midge Raymond who has a claim to notability rather than pushing so strongly for an author unlikely to meet notability criteria.  As it appears that you have a strong interest in the effusive praise Tom, you should also consider reading wp:COI. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Go back and read the quote again, "Clovis". People dedicate books to their family members all the time. It was the "technique" used to dedicate the book to which the professor was referring, among other literary techniques explained further into the article. Your notion that an English professor would praise an author for dedicating a book to said author's family member, especially when that sort of thing happens all the time, well, that's just unconvincing, and I don't think an objective person is going to buy your argument.

As for notability criteria, please read the aforementioned guideline for notability again, and tell me what you think:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Here again, are the secondary sources:

The Chicago Tribune

The Winnipeg Free Press

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The Fayetteville Observer

As for the correspondance between Heehler and the professor, that appears to have occurred after the original blog entry. There are several blog entries over a number of days, which only underscores the fact that this English professor was mightily impressed with Heehler's literary style, not his mom. For you to imply otherwise is a mischaracterization of the professor's intention. And for the record, my name is Mary Jean Falango, not Tom, and your accusation is what we call an ad hominem attack. They are often resorted to when one's argument is weak or unconvincing. Stick to the argument, Clovis, and please tell us why the four newspapers cited are wrong, and why you are right. Let's have a third party look at this. How do we go to arbitration? Is there such a remedy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjayfal (talk • contribs) 05:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for gits and shiggles, I reviewed the Fayetteville Observer article and found more praise from Professor Rundus:

"I will today, in phases, and after what we writers like to think of as "hard labor,"  post several pastiches about Tom Heehler's remarkable new book of reference cum series of homilies,  The Well-Spoken Thesaurus."

And this:

"The value of Mr. Heehler's fascinating journey through words, sentences, and locutions of all kinds might be seen to be marred by the contrast between what is found in his title (a reference to the "Spoken" language-- English) and what is found in the "17 Lessons" derived from published/written work (in the chapter on "Rhetorical Form and Design" pp. 5-42)."

And this from the Amazon.com literary reviews:

We may be familiar with a familiar thesaurus, most prominently Roget's International Thesaurus. Tom Heehler has, however, created and brought to life a thesaurus for spoken English. One word came to me after I had made my first visit to its 392 pages: Wow! The Well-Spoken Thesaurus is a fascinating and provocative resource for lecturers or speakers of the English language of all sizes, ages, and social classes. I vow neither to lend nor sell the copy that came to me a few days ago. It is simply too convenient, too daring, too lively, invaluable. One wonders, "Why didn't someone think of such a resource as this a long time ago?" Raymond Rundus, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke

Have I misquoted those too, Clovis?

I'm also heartened that you're so impressed with Midge Raymond. Here's what she says about Heehler's book, as per his website:

"The Well-Spoken Thesaurus is a delightful book for anyone interested in language or the spoken word."

And this, the link to which you already deleted:

"The Well-Spoken Thesaurus is a great book for someone like me — I’m a writer and love words, but I am a writer precisely because I write far more eloquently than I speak. Author Tom Heehler apparently feels the same way — he began writing this book after realizing “just how inarticulate he was” and began to collect better ways of saying, well, what he’d been saying. By writing down what he said and pairing it with what he thought he should have said, he ended up with The Well-Spoken Thesaurus." Emjayfal (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjayfal (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A note from Tom Heehler. I must say that I find this debate rather amusing. I'm rooting for you Mary Jean! And no ad himinem attacks, Clovis; let's keep it civil! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.165.150 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
I have redirected the page to The Well-Spoken Thesaurus. Michael Jordan doesn't come in here: Jordan is notable for a lot of other things besides his jump shot. Heehler is known only for one thing, this one book--whose notability is, in my opinion, enough for inclusion, but certainly not immediately evident. I don't want to get in to a discussion of references, but I will note this: it is true that the references are blogs. It is also true that they are blogs run by newspapers, but they're still blogs, and until a big newspaper reports on this in the actual paper, notability will remain a bit iffy. But to the point here: the author has produced only one book, the reviews are of the books and mention the author exclusively in connection to the book, and until he does more notable work he doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR--esp. given that the relative paucity of sources is an indication that he has not yet published "a significant or well-known work", but only a work of some notability. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse Drmies' action here, as well as his underlying reasoning. Perhaps if I had read the book, I could express my agreement in more literary language. He's correct.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  19:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I wish I could as well. You know, I think I am going to order it. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)