...once they've actually TRIED it? As far as I can tell ... they can't, because I've only ever really seen serious criticism of the method from people who never really have. Not seriously, anyway, and not in the way that Heisig himself recommends.
I've been a long-time member of one of those "other" online Japanese language resources ... a for-pay one. I've used it off-and-on, depending on my motivation/mood levels, and sometimes lurk around their forums. A couple of weeks ago, I read a post by a surprised (yet enthusiastic) member who had just barely tried the Heisig method for himself. (He also recommended Fabrice's site for review, and is a member here.) His initial claim of "50 a day" was a shocking number to me, but I also found it irresistably seductive.
I, like him, had heard numerous things about Heisig ... much of it not good. The whole Heisig concept has been treated with such distaste by so many alleged "elite" members of the Japanese-learning community, well ... I steered well clear of it.
And now, I hate myself for doing that. I'm also kind of ticked off at the ignorant smugness of others that scared me away from Heisig to begin with, years ago. They did me a genuine disservice, by speaking so authoritatively about something they knew so little about.
In the very same thread on that forum that inspired me to try Heisig out, this was recently posted (by someone who'd only "heard" of Heisig, of course):
NO.
Did I become convinced that I would never need to study kanji again, and would only ever need to know vague meanings + stroke order?
NO.
Did I bring shame and dishonor upon the Japanese Ministry of Education, for accomplishing in a few days (at least halfway) what it takes an entire year for their students to learn?
NO.
What happened was, I walked away with 30 brand new kanji in 90 minutes. NINETY minutes. I discovered that not only was this guy's estimate of being able to reach fifty new kanji a day possible ... I realize that if you were truly throwing your back into it full time, fifty-a-day might be something of a conservative estimate.
That was exactly two weeks ago today. I've learned the writing and meaning of almost 700 new kanji since then. Now, here is where I think the naysayers against Heisig REALLY fall short in actually trying to say there's something wrong with learning this way.
1) It's not as though I would have learned 700 kanji "completely" in that time using some other method. This isn't time that I've 'wasted" when I could've been studying the same "kanji" properly. This is 700 kanji I wouldn't have obtained using any other method that I can think of. This is me being 700 kanji wealthier, which I would not have been otherwise.
2) Just because I'm only familiar with a vague, unnuanced meaning for each kanji, it does not mean I intend to END things there. Readings are going to come later, and because I've already got the meaning and writing down ... they're also going to come a lot easier and faster.
3) No, I'm not frustrated that I can't actually fully "read" the kanji yet. How would knowing 20 kanji "completely" help me read any higher a percentage of a Japanese newspaper than knowing 700 kanji "partially"? Explain that to me. That delayed-reward conundrum is something that is common across ALL kanji-learning methods. If you're dealing with non-furigana Japanese text ... you either know most-or-all of the kanji inside, or you just can't read it.
To me, that means the solution is to try to learn faster ... not slower. Being "completely" literate in 100 kanji isn't going to help you with a Japanese novel. Being "somewhat" literate in 2,000 kanji on the other hand, will get you a lot closer. You're also NOT excluded from becoming "completely" literate in those kanji as your studies progress.
I know that these kinds of threads have been posted here before, and I know this same discussion has been repeated ad nauseum, but ... even in the last few weeks, as I muse over the anti-Heisig rumblings that are STILL all over the place ... I can't help but grow frustrated. Why?
Because the ONLY people, the ONLY ones, that seem to be so deadset against learning the jouyou in this way seem to be people that have never tried it, and just don't like the IDEA of Heisig. For those that have actually given Heisig a go, and have actually APPLIED his exact technique as laid out in the foreword ... I've never heard anything but a glowing review.
There is NO strong argument against learning to write and recognize 700 kanji over the course of 2 weeks. NONE. I doubt I could've done that much in a YEAR, the way I was going before.
Were it not for that brave member at the other site that was willing to stick out his head (leaving it open to be snapped off) to spread the word to those that would listen ... I might have 15-20 new kanji now, as opposed to 700. Yes, I may remember a handful of readings for that 20 kanji, and yes ... I may even recognize a couple of compounds. My "knowledge" of how to write them, however, would have been shaky as all Hell ... and I would've been drilling them day after day, just trying not to forget them.
Before, I was a skeptical side-liner on Heisig. Now, if I see criticism against it, I'm going to straight-out ask them how they can argue against 700 in two weeks. I really can't think of any way that a person can claim that knowing 20 kanj with readings is better than knowing 700 without them. I can't think of a way that knowing all of the joyou over the course of a couple of months is somehow inferior to taking a couple of years to learning the same, just because you insist on using "real" methods. I can't think of a reason, and I'm betting they can't, either.
Sorry for the rant. Thanks for reading, to all those that did.
I've been a long-time member of one of those "other" online Japanese language resources ... a for-pay one. I've used it off-and-on, depending on my motivation/mood levels, and sometimes lurk around their forums. A couple of weeks ago, I read a post by a surprised (yet enthusiastic) member who had just barely tried the Heisig method for himself. (He also recommended Fabrice's site for review, and is a member here.) His initial claim of "50 a day" was a shocking number to me, but I also found it irresistably seductive.
I, like him, had heard numerous things about Heisig ... much of it not good. The whole Heisig concept has been treated with such distaste by so many alleged "elite" members of the Japanese-learning community, well ... I steered well clear of it.
And now, I hate myself for doing that. I'm also kind of ticked off at the ignorant smugness of others that scared me away from Heisig to begin with, years ago. They did me a genuine disservice, by speaking so authoritatively about something they knew so little about.
In the very same thread on that forum that inspired me to try Heisig out, this was recently posted (by someone who'd only "heard" of Heisig, of course):
Quote:...I'm not going to say Heisig's method is the wrong way to go about it for everyone. I can definitely see how it could be an inspiration to those who are just starting out or have had difficulty memorizing kanji in the past, because it gives one the feeling you are actually making progress. Personally though, I really can't recommend this to anybody...Okay ... it's controversial. I get it. Let's rely on my own experience to make a final judgement. What happened, once I actually tried Heisig? Did I start down the slippery slope of never becoming literate in Japanese?
NO.
Did I become convinced that I would never need to study kanji again, and would only ever need to know vague meanings + stroke order?
NO.
Did I bring shame and dishonor upon the Japanese Ministry of Education, for accomplishing in a few days (at least halfway) what it takes an entire year for their students to learn?
NO.
What happened was, I walked away with 30 brand new kanji in 90 minutes. NINETY minutes. I discovered that not only was this guy's estimate of being able to reach fifty new kanji a day possible ... I realize that if you were truly throwing your back into it full time, fifty-a-day might be something of a conservative estimate.
That was exactly two weeks ago today. I've learned the writing and meaning of almost 700 new kanji since then. Now, here is where I think the naysayers against Heisig REALLY fall short in actually trying to say there's something wrong with learning this way.
1) It's not as though I would have learned 700 kanji "completely" in that time using some other method. This isn't time that I've 'wasted" when I could've been studying the same "kanji" properly. This is 700 kanji I wouldn't have obtained using any other method that I can think of. This is me being 700 kanji wealthier, which I would not have been otherwise.
2) Just because I'm only familiar with a vague, unnuanced meaning for each kanji, it does not mean I intend to END things there. Readings are going to come later, and because I've already got the meaning and writing down ... they're also going to come a lot easier and faster.
3) No, I'm not frustrated that I can't actually fully "read" the kanji yet. How would knowing 20 kanji "completely" help me read any higher a percentage of a Japanese newspaper than knowing 700 kanji "partially"? Explain that to me. That delayed-reward conundrum is something that is common across ALL kanji-learning methods. If you're dealing with non-furigana Japanese text ... you either know most-or-all of the kanji inside, or you just can't read it.
To me, that means the solution is to try to learn faster ... not slower. Being "completely" literate in 100 kanji isn't going to help you with a Japanese novel. Being "somewhat" literate in 2,000 kanji on the other hand, will get you a lot closer. You're also NOT excluded from becoming "completely" literate in those kanji as your studies progress.
I know that these kinds of threads have been posted here before, and I know this same discussion has been repeated ad nauseum, but ... even in the last few weeks, as I muse over the anti-Heisig rumblings that are STILL all over the place ... I can't help but grow frustrated. Why?
Because the ONLY people, the ONLY ones, that seem to be so deadset against learning the jouyou in this way seem to be people that have never tried it, and just don't like the IDEA of Heisig. For those that have actually given Heisig a go, and have actually APPLIED his exact technique as laid out in the foreword ... I've never heard anything but a glowing review.
There is NO strong argument against learning to write and recognize 700 kanji over the course of 2 weeks. NONE. I doubt I could've done that much in a YEAR, the way I was going before.
Were it not for that brave member at the other site that was willing to stick out his head (leaving it open to be snapped off) to spread the word to those that would listen ... I might have 15-20 new kanji now, as opposed to 700. Yes, I may remember a handful of readings for that 20 kanji, and yes ... I may even recognize a couple of compounds. My "knowledge" of how to write them, however, would have been shaky as all Hell ... and I would've been drilling them day after day, just trying not to forget them.
Before, I was a skeptical side-liner on Heisig. Now, if I see criticism against it, I'm going to straight-out ask them how they can argue against 700 in two weeks. I really can't think of any way that a person can claim that knowing 20 kanj with readings is better than knowing 700 without them. I can't think of a way that knowing all of the joyou over the course of a couple of months is somehow inferior to taking a couple of years to learning the same, just because you insist on using "real" methods. I can't think of a reason, and I'm betting they can't, either.
Sorry for the rant. Thanks for reading, to all those that did.
Edited: 2007-12-16, 4:03 am