From Fellow Writers

Again. (1) No basis of critique if you didn’t read the author’s books. (2) If you were going to critique HER person, then the subject should’ve been informed about the rules of engagement. (3) This is not even about journalism. It’s just professional writing 101. @langleav pic.twitter.com/bJKmU7qjGn

— katrinastuartsantiago (@radikalchick) February 25, 2019

Not About Who’s More Legit

That being said, those who defend the article by saying Mookie is a much, much better writer than Lang Leav (although true) are missing the bigger point: this is not about who the better writer is. You don’t go into interviews comparing intelligence quotients with your subject.

— Alfonso Manalastas (@not_alfonso) February 26, 2019

Gatekeeping?

i’ve poked fun at lang leav before, but the fact is her works have generated an audience very little writers, let alone poets, have today. mookie, being the institutionalized poet, is gatekeeping (not surprised. remember fast food fiction and adam david? yikes) https://t.co/ivb9zBJfbA

— Neal Tayco (◕︵◕) (@NealTayco) February 26, 2019

This Kid’s Whole Thread

Lang Leav writes unimaginative poems at best, pero ‘di ba natin tinatanong kung bakit siya binabasa? Beyond literary criticism, what makes people prefer reading works that are not as layered or intellectualized as the works of institutionalized writers?

— Pholop #42 KABATAAN (@heyitspholop) February 26, 2019

What’s your stand on this discussion? Tell us below!