[the_af]

Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He certainly succeeded, but at what cost? This article reviews how Chan downplays the hardships he was forced to endure (e.g. being essentially sold by his parents as an indentured servant when he was seven years old, complete with beatings and dismal living conditions) and instead chooses to focus on the end result, his success as an adult.

[chaostheory]

> He certainly succeeded, but at what cost?

The cost would be paid by Chan regardless of whether he became rich and famous. Specifically, he did not have a choice for being a slave in the Peking Opera house, so I'm not sure what point you and the author are trying to make. Paraphrasing Obama, Chan has embraced the burden of his past without becoming and staying a victim of it. Jackie Chan has taken responsibility for his life and successfully determined his own destiny. What does the author suggest Jackie Chan do instead of rising above his past? Obsess about it and wallow in despair, hopelessness, and depression?

[the_af]

> The cost would be paid by Chan regardless of whether he became rich and famous

I'm not sure. Maybe he wouldn't have had to be sold as an indentured servant, get beaten, be deprived of an education, and sleep on a mattress soiled with piss. Or maybe he would have died of starvation, who knows? Or maybe he would have moved with his parents to Australia, where the article mentions they went. It's definitely worth thinking about.

Please don't conflate my opinion and that of the author. I can't answer what the author's point was.

> What does the author suggest Jackie Chan do instead of rising above his past? Obsess about it and wallow in despair, hopelessness, and depression?

Again, I can't answer for the author, but I can think of a few things Chan could do: help prevent a similar hard childhood for current kids. Speak out. Join an advocacy group. Maybe raise awareness of how dire the situation for many families was in colonial Hong Kong. Not saying all of these would be helpful (and maybe he already does some of this), but arguing there's only despair and hopelessness seems disingenuous to me.

[chaostheory]

Your opinion seems to echo the author's so it was an obvious question, though I only expected to hear yours

> Maybe he wouldn't have had to be sold as an indentured servant,

Again, that wasn't his choice. There was no choice for Jackie Chan. That was his parents' choice. The only choice Jackie had is to either to focus on attaining his definition of success, while acknowledging the past; or to let the obsession of the past overtake his life and wallow in self pity. Where we disagree is that I feel the former choice is the healthier one.

> Again, I can't answer for the author, but I can think of a few things Chan could do: help prevent a similar hard childhood for current kids. Speak out. Join an advocacy group.

Yes like many other celebrities, Jackie Chan has charitable efforts for children and other causes. I don't disagree, but neither you nor the author mentioned this until now which made your argument seem pointless.

> Maybe raise awareness of how dire the situation for many families was in colonial Hong Kong.

That was probably the point of recounting his hardship while at the peking opera. Colonial HK and the peking opera, at least in its previous form, also do not exist anymore.

> but arguing there's only despair and hopeless seems disingenuous to me

That wasn't my argument. My point was that it seemed that you and the author feel that Jackie Chan did not obsess enough about the sadness and pain of his early life. I felt what both you and the author were advocating was senseless.

[the_af]

> Your opinion seems to echo the author's so it was an obvious question

But it doesn't. I wrote a single paragraph, mostly describing what I thought was a key aspect of the article, and calling it "interesting". The author wrote a whole article addressing multiple things. I'm not even the submitter of the article! Your assumptions are unwarranted.

> neither you nor the author mentioned this until now which made your argument seem pointless.

But I didn't make any argument. Please re-read what I wrote and tell me what my "argument" was that seemed "pointless" to you.

It seems you are arguing with me because you can't with the author? I just wrote something about the actual content of the article, when other replies were "I loved Jackie Chan in Rush Hour!", which is unrelated to the topic.

[chaostheory]

Maybe I am arguing with you because I can't do the same with the author. Does your comment not reiterate the article's core ideas in a nice little package? The size of the content is irrelevant when it resonates with the larger work. Is it not natural to ask "What's the point?" when none was seemingly provided?

[the_af]

> Does your comment not reiterate the article's core ideas in a nice little package?

No?

> Maybe I am arguing with you because I can't do the same with the author.

Indeed.

Because my post was very short, let me quote it here in its entirety, and please tell me how it "resonates" with the article and what point you think I -- along with the author, apparently -- am making, or should be making:

> "Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He certainly succeeded, but at what cost? This article reviews how Chan downplays the hardships he was forced to endure (e.g. being essentially sold by his parents as an indentured servant when he was seven years old, complete with beatings and dismal living conditions) and instead chooses to focus on the end result, his success as an adult."

As you can see, I'm not trying to make any point. I've no idea what the article's author thinks, but you may have surmised I think the cost was too much. You'd be correct: I wouldn't wish this childhood on any kid, from Hong Kong or elsewhere. I'm glad Jackie Chan managed to survive and become successful, because I like him and his movies.

[RankingMember]

> He received almost no education, not even in the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and when he first became rich he had trouble signing his own name on credit card receipts. (His memoir is “co-written” with a publicist.)

This part really stuck out to me. He was treated like a single-purpose tool.

[netsharc]

I suppose you'd have to ask him if he'd rather have lived a normal life (without the beatings and the stardom) or if given the choice, he'd pick the life he's lived again.

At least he got to enjoy life being rich and famous, kids in Africa become slaves or child soldiers and end up dead.

[the_af]

We know the answer: Jackie thinks it was worth it. I'm unconvinced... as much as I like him and I'm glad he can enjoy his success.

Yes, the children in Africa who become slaves or child soldiers and end up dead have it worse. I'm not sure what lesson we can draw from that :)

[gf263]

Very confused as to what you're trying to say

[the_af]

I don't think I'm trying to say something difficult. I'm replying to the post above mine:

1- "I suppose you'd have to ask him if he'd rather have lived a normal life": we don't need to ask Jackie Chan what he thinks, because he already answered in interviews: he thinks his life was worth it. That's sort of the point of the article.

2- "kids in Africa become slaves or child soldiers and end up dead.": yes, some kids have it worse than Jackie Chan's life. So?

[neolefty]

> but at what cost?

Yes, and at what cost to those who didn't make it! Thank social progress that it's getting better, but there's still a ways to go.

[Steve44]

> instead chooses to focus on the end result, his success as an adult.

Most people have been through various levels of shit[0] through their lives. I believe one should acknowledge your problems but certainly not dwell on them and should put your energy and drive into the good times.

[0]Trying to think of a better word, but that covers it quite well I think.

[the_af]

I'm not the author but the main gist is that Jackie doesn't want to acknowledge his past hardships, and is unwilling to analyze whether they were justified or not. The author calls it his "blindspot". I'm not sure it's healthy.

[jerf]

Jackie lived his experiences. This author is, to the best of my knowledge, basically just some guy with a website byline. (Presumably he's had some sort of hardships in life, because nobody escapes unscathed, but I doubt they compare to Jackie's.) I'm not sure the author has all that much moral standing or skin in the game to make me care much about his opinion of Jackie Chan's life.

He's welcome to it. I just don't see it as anywhere near as interesting.

[the_af]

What does it matter who the author of the article is? Some random nobody raising interesting issues about Jackie Chan's autobiography -- what he says, what he leaves unsaid -- seems valid to me.