When Neil and I returned from Singapore, and I plugged my Chinese SIM card back into my mobile, I received the following text: Drinks at 8pm at The House in memory of Peter. Being immediately mystified by this cryptic message, I rang the originator of the text and found out that an Australian bloke we barely knew had passed away in Xiamen upon his return from holidays in the Philippines.
He was only 31. And he was an alcoholic.
So perhaps it was fitting, maybe ironic, that we were gathering at a bar one week later. Peter had been working in Xiamen for less than a year, and had made a number of friends. Three of them chose to speak, reminiscing about great times with Peter, which all seemed to revolve around the themes:
- Peter was a great guy
- He was looking to get drunk / he was completely off his face
- He whipped his little fella out to have a whizz in public whenever he felt like it
- He was addicted to Handjob Parlours™
- Wasn’t Peter a great guy?
- He’d want us to get drunk in his memory
Hey, remember that time Peter drunkenly head butted a complete stranger because this stranger happened to tell Peter off for insulting and harassing his wife? What a kidder!
It is, naturally, a great shame that someone so young passed away. But there’s no gentle, diplomatic way to say this — romanticising his excessive drinking is bad. Treating his alcoholism as a charming personality quirk instead of an addiction that most probably killed him is not, in my humble opinion, a fitting send-off for someone who was supposed to be a friend. The sad thing is, the only memories people have of him are that he was a drunk who managed to get away with extremely bad behaviour.
You claim yourself you don’t know Pete well, so it is not for you to judge who he was or how his friends chose to send him off. I am disgusted to read what you have said in the piece and it is completely irresponsible journalism. If you are the journalist you claim to be you would post an immediate retraction. Peter was someone’s son, someone’s brother and someone’s friend. You do not write this kind of comments about someone who was well liked by all. You have no idea how he died and for you to make such a supposition like you have proves yourself to be lacking in both tact and journalistic ediquette.
Comment by Anonymous — 7 March 2005 @ 5:02 pm
True, I didn’t know Peter well at all, but what I saw of him did not paint a very positive light. I’m sure he was liked by enough people, otherwise there would not have been a gathering organised. However, organising a remembrance at a bar for an alcoholic is a bit ironic, don’t you think? I also never said he was well liked by all, because he wasn’t. I’m sure the bloke he head butted wasn’t his biggest fan. No one is well liked by all, don’t be ridiculous.
I may not know exactly how he died, but I have a clue. He wasn’t looking well before he went on holiday, his friends were worried about his drinking, he never drank water, only beer (I’ve heard), so an educated guess would say drinking contributed to his death.
And I’ve never claimed to be a journalist. It’s my own personal site, so I can write what I choose. Whether or not you think it’s tactful of good etiquette is your business, I don’t try to be politically correct here and I call it as I see it. It’s a shame someone so young passed away, but if you think we should be romanticising his alcoholism, please go ahead on your own website.
Addendum: you must be a Xiamen resident who doesn’t really know me because you think I’m a journalist. Also, because your IP address shows you live in China, and you choose to remain anonymous, I’m pretty sure you live in Xiamen.
Addendum 2: definition of irony – when someone is upset because I was honest in my opinion about the deceased when he was lauded for his honest opinions, no matter who they upset. Hey hey!
Comment by andrea — 7 March 2005 @ 8:08 pm
I naturally favour the cool observer over the hot and bothered, I cant help but feel –as Anonymous seems to (Mar/7)- that there were aspects of the send-off that stayed below your radar.. Liquor can be said to contribute to the death of everyone who enjoys it and employs it. Likewise tobacco; likewise roughhouse. If it were known that alcohol was Peter’s end, then yes it would be fitting/ironic to hold the event in a bar. And it would be fitting/ironic to gather for an emphysema casualty in a Smoke-easy if China only had such places; or if it’s violence carries a friend off we could repair to the steamroom for a few fitting/ironic Hemingway headbutts. But as the state/press would give no information about the death, let alone the cause of it, the rest of us are left to rub clues together, as you note (ibid.) And in the meantime we are Westerners, and it is the custom after all to gather and to drink on an occasion like this.
S/he is right that you neednt have found the venue itself
You are right to knock excessive/addictive drinking, and yes it is bad to romanticise it. But that’s not what most of us were doing there. Everyone knows an addict is usually quite the opposite of charming. Peter’s charm was something unto itself.; on the contrary it brought him a lot of grief. is simply wrong. To take one obvious example, some of the men who chose to speak –there were four- touched on themes more varied and profound than just Great guy/ great time. My gratitude at hearing those memories and words has lasted, while any annoyance at the rest of it has not.
Some of the behaviour was bad, yes, sometimes extremely bad. However I don’t see that he
And your contention that these are
Anonymous terms your work journalism. I think you shouldn’t reject this out of hand, it’s not yet a bad thing. No, you are not Accredited, you have no publisher for the courts to break and you’re not about to do jailtime for mucking outside the PC box. But the blogosphere is the new medium, yes? It requires only competence, while a site like yours verges on art.
Anyway you are a journalist in at least one sense, because you make a record of your days. And as this record is intended for general viewing (why attend the send-off of someone you barely knew, if not to report on it?), then I say the only real difference between you and Johnathan Watts is his paycheque.
This is not to say you have Responsibilities or should meet standards other than your own – good god! May you always write it as you judge it. And by the way I am sure our departed brother would have defended your right to field an honest opinion, and loved your not retracting it in the face of fitting/ironic objection.
Comment by tlong — 10 March 2005 @ 6:40 pm
Thank you tlong, for a perspective from someone who knew him.
PS. I didn’t attend to report on it. It just struck me while I was there, and I decided to write about what I felt and thought about the situation.
Comment by andrea — 11 March 2005 @ 8:37 am