# Politically correct - a caution for writing about controversial subjects



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Interesting article. The one-star crowd is out in force, and the book hasn't even been released yet.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/16/kirkus_withdraws_starred_review_after_criticism.html


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

TBH, from what I read the complaints people had about this book are valid. I'm not sure why it would have been so hard to write it from the POV of the Muslim character. This happens a lot that minorities are made the sidekicks in their own stories so it can be written from the POV of the dominant culture.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

paranormal_kitty said:


> TBH, from what I read the complaints people had about this book are valid. I'm not sure why it would have been so hard to write it from the POV of the Muslim character. This happens a lot that minorities are made the sidekicks in their own stories so it can be written from the POV of the dominant culture.


And if she'd done that, odds are good she would have been accused of "co-opting POC voices" and still told she shouldn't have written the book. The only thing louder than calls for greater diversity are demands that white writers stay in their own lane.


----------



## Ryan W. Mueller (Jul 14, 2017)

At least I can generally avoid these kinds of issues in my secondary-world fantasy. That can come with its own issues, however.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> TBH, from what I read the complaints people had about this book are valid. I'm not sure why it would have been so hard to write it from the POV of the Muslim character. This happens a lot that minorities are made the sidekicks in their own stories so it can be written from the POV of the dominant culture.


Maybe you and the other moral experts should send this author instructions for writing the next book. Come to that, maybe the U.S. needs a law, written by experts like yourself of course, to tell people what and how to write. That way no one would write the wrong way any more.


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

Whiners.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

WHDean said:


> Maybe you and the other moral experts should send this author instructions for writing the next book. Come to that, maybe the U.S. needs a law, written by experts like yourself of course, to tell people what and how to write. That way no one would write the wrong way any more.


I'm not sure why criticism always makes the leap to people thinking we want laws or censorship? Just because someone points something out, doesn't mean you have to listen. People can write and say whatever they want, but other people also have the right to criticize it. Free speech goes both ways, like it or not.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Anyone who can accurately judge a book they haven't read has some kind of magic I obviously haven't been gifted with.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Anyone who reads a book can feel however they want about it and express that. Kirkus should have either stood by their review (preferable) or been honest about why they removed it.

No one should be shocked if they write something controversial that, ya know, controversy follows.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I'm not sure why criticism always makes the leap to people thinking we want laws or censorship? Just because someone points something out, doesn't mean you have to listen. People can write and say whatever they want, but other people also have the right to criticize it. Free speech goes both ways, like it or not.


Because strawman arguments are an excellent tool for silencing differing opinions and ensuring the status quo.

Also, it is a wonderful distraction from the real issue.

But no, being a jerk shouldn't be illegal. That doesn't mean it should still be okay


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> Anyone who can accurately judge a book they haven't read has some kind of magic I obviously haven't been gifted with.


Yeah, that's blatantly ridiculous. Not to mention, there are way worse things in books that could rightfully be protested against.

I hope these "culture cops" don't get a hold of some of my MG books.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Shelley K said:


> Anyone who can accurately judge a book they haven't read has some kind of magic I obviously haven't been gifted with.


I thought that as well. "To Kill a Mockingbird" was removed from reading lists in a Mississippi school district last week because "it made some people uncomfortable". So much for teaching critical thinking.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Stepping in here--let's keep it civil and also away from politics.  Focus on the original post and the article linked to, please.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

Monique said:


> No one should be shocked if they write something controversial that, ya know, controversy follows.


I don't think the author set out to be "controversial" by having her MC be white. The people taking offense at the premise of the book are a vocal minority. The premise sounds mainstream, those on certain political extremes are trying to shape it as controversial to further their agenda. Which is kind of a separate issue from an author who wants to write something controversial to the majority.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I don't think the author set out to be "controversial" by having her MC be white. The people taking offense at the premise of the book are a vocal minority. The premise sounds mainstream, those on certain political extremes are trying to shape it as controversial to further their agenda. Which is kind of a separate issue from an author who wants to write something controversial to the majority.


I think the number of "sensitivity" reads shows that she and the publisher were well aware of the potential, though.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I don't think the author set out to be "controversial" by having her MC be white. The people taking offense at the premise of the book are a vocal minority. The premise sounds mainstream, those on certain political extremes are trying to shape it as controversial to further their agenda. Which is kind of a separate issue from an author who wants to write something controversial to the majority.


^^This.



Monique said:


> I think the number of "sensitivity" reads shows that she and the publisher were well aware of the potential, though.


I don't think it necessarily means the writer was intentionally trying to shock and be controversial, though.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I'm not sure why criticism always makes the leap to people thinking we want laws or censorship? Just because someone points something out, doesn't mean you have to listen. People can write and say whatever they want, but other people also have the right to criticize it. Free speech goes both ways, like it or not.


Well, I'm in need of your expertise here. You suggested she should've made the main character Muslim to avoid the problem. But that would've been cultural appropriation. So how, short of not writing the book at all, could she have done things the right way?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Jena H said:


> I don't think it necessarily means the writer was intentionally trying to shock and be controversial, though.


No, but she was clearly aware of the potential or why would they be so careful to vet it for offended reactions?


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

WHDean said:


> Maybe you and the other moral experts should send this author instructions for writing the next book. Come to that, maybe the U.S. needs a law, written by experts like yourself of course, to tell people what and how to write. That way no one would write the wrong way any more.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

What are those who are on the side of this author really wanting to have happened? That everyone who had a problem with it should have just shut up and not left a bad review? No one is immune to bad reviews. If she can write it, other can criticize it. The website that took down the positive review...there was no law that made them do it. They made a business decision for themselves because they were obviously concerned about something. That was their choice.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

paranormal_kitty said:


> What are those who are on the side of this author really wanting to have happened? That everyone who had a problem with it should have just shut up and not left a bad review? No one is immune to bad reviews. If she can write it, other can criticize it. The website that took down the positive review...there was no law that made them do it. They made a business decision for themselves because they were obviously concerned about something. That was their choice.


Personally I think the "controversy" is overblown. 38 one stars on goodreads, but also 38 five stars for a 2.95 average. Some people claim to have read the book. If you're leaving one stars on books you haven't read though you're not a real reviewer.

That said, seems like some people are trying to stir things up to push their anti-white-washing message or whatever - probably not a place the author or the publisher wanted to be at the centre of. If it tanks sales then I guess the message is stay out of foreign affairs? Of course it could wind up having the opposite effect.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Monique said:


> No, but she was clearly aware of the potential or why would they be so careful to vet it for offended reactions?


Call me naive, but I would think maybe thoroughness and common courtesy. 



WHDean said:


> Well, I'm in need of your expertise here. You suggested she should've made the main character Muslim to avoid the problem. But that would've been cultural appropriation. So how, short of not writing the book at all, could she have done things the right way?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Any suppression of free speech inevitably creeps. Any time someone's words are suppressed, especially by those with power (whether official or unofficial), it becomes easier to suppress them more and more, to constantly move the goalposts, because the supposed values they are "enforcing" become secondary to the rush of power that comes from the enforcement itself.

Mob power is one form of power. It's been around since ancient times. Mobs revel in their self-righteous power. Mobs hate those who are different, or who step out of line. Mobs burn books, destroy art, attack those who don't share their values. It doesn't really matter what those values are (and this is the crux)--the mob dynamic itself becomes the greatest evil.


----------



## TonyU (Dec 14, 2014)

paranormal_kitty said:


> That everyone who had a problem with it should have just shut up and not left a bad review? No one is immune to bad reviews.


No one is immune to bad reviews, but it's clear that most of the criticism is coming from people who didn't read the book. I think leaving a negative review for a product you've never used and only know of anecdotally is very bad form. There are dozens of similar stories where groups have taken up a cause and do their best to destroy a book/the author. To me, that's disturbing.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

TonyU said:


> No one is immune to bad reviews, but it's clear that most of the criticism is coming from people who didn't read the book. I think leaving a negative review for a product you've never used and only know of anecdotally is very bad form. There are dozens of similar stories where groups have taken up a cause and do their best to destroy a book/the author. To me, that's disturbing.


^^^ This.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

WHDean said:


> Well, I'm in need of your expertise here. You suggested she should've made the main character Muslim to avoid the problem. But that would've been cultural appropriation.


That's not what cultural appropriation is.

Cultural appropriation would be if they tried to use aspects of Muslim culture (or a given sect of Muslims) outside of its original context, making it into a commodity instead of culture.

Just writing a character of another culture, race or gender is not the same thing. _That_ is part of a greater problem where someone who doens't actually know the experiences of whatever people they're representing in their fiction acts like they do as part of that fiction.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

There are people who have read the book who have spoken out about the issues in it. For example: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2153303926

Criticism is not censorship. Poor representation doesn't mean nobody should try to represent peoples, it means that sometimes people screw up that rep and should listen and do better. Or not. Their choice.

Freedom has never meant freedom from consequences.


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

boba1823 said:


> I decided to basically strip out all the diversity from my drafts, as nowadays that seems like the safer approach. Which is pretty much the opposite of what I had thought it would be.. but there you go.


  Makes me glad I write fantasy and can make up my own cultures.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

In any other context, this would be considered bad writing. But we so readily accept that minorities must be seen through white eyes to make their experience relatable to suggest otherwise is an offense. This notion that white people shouldn't be expected to or aren't capable of empathizing with any race but their own is problematic.

I noticed that the writer was inspired by Huck Finn. It makes sense that Mark Twain needed a white protagonist, the book was published in 1884. Has the view of minority groups not evolved at all to the point that unless a white person says that rounding up minorities and sticking them in camps hurts them it can't be processed?

Personally, I think these narratives should be most offensive to white people, it makes it seem like they are incapable of empathy in the same way everyone else is.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

C. Gold said:


> Makes me glad I write fantasy and can make up my own cultures.


What gives you the right to assume you know how those own cultures feel or would act?


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> In any other context, this would be considered bad writing. But we so readily accept that minorities must be seen through white eyes to make their experience relatable to suggest otherwise is an offense. This notion that white people shouldn't be expected to or aren't capable of empathizing with any race but their own is problematic.
> 
> I noticed that the writer was inspired by Huck Finn. It makes sense that Mark Twain needed a white protagonist, the book was published in 1884. Has the view of minority groups not evolved at all to the point that unless a white person says that rounding up minorities and sticking them in camps hurts them it can't be processed?
> 
> Personally, I think these narratives should be most offensive to white people, it makes it seem like they are incapable of empathy in the same way everyone else is.


We need a like button. Agree with all of this.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

C. Gold said:


> Makes me glad I write fantasy and can make up my own cultures.


All orcs must immediately be banished into oblivion.


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

boba1823 said:


> Lol I don't know, not long ago I was checking out a Romance blog (I forget the name), and one of the bloggers wrote a pretty nasty review of a paranormal Romance book because it featured a detective who was racist.. regarding fairies. (Something along those lines anyway.)
> 
> So for some readers, you may actually have to be careful in your presentation of fantasy races, cultures, and the like, too.


Eh, no racism in my story, but there is tension between those with magic and those without.


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

I was once told (by a reader) that it doesn't matter what the author's message or intentions are, that the reader's interpretations of their work hold all the weight. I'm very sad, and more than a little angry, that this seems to validate that opinion. It's the same as saying "your opinion doesn't matter, and no one cares what you think," and it undermines the right authors have to control what content they deliver.

We're getting to the point where you can write a book and, no matter what the intent was, you have a 65% chance to get annihilated in the literary world for it. All because someone decides to harp on a detail and gets others to jump on the bandwagon. Have an LGBT protag? "You're pushing their agenda!" Have a book that features a white protag? "You're whitewashing!" Have a soldier protag? "Your work promotes facism!" It never ends. And no one cares what the authors think because, "Your opinion doesn't matter. We're the audience, which means we get to decide what kind of monster you are!"

Pardon my French, but this is ****ing ridiculous!

Maybe we should all just agree never to write books, because heaven forbid that anyone should ever read a different opinion!

#Authorsmatter


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Well, I'm in need of your expertise here. You suggested she should've made the main character Muslim to avoid the problem. But that would've been cultural appropriation. So how, short of not writing the book at all, could she have done things the right way?


There is no right way, I think.

One of the things that always came up when I taught YA lit was the fact that _To Kill a Mockingbird_ is "the civil rights novel" in the U.S. high school curriculum, like _Huck Finn_ used to always be "the slavery novel" (though it isn't always anymore). Someone would always say it didn't seem right that the struggle for civil rights should be taught through a white girl's experience instead of the experience of one of the people actually struggling for civil rights or experiencing their absence. Someone else would point out that books like _Mockingbird _can help racist white students become less racist. Someone else would say, in essence, "Well, what about the black high kids in the class? Why should the readings be built around white kids' needs?" Someone else would say the white kids would grow up to be the people in power, so changing their hearts and minds was important. Someone else would say we should be done with that phase by now. Someone else would wave all that away and say the book was chosen just because it's so good, and everyone else would groan and say that was nonsense: American lit is packed with good books, _Mockingbird _was chosen for its politics. And so the conversation went, every semester. There was never a consensus or solution in the classroom on _Mockingbird_ days.

For white authors, there isn't a right solution to the contradiction between wanting to include diversity in one's work and needing to leave the stories about people of color for authors of color to tell, or to the challenge of tackling political issues in one's work while not warping those issues so that they somehow become all about the perpetrators of the problems instead of those affected. But the discomfiting, no-good-answers position these challenges put me and other white authors in is essentially a conundrum white folks created for themselves ... so, fair enough. There is no right answer, but we still have to choose an answer and live with it. That's just how it goes.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> In any other context, this would be considered bad writing. But we so readily accept that minorities must be seen through white eyes to make their experience relatable to suggest otherwise is an offense. This notion that white people shouldn't be expected to or aren't capable of empathizing with any race but their own is problematic.
> 
> I noticed that the writer was inspired by Huck Finn. It makes sense that Mark Twain needed a white protagonist, the book was published in 1884. Has the view of minority groups not evolved at all to the point that unless a white person says that rounding up minorities and sticking them in camps hurts them it can't be processed?
> 
> Personally, I think these narratives should be most offensive to white people, it makes it seem like they are incapable of empathy in the same way everyone else is.


But we have many popular books / films etc with non-white pov, from both white and non-white writers. This is just one example of a white pov, dealing with non-white people. The themes of this book are to do with the fifteen year old being brainwashed by a world that dehumanizes muslims, sort of as to warn people this is where the west is heading. That's my guess anyway. You take away that character and the book is entirely different.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Kal241 said:


> I was once told (by a reader) that it doesn't matter what the author's message or intentions are, that the reader's interpretations of their work hold all the weight. I'm very sad, and more than a little angry, that this seems to validate that opinion. It's the same as saying "your opinion doesn't matter, and no one cares what you think," and it undermines the right authors have to control what content they deliver.
> 
> We're getting to the point where you can write a book and, no matter what the intent was, you have a 65% chance to get annihilated in the literary world for it. All because someone decides to harp on a detail and gets others to jump on the bandwagon. Have an LGBT protag? "You're pushing their agenda!" Have a book that features a white protag? "You're whitewashing!" Have a soldier protag? "Your work promotes facism!" It never ends. And no one cares what the authors think because, "Your opinion doesn't matter. We're the audience, which means we get to decide what kind of monster you are!"
> 
> Pardon my French, but this is ****ing ridiculous!


But that's the nature of art. That has always been the nature of art.

As a writer I know and accept I can't stand over the shoulder of every reader and tell them how they should interpret my books. Our messages get filtered through the viewpoints of our readers. That's why we have critique groups and workshops and beta readers to have even the slightest chance at guessing how our work will be interpreted. I've been called everything from a rape-apologist to a peddler of kiddie porn (because a character referred to a slave as 'boy') so I know how much it sucks when someone interprets your work in a way that it wasn't meant to be seen. But at the same time, that's part of being an artist.

If your writing isn't upsetting someone, it's probably still under your mattress, hidden from public consumption, because let's face it, I'm sure Oliver Twist upsets someone.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kal241 said:


> I was once told (by a reader) that it doesn't matter what the author's message or intentions are, that the reader's interpretations of their work hold all the weight. I'm very sad, and more than a little angry, that this seems to validate that opinion. It's the same as saying "your opinion doesn't matter, and no one cares what you think," and it undermines the right authors have to control what content they deliver.


I think the chance we get to control the content we deliver comes in the writing phase. That's when we can try to produce text that prompts exactly the reactions in readers that we want it to prompt, instead of sending them off in some other direction. Once we quit writing and publish, the book has to speak for itself. If we didn't do a good job making it deliver content in the way we intended it to, that's not really a reader's problem, is it? Readers' reactions are their business. Making work public = betting the farm that it'll produce the reaction you want it to. If it doesn't, well, you've bet and lost.

ETA: It's not a bet any writer ever totally wins. There will *always* be readers who don't react in the way you intended them to react. The best you can do is succeed with most readers.


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> But that's the nature of art. That has always been the nature of art.
> 
> As a writer I know and accept I can't stand over the shoulder of every reader and tell them how they should interpret my books. Our messages get filtered through the viewpoints of our readers. That's why we have critique groups and workshops and beta readers to have even the slightest chance at guessing how our work will be interpreted. I've been called everything from a rape-apologist to a peddler of kiddie porn (because a character referred to a slave as 'boy') so I know how much it sucks when someone interprets your work in a way that it wasn't meant to be seen. But at the same time, that's part of being an artist.
> 
> If your writing isn't upsetting someone, it's probably still under your mattress, hidden from public consumption, because let's face it, I'm sure Oliver Twist upsets someone.


I've been called some pretty horrible things as well, due to my drawings, from "sexist" all the way to "Satan's spawn." I've taken it in stride, but the fact that I and other artists are _expected_ to take everything from hateful emails to death threats strikes me as justification of bullying.

Yes, artists always get the short end of the stick, but we don't have to take it. We can shove it away. Just because readers have a right to interpret our work doesn't give internet "judges" the right to blacklist us because they don't agree with our perspective. I mean, when did it become a crime to publicize differing mindsets?

Can you spell "Thought Police?" I guess Orwell was only half-right: they're coming to be, but it's not the government's creation, it's the people's.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kal241 said:


> I've been called some pretty horrible things as well, due to my drawings, from "sexist" all the way to "Satan's spawn." I've taken it in stride, but the fact that I and other artists are _expected_ to take everything from hateful emails to death threats strikes me as justification of bullying.


Good heavens, there's no excuse for that sort of thing. Being entitled to your reaction doesn't mean being entitled to threaten someone.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> But we have many popular books / films etc with non-white pov, from both white and non-white writers. This is just one example of a white pov, dealing with non-white people. The themes of this book are to do with the fifteen year old being brainwashed by a world that dehumanizes muslims, sort of as to warn people this is where the west is heading. That's my guess anyway. You take away that character and the book is entirely different.


Oh yes, it would be an entirely different book. But consider this, doesn't making them supporting characters in their own story dehumanize them too? The book's construction defeats it's own argument. And it's done so often that it feels normal, but it shouldn't feel normal. The very idea should be jarring. It should be like writing a book about women dealing with harassment in the workplace from the POV of a male coworker watching them get harassed and thinking it's none of his business until the halfway point where he starts to empathize with them and then end where he rescues them from their harassing boss. Can you imagine people thinking, well of course it's written from the male's perspective, that's what makes it relatable. Or well the author was male, if he wrote from the POV of the women dealing with harassment he might have gotten it wrong and upset people for that instead.

These tales are done so often that we accept them, but it's so weird that we accept them. We're taught to tell stories from the POV of the characters that have the most at stake. Except for these stories.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Kal241 said:


> I've been called some pretty horrible things as well, due to my drawings, from "sexist" all the way to "Satan's spawn." I've taken it in stride, but the fact that I and other artists are _expected_ to take everything from hateful emails to death threats strikes me as justification of bullying.
> 
> Yes, artists always get the short end of the stick, but we don't have to take it. We can shove it away. Just because readers have a right to interpret our work doesn't give internet "judges" the right to blacklist us because they don't agree with our perspective. I mean, when did it become a crime to publicize differing mindsets?
> 
> Can you spell "Thought Police?" I guess Orwell was only half-right: they're coming to be, but it's not the government's creation, it's the people's.


Of course I don't think people should be bullied. But bad reviews aren't bullying. Reviews aren't intended for writers, they are for other potential readers. A vocal minority thinks people shouldn't read this book. An equal sized group thinks they should. People can look at the summary and the reviews and decide for themselves.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh yes, it would be an entirely different book. But consider this, doesn't making them supporting characters in their own story dehumanize them too? The book's construction defeats it's own argument. And it's done so often that it feels normal, but it shouldn't feel normal. The very idea should be jarring. It should be like writing a book about women dealing with harassment in the workplace from the POV of a male coworker watching them get harassed and thinking it's not of his business until the halfway point where he starts to empathize with them and then end where he rescues them from their harassing boss. Can you imagine people thinking, well of course it's written from the male's perspective, that's what makes it relatable. Or well the author was male, if he wrote from the POV of the women dealing with harassment he might have gotten it wrong and upset people for that instead.
> 
> These tales are done so often that we accept them, but it's so weird that we accept them. We're taught to tell stories from the POV of the characters that have the most at stake. Except for these stories.


Whose pov it is seems really superficial to me and just one aspect out of a thousand that makes the novel what it is. It could be that you read the book and believe in your personal opinion that it would have been better if it was done from a different pov, but I don't buy into this notion that one particular set of characters "owns" a story. Who the pov is, is up to the author. That changes the entirety of the book they're writing. Now, it could have been a better book if it was done this way or that way, but for the public, who have no intention of reading the book, to object to the writing of a pov in whatever circumstances seems an overreaction to me.


----------



## amdonehere (May 1, 2015)

kcmorgan said:


> Of course I don't think people should be bullied. But bad reviews aren't bullying. Reviews aren't intended for writers, they are for other potential readers. A vocal minority thinks people shouldn't read this book. An equal sized group thinks they should. People can look at the summary and the reviews and decide for themselves.


I don't think it's that simple. The mob of vocal minority "culture cops" as described in the article have the power to shame, and they don't hesitate to use it. People who otherwise might have picked up the book and read for themselves might not do so for fear of appearance of being whatever. That's the case even if the truth is that what the vocal critics say are just opinions. Their opinions are no longer opinions. They are "the law".


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

AlexaKang said:


> I don't think it's that simple. The mob of vocal minority "culture cops" as described in the article have the power to shame, and they don't hesitate to use it. People who otherwise might have picked up the book and read for themselves might not do so for fear of appearance of being whatever. That's the case even if the truth is that what the vocal critics say are just opinions. Their opinions are no longer opinions. They are "the law".












Injecting some humor into an otherwise bleak thread.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

AlexaKang said:


> I don't think it's that simple. The mob of vocal minority "culture cops" as described in the article have the power to shame, and they don't hesitate to use it. People who otherwise might have picked up the book and read for themselves might not do so for fear of appearance of being whatever. That's the case even if the truth is that what the vocal critics say are just opinions. Their opinions are no longer opinions. They are "the law".


Shame has been used to direct human behavior since our caveman days. Do you really believe people who are against racism are the only ones to use shame to get people to behave in the way they believe is right? I mean isn't this whole idea that angry tweeting tweens have now become the new Big Brother it's own version of shaming? Shame on them for trying to "control" what people read and being against free speech and yadda, yadda. But in all honesty, books are mostly bought online now. They go directly from Amazon to your house or your kindle. You're not parading down the street with your 6 foot copy of 50 Shades. Book shaming isn't particularly effective, people still read whatever they want to.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

AlexaKang said:


> I don't think it's that simple. The mob of vocal minority "culture cops" as described in the article have the power to shame, and they don't hesitate to use it. People who otherwise might have picked up the book and read for themselves might not do so for fear of appearance of being whatever. That's the case even if the truth is that what the vocal critics say are just opinions. Their opinions are no longer opinions. They are "the law".


How are they the law? How can they even know if someone chooses to read it or not?

I do not support organized efforts or individuals who negatively review things they haven't read but if they have who can say they are wrong to express their opinion of it?


----------



## Seneca42 (Dec 11, 2016)

Kal241 said:


> I've been called some pretty horrible things as well, due to my drawings, from "sexist" all the way to "Satan's spawn." I've taken it in stride, but the fact that I and other artists are _expected_ to take everything from hateful emails to death threats strikes me as justification of bullying.


I always use to think readers were a sophisticated, refined, intellectual, open-minded bunch. Wow, when you start publishing you realize that sure isn't the case. There are some seriously deranged, narcissistic, arrogant, closed-minded, nit-picking readers out there in the world.

I read the worst review I've ever seen today. It's on a book in the top 100 scifi (I won't mention names, and no, it wasn't mine hehe):

_***** is a joke
u r a joke give up writing if that's what u call it do thed world a favor any slit ur wrists get a real jobs or another hobby
_

People are crazy, that's just the bottom line. I mean, most aren't, but a lot are. Unless someone had killed someone i care about, I can't imagine myself saying that to anyone, much less over a book.

The only thing surprising is that the author hasn't requested the review be removed (at least not yet, I assume, given it qualifies for removal).


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

AlexaKang said:


> I don't think it's that simple. The mob of vocal minority "culture cops" as described in the article have the power to shame, and they don't hesitate to use it. People who otherwise might have picked up the book and read for themselves might not do so for fear of appearance of being whatever. That's the case even if the truth is that what the vocal critics say are just opinions. Their opinions are no longer opinions. They are "the law".


In certain circles, perhaps, but I bet most of us wouldn't have been aware of this book or the one discussed in the New York Magazine article if they hadn't attracted these controversies; they might well end up with larger audiences than they would've had otherwise. I actually started to read _The Black Witch_ a couple weeks ago, but it turned out to use present tense of the sort that bothers me.



Seneca42 said:


> _***** is a joke
> u r a joke give up writing if that's what u call it do thed world a favor any slit ur wrists get a real jobs or another hobby
> _
> 
> People are crazy, that's just the bottom line. I mean, most aren't, but a lot are. Unless someone had killed someone i care about, I can't imagine myself saying that to anyone, much less over a book.


The anonymity of the internet enables this kind of stuff. There's a lot of it around these days.


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Book shaming isn't particularly effective, people still read whatever they want to.


It is when it forces authors to choose between being down-voted into oblivion or un-publishing/never publishing. This is book shaming being weaponized by groups with agendas who will not easily be deterred, will stop at nothing to kill a book and it's author's career, and will continue hounding an author even after they've disappeared from the net and the public eye. Only the authors with enough fans and money to back them, and a very thick skin, can survive that kind of harassment with their sanity and reputation intact. Newcomer indies, and even some trads, who don't have that aren't as able to weather the storm.

Authors are the weak kids on the playground, and these people are the snot-nosed brats who enjoy hitting them. That's bullying, plain and simple. I don't like bullies.


----------



## Seneca42 (Dec 11, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> The anonymity of the internet enables this kind of stuff. There's a lot of it around these days.


On the positive side, I've never met someone in life yet who was mean to others who themselves was a happy, well adjusted person; so their "opinion" holds little weight.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

It is not bullying to point out that someone wrote something you find problematic that potentially contributes to a system that hurts and oppresses people. It's not bullying to say someone needs to work on their craft, which is ultimately what this is a question of. The author was trying to get across a certain kind of story and appears, in the eyes of those who live that story and for whom it is close to real life, to have failed. Nobody has ever had their career ended from being called out, so don't freak out.

If it ever happens to you, I think the lesson to be taken from this is maybe just say "I'm listening, and I'll do better" or say nothing at all if you can't say that much. You do not need to be the center of every conversation, even conversations about your work. It's out in the world once published and not all about you.

ETA: here's another review by someone who has read the book: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154859482?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Annie B said:


> It is not bullying to point out that someone wrote something you find problematic that potentially contributes to a system that hurts and oppresses people. It's not bullying to say someone needs to work on their craft, which is ultimately what this is a question of. The author was trying to get across a certain kind of story and appears, in the eyes of those who live that story and for whom it is close to real life, to have failed. Nobody has ever had their career ended from being called out, so don't freak out.
> 
> If it ever happens to you, I think the lesson to be taken from this is maybe just say "I'm listening, and I'll do better" or say nothing at all if you can't say that much.


Thanks, Annie- yours and kcmorgan's responses here are pure gold.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Kal241 said:


> It is when it forces authors to choose between being down-voted into oblivion or un-publishing/never publishing. This is book shaming being weaponized by groups with agendas who will not easily be deterred, will stop at nothing to kill a book and it's author's career, and will continue hounding an author even after they've disappeared from the net and the public eye. Only the authors with enough fans and money to back them, and a very thick skin, can survive that kind of harassment with their sanity and reputation intact. Newcomer indies, and even some trads, who don't have that aren't as able to weather the storm.
> 
> Authors are the weak kids on the playground, and these people are the snot-nosed brats who enjoy hitting them. That's bullying, plain and simple. I don't like bullies.


I can think of one situation where an author said something that upset another author on Goodreads and the second author and her friends attacked the first author's book as retribution. Situations like those, I agree are bullying.

But in this case, their objection is to the content of the book, not the author and as far as I know they haven't organized a campaign to stop it's publication, they've just given it bad reviews. And just like The Black Witch, I'm sure this book will do fine. For every person raging about yet another white savior book coming out in YA, they'll be someone who can't wait to enjoy the warm patronizing feeling of rescuing some Muslims.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

I don't get this kind of outrages. Even though my character are not always white, I never mention race directly, and my main characters are never American, American's minorities or coming from other cultures since I feel that regarding their life-style and customs I wouldn't be able to do them justice, because I only see these life-styles and custom as an outsider. So looking from this point of view, since this is about white author, for me is only logical that she's using a white protagonists, since dealing with such sensitive theme, using a minority one she might not do the character and the minority justice. 

The other thing that gets me is that usually these kind of outrages are done by white people not minorities - I don't know if these is the case here, but when I hear white people whining and being outraged about it, it looks to me like they think they are above others including minorities to be so outraged on behalf of minorities who are quite capable of speaking for themselves and expressing their outrage themselves.

Besides, wouldn't a better solution be to encourage minorities to speak out and write their own view of life and through stories share their own experience instead of trying to shut up white authors who dare to write about specific themes that also involve minorities through white characters?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Bottom line:

People care way too much about what other (often anonymous) people think about them. Problems arise when people are starting to defend their work or their positions.

Opinions just... are. I have yet to see someone change their opinions based on being shouted at or called out by someone else. Opinions change, but they do so slowly and driven by personal experience and gaining of understanding. In fact, faux apologies and fake insistence on externally imposed metrics is just dumb. You change something in your behaviour because you've gained an understanding, not to please some external metric.

Getting one-star reviews means you're butting up against the edges of the book's intended target audience. Whether your book is sweet or violent, "clean" or fuller of profanity than the proverbial sailor, there will always be a crowd that hates whatever it is and that will go into rants in the reviews.

If those opinions (of people who are not your target audience) bother you or you feel in any way inclined to take to the internet and try to defend yourself, do yourself a huge favour and stop caring about what people who are not your target audience say about you.

The short answer: reason #658545 why I don't read my reviews on Amazon (although I certainly listen to advice from editors and beta readers)


----------



## EllieDee (May 28, 2017)

> Someone else would point out that books like Mockingbird can help racist white students become less racist.


Interesting point, and maybe what the author was going for. There seems to be a sizeable percentage of the population who have a crippled sense of empathy. They can't put themselves in the shoes of a very different person. I don't know why. A lack of imagination? Taught blind obedience instead of critical thinking? But give them a white protagonist and spoonfeed them tiny amounts of 'other' cultures and lives, and the empathy lightbulb goes on. Hey, maybe this minority _isn't_ some kind of faceless monster threatening our children and way of life ...

However, it looks like the tactic really backfired on this particular author. Hopefully the one-star attack squads will grow up (or more realistically turn their wrath on someone else).


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

There's a review from someone who read it on Netgalley with her personal rationale for not liking the book's message. While I have mixed feelings about the reviewer's opinion, the reality is we're writing in a hyper-politicized climate. Thankfully it's not the level of the 1950s when writers were blacklisted for their work.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

From the article:

_"a white writer should not have tackled this story, and neither should a white character be the center of it."_

The racism embedded in comments like these is almost ironic, isn't it? One of the most important things when evaluating the value of criticism of one's own work is to dive into the subtext of what they said and identify what kind of person they are. For those authors here who might contemplate writing on matters such as race, or including characters of a different race, don't be discouraged because other people have their own, even atypical, blend of racism, and will judge you as though _you_ are racist. Being human transcends race, and for others to pretend that the race you were born into should preclude you from telling the story you want to tell denies your humanity and only reinforces the racism they supposedly wish to avoid.


----------



## RandomThings (Oct 21, 2016)

Travelian said:


> There's a review from someone who read it on Netgalley with her personal rationale for not liking the book's message. While I have mixed feelings about the reviewer's opinion, the reality is we're writing in a hyper-politicized climate. Thankfully it's not the level of the 1950s when writers were blacklisted for their work.


Not quite, but almost. Careers have come to an end, pen names have been abandoned because of reactions to the work they put out. The internet has made it ridiculously easy to gather the villagers, light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks. This sort of thing, where the 'crowd' are punishing people over social media or by leaving negative reviews, is growing. Gonna get worse.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Sometimes a story is too raw to be told from an inside perspective by an outsider. I suspect that an underlying inspiration of the book is the actual internment of Japanese Americans, which I wrote a novel about and then didn't. My main Japanese American friend was disappointed that I expanded the novel to be about different Seattle communities with histories of being discriminated against, but as I said to her I felt that the story she wanted should be told by a Japanese American. Instead, apparently like this author, I wrote about a European American coming to terms with having ignored the histories of the Seattleites she spent most of her life among. I did not want to tell the story from a Japanese American perspective as I was worried about not properly representing how such matters are talked about in that community. The fact that my friend's grandparents were interned made me refuse to even describe the inside of the camps. To do so would have been too raw an emotional experience for me. The European American main character stood for me as the European who had grown up with stories of the Holocaust, but had not heard of Japanese American internment until I met my London-based friend.

Often the outside perspective is a way of leaving a community to their grief and instead exploring the discrimination that led to that grief. Probably the most commercially successful example is John Boyne's The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, which also got culture copped. Or for the Japanese American story Jamie Ford's Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet (although his story is partly inside the barbed wire). A story told from inside the barded wire is very different from a story told either outside the wire or told from a perspective decades later when it has been reduced to a burden in the collective memory of the affected community.

Nidoto nai yoni (may it never happen again).


----------



## UK1783 (Aug 5, 2017)

You can't be truthful on the Internet. Well, you can but if you're a self-published writer and you reveal your real name you will get One-Starred to hell.

I've received private messages from people who have said exactly this about this forum. All that stuff about shoot the dog seemed to bring out the worst in people.

My efforts at writing would be regarded as politically incorrect. I'm not doing it to shock but because I think it is more truthful and realistic to the things I write about. I've even had editors tell me that they could not continue reading stuff of mine because they hated the main character and his life choices. It's just a story. Are people that weak these days?

_edited; PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Annie B said:


> It is not bullying to point out that someone wrote something you find problematic that potentially contributes to a system that hurts and oppresses people. It's not bullying to say someone needs to work on their craft, which is ultimately what this is a question of. The author was trying to get across a certain kind of story and appears, in the eyes of those who live that story and for whom it is close to real life, to have failed. Nobody has ever had their career ended from being called out, so don't freak out.
> 
> If it ever happens to you, I think the lesson to be taken from this is maybe just say "I'm listening, and I'll do better" or say nothing at all if you can't say that much. You do not need to be the center of every conversation, even conversations about your work. It's out in the world once published and not all about you.
> 
> ETA: here's another review by someone who has read the book: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154859482?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1


Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing basically that!
I'm not sure when it happened, but I am seeing an alarming trend of standing up for the rights of those with less power being called "bullying" by those with more power. THAT"S NOT HOW BULLYING WORKS.
And don't even get me started on how willfully obtuse people seem to be on the definition of censorship!

People are allowed to hate this book. Even people who didn't read it. I've never tasted dog crap. I don't need to try it to know I won't like it. If you don't like the idea of one race's personal pain being put on display by a member of another for monetary gain, then you probably don't need to read this book to know you won't like it.

For some people, that means just ignoring it. For others, it means sending a message that they don't like to see this kind of garbage get published. Will that message be heard? As usual, I suspect the only real way to vote is with your wallet. And I'm pretty sure the "controversy" around this book that no one here had ever even heard of until now will make it more successful than it ever would have been without it.

For those comparing this book to To Kill a Mockingbird: I have absolutely no doubt that if this book is half as well-written as TKaM, then it will stand the test of time and be regarded for what it brings to the table despite its flaws. Remember that TKaM has HUNDREDS of 1-star reviews on Amazon!


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

RandomThings said:


> Not quite, but almost. Careers have come to an end, pen names have been abandoned because of reactions to the work they put out. The internet has made it ridiculously easy to gather the villagers, light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks. This sort of thing, where the 'crowd' are punishing people over social media or by leaving negative reviews, is growing. Gonna get worse.


I'm not trying to call anyone out in particular, and I don't know your thoughts beyond this post, so if the rest of what I have to say doesn't actually apply to you, fair enough, and my apologies. But this post sums up a lot of the sentiments in this thread, from the looks of things, so this is what I'm jumping off of.

And sorry, but this is simply not true. The internet hasn't made it ridiculously easy to gather the villagers, light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks, as you described it.

There is no human behavior in this thread that hasn't been around for centuries.

All the internet and social media has done is change the makeup of the crowd. Before, mob rule required a physical presence, or power or a platform that could be exercised without a computer. As a result, the only mobs that formed, metaphorical or literal, were made up of majorities, the dominating presence in any community. And while I don't presume to speak for other countries, in America, the power to wield shame tactics and the tyranny of the majority rested largely in the hands of white people, or straight people, or men, or all of the above, depending on the context we're speaking of. Obviously there are exceptions, but for most of this country's history, the policy-makers have largely been straight white men, same with the titans of industry, the leaders of Hollywood and other entertainment industries, etc. Without a similar platform to speak from and get the attention of large numbers of people at a time, isolated minorities or even relatively isolated communities of minorities literally could not be vocal enough or gain a large enough audience to make a sizable impact when criticizing their portrayal in books or television or movies.

The internet and social media did not reinvent the wheel. Nor did they fundamentally change human nature.

All they did were put microphones in the hands of people who previously had very few ways to gather enough attention to make an impact.

And it's not like this has been one-sided or anything. The rise of social media did not single out 'social justice warriors' and say here, you specifically, you get a boost now so you can spread your agenda. There are just as many Neo-Nazis harassing Jewish authors and authors of color or LGBT authors as there are so-called culture cops harassing white authors for not writing diversely enough or whatever. You can't acknowledge the one without acknowledging the other, and yet a lot of people seem to try very hard to do just that. For every book that gets one-starred for including an offensive stereotype of a Muslim character or a gay character, there's another book that was just one-starred for including a gay romantic subplot between two side characters in an otherwise 'straight' book, or including a Muslim hero at all.

Mob rule and shame tactics are not tools invented by modern day minority audiences. They are the tools that are responsible for keeping works of fiction featuring gay content out of libraries and schools for literal decades (and still do, in some parts of the country). They are the tools that are responsible for generations of female authors using male pen names to get published at all. They are the tools that are responsible for black screenwriters pitching scripts written for all-white casts because the studios all told them that white audiences wouldn't show up to movies starring black leads or culture or life experiences or find them compelling, even though it was taken for granted that black, Asian, and Latino audiences would all show up for white leads and experiences. And they are the tools that for decades have been responsible for isolated straight white communities - such as small towns where the vast majority of the population are white and any gay community members are closeted - somehow managing to all have the same singular view of Muslims, the same singular impression of gay people, the same initial assumptions about black culture, because a single, dominating narrative about these groups, written by straight white people, for straight white audiences, is all the exposure many of them have had to these other groups.

Just like mob rule and shame tactics have been used to shout down, bury or otherwise dismiss any viewpoints or stories that called these stereotypical impressions into question.

If you think America has no history of black, gay, trans, Latino or other minority creative types being targeted, harassed and subjected to death threats and actual violence in the past decades, you really, really have not been paying attention.

To be clear, I'm not saying that minority audiences or readerships now having the power to rally their voices via social media is 'payback'. I'm not saying that there aren't minority readers who go too far and engage in actual harassment rather than criticism. I'm not saying that 'culture cops' bullying individuals is warranted.

I'm saying there's a difference between criticism and silencing tactics. And that before people go painting it all with the same brush based solely on who's doing the shouting and who it is they're shouting at, they should take a beat and consider whether they're actually being silenced, or whether they're just so unused to facing vocal, authoritatively declared criticism that they automatically view it as an attack.

If you grew up in the seventies or eighties or nineties in America and never considered the lists of banned books in schools and libraries a source of outrage, you might want to take a moment and ask yourself what's actually changed that its only now that shame and silencing tactics are especially outrageous to you. Before taking your own twitter feed or facebook page's word for whether another white author has been bullied in the past month, actually look at the content of what minority readers were saying about that work and ask yourself: if it were you writing that review, aimed at an author who you felt had inaccurately represented or unfairly maligned characters for being Christian or white, would you consider that review bullying? Or would you feel you were just making valid criticisms?

That doesn't mean that position itself is anything new. And as pretty much any minority member who grew up in America could tell you, facing antagonism doesn't always equal being bullied. It sucks, sure. It's not fun or comfortable. But there's a world of difference between 'this person is threatening me' and 'this person doesn't like me', and conflating the two without provocation just convinces you that you're above reproach. And that's not actually true of any of us.

_edited; PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

To say an author shouldn't write a story with a different race MC is essentially racist. About as useful as any argument using  the "if you aren't one, then you can't" reasoning.

So to those protesters, I call shame. To the others who just don't like the story, they are entitled to their opinion.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

If writers only wrote of their personal experiences in life, libraries and book stores would be filled with nothing but autobiographies and memoirs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

WHDean said:


> Well, I'm in need of your expertise here. You suggested she should've made the main character Muslim to avoid the problem. But that would've been cultural appropriation. So how, short of not writing the book at all, could she have done things the right way?


No, cultural appropriation is when a person adopts the persona, style, or ideas of another culture and either attempts to pass them off as original ideas, uses them out of the original context of the cultural element, or portrays them in a stereotypical manner. It is not cultural appropriation to write ABOUT another culture.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> I'm not sure when it happened, but I am seeing an alarming trend of standing up for the rights of those with less power being called "bullying" by those with more power. THAT"S NOT HOW BULLYING WORKS.


Whether or not a certain action constitutes bullying is a matter of _how_ the action is carried out and the circumstances in which it's carried out. The intent of the action doesn't define whether or not the action is bullying. Obviously, we can't say that anything and everything that's done in the name of standing up for someone's rights is never bullying. Maybe it isn't, or maybe it is.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, just stepping in again, this time to ask, pre-emptively, that when using "you," the poster makes it clear that that is generic "you" and not specific "you."  Personal comments about your fellow posters aren't allowed.  Address the ideas, not the people.

Thanks.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Joseph M. Erhardt (Oct 31, 2016)

paranormal_kitty said:


> TBH, from what I read the complaints people had about this book are valid. I'm not sure why it would have been so hard to write it from the POV of the Muslim character. This happens a lot that minorities are made the sidekicks in their own stories so it can be written from the POV of the dominant culture.


The problem then becomes, "How _dare_ a non-Muslim write from the POV of a Muslim character!"

In other words, the story should not have been written at all.

I've seen, elsewhere, someone essentially say, "Hey, Kirkus! _Huckleberry Finn_, you idiots!" (paraphrased)

In any case, I hope the author demands her Kirkus fee back. If Kirkus promises an unbiased review and then is influenced in this manner, it is, IN MY OPINION, a breach of contract.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Folks, just stepping in again, this time to ask, pre-emptively, that when using "you," the poster makes it clear that that is generic "you" and not specific "you." Personal comments about your fellow posters aren't allowed. Address the ideas, not the people.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I edited my post to make it more clear.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I'm not trying to call anyone out in particular, and I don't know your thoughts beyond this post, so if the rest of what I have to say doesn't actually apply to you, fair enough, and my apologies. But this post sums up a lot of the sentiments in this thread, from the looks of things, so this is what I'm jumping off of.


This entire post was beautiful.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

This topic comes up repeatedly and it usually plays out the same way. You have some people grappling with whether it's really "offensive" and grasping at the issue, but not quite getting it. Then you have axe grinders babbling about SJWs and Political Correctness.

But this is happening with *Young* Adult books. Now we all know that YA as a category is aimed at 40 year old women. But let's pretend it actually is aimed at young adults.

Could we contemplate for just a moment that perhaps we are seeing a generational difference in what people sincerely consider to be acceptable behavior? That maybe as adults, we just don't get it because we're... old?


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

crow.bar.beer said:


> Whether or not a certain action constitutes bullying is a matter of _how_ the action is carried out and the circumstances in which it's carried out. The intent of the action doesn't define whether or not the action is bullying. Obviously, we can't say that anything and everything that's done in the name of standing up for someone's rights is never bullying. Maybe it isn't, or maybe it is.


Intent has everything to do with bullying. Bullying is about punching down. It is about using power at the expense of the less powerful. What definition of bully are you working from that doesn't specifically outline a bully as targeting those who are weaker, smaller or in other ways vulnerable?

You fundamentally can not bully someone who has more power than you.

You can attack them. You can assault them. You can be antagonistic towards them, hostile towards them, dismissive of them - but you fundamentally can not bully them if they have power over you because the entire concept of bullying is putting a name and a label to the tendency some people or groups have of exerting power over those who have less power.


----------



## Alex Makepeace (Jun 26, 2017)

Excellent article, if depressing reading.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

The primary issue, from my perspective, is that there is a difference between a white author writing minorities from a position of "these people exist in the real world and should be reflected in the fictional as well" versus "white savior" depictions in which the hero white character has to be the one to tell the story FOR the minority group. 

Heck, I'm a white girl and I AM TIRED of the white savior narrative. I can only imagine how minorities must feel about it. 

Authors on both sides of the issue, those complaining about the "PC police" and those worrying about whether they will be accused of cultural appropriation are missing the point. If you are going to angst over whether or not your minority characters are going to offend someone, you aren't mentally prepared to write about minority characters. If you are running around with a chip on your shoulder because you don't care if your minority characters offend someone, you aren't mentally prepared to write about minority characters. You aren't in the mental place you need to be to recognize minorities aren't simply "The Other". You are still stuck in the mental place, subconsciously, perhaps, where "white" is the norm and everything else is outside the norm. 

They are people. Individuals with their own goals and wants and stories. Write your characters as people, not representations of different minority groups like you are checking off boxes.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

crow.bar.beer said:


> From the article:
> 
> _"a white writer should not have tackled this story, and neither should a white character be the center of it."_
> 
> The racism embedded in comments like these is almost ironic, isn't it? One of the most important things when evaluating the value of criticism of one's own work is to dive into the subtext of what they said and identify what kind of person they are. For those authors here who might contemplate writing on matters such as race, or including characters of a different race, don't be discouraged because other people have their own, even atypical, blend of racism, and will judge you as though _you_ are racist. Being human transcends race, and for others to pretend that the race you were born into should preclude you from telling the story you want to tell denies your humanity and only reinforces the racism they supposedly wish to avoid.


That quote comes from Goodreads comments mentioned in the OPs article. Unfortunately inflammatory rhetoric has become the norm in user comments concerning politically charged issues. The article I read had arguments that were more well thought out.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I'm saying there's a difference between criticism and silencing tactics.


I can see what you're saying. Either way, though, demanding that a magazine remove a review sounds more like silencing than criticism to me.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, cultural appropriation is when a person adopts the persona, style, or ideas of another culture and either attempts to pass them off as original ideas, uses them out of the original context of the cultural element, or portrays them in a stereotypical manner. It is not cultural appropriation to write ABOUT another culture.


That's the second or third non-answer to my question. I ask again: Can a non-Muslim woman write a Muslim character or not? If not, then the answer is that the author should not have written this book.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Joseph M. Erhardt said:


> In any case, I hope the author demands her Kirkus fee back.


There is no fee for trade published books.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

WHDean said:


> That's the second or third non-answer to my question. I ask again: Can a non-Muslim woman write a Muslim character or not? If not, then the answer is that the author should not have written this book.


Yes, if she knows WTH she is doing. She would need to know what the character's back story is first, what country the character is from. Muslims are from all over the world -- someone who grew up in Iran would be a very different experience from someone in the US. She would need to decide if the character was born into the religion or converted, what sect of the religion the character belongs to, and all of that stuff. Plus what race the character is and how that impact their identity -- are they Middle Eastern, or are they black American Muslims or another race that converted to Islam? And also how observant they are, whether they wear hijab (if female), are they still practicing or did they just come from a Muslim family?


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Intent has everything to do with bullying. Bullying is about punching down. It is about using power at the expense of the less powerful. What definition of bully are you working from that doesn't specifically outline a bully as targeting those who are weaker, smaller or in other ways vulnerable?
> 
> You fundamentally can not bully someone who has more power than you.
> 
> You can attack them. You can assault them. You can be antagonistic towards them, hostile towards them, dismissive of them - but you fundamentally can not bully them if they have power over you because the entire concept of bullying is putting a name and a label to the tendency some people or groups have of exerting power over those who have less power.


That was PRECISELY my point! It is literally impossible for the people without power to bully. And yet I keep seeing the response to bullying labeled as bullying. Like whenever a marginalized group stand up for themselves, people are always quick to ask if they thought about the bully's feelings before asserting they have the same basic human rights as anyone.

It's a bizarre circular logic that just won't go away. We say everyone is entitled to their opinion. Then when someone gets called racist or sexist or whatever, someone always chimes in with the idea that racists are entitled to their opinion, too. And aren't you just infringing on their rights by saying they shouldn't be racist?

When we say everyone is entitled to their opinion, we don't specifically say except pedophiles and racists and nazis and homophobes, etc, because we SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

WHDean said:


> Can a non-Muslim woman write a Muslim character or not?


Yes. This author went through a lot of trouble to get the supporting Muslim character right. But imagine if she did all that _and_ let her be the main character of her own story.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

The politically correct answer is to say nothing for fear of offending someone, somewhere. Our fundamental human right - regardless of skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, disability and other (legitimate) concerns - is to never be offended. 

Or is it?


----------



## TonyU (Dec 14, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> That was PRECISELY my point! It is literally impossible for the people without power to bully.


Wouldn't you say a group of "outraged" reviewers online does indeed wield significant power? When they can drop 50-100 or even more 1 star reviews on a book that won't even be released for months, that could do major damage to the book's sales prospects and the author's future career potential.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Intent has everything to do with bullying. Bullying is about punching down. It is about using power at the expense of the less powerful. What definition of bully are you working from that doesn't specifically outline a bully as targeting those who are weaker, smaller or in other ways vulnerable?


No, intent is irrelevant to the act of bullying itself. It doesn't matter _why_ one bullies. Bullying is defined by the act of badgering or using force against someone weaker or with lesser defense, often to instill fear. We're obviously using the same definition in understanding the concept, but for some reason you seem to think the reason _why_ someone does it makes a difference in whether or not it's actually happening. If a kid in elementary school physically picks on a smaller kid because he wants to impress his buddies, is it any less bullying than if another does it as an outlet for grief over the death of his parent?



> You fundamentally can not bully someone who has more power than you.


Yet power, as it pertains to the concept of bullying, is solely relative to the specific interaction in which the bullying occurs.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Colin said:


> The politically correct answer is to say nothing for fear of offending someone, somewhere. Our fundamental human right - regardless of skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, disability and other (legitimate) concerns - is to never be offended.
> 
> Or is it?


There's a difference though between offending someone and offending someone by calling their very personhood into question solely on the basis of race, gender or sexuality, though.

Nobody has the right to go through life without ever being offended. It's impossible. But does everyone have the right to go through life without being offended because someone said or suggested that their race, gender or sexuality made them less of a person? Yes, absolutely.

It's honestly not hard not to dehumanize people. It's really really not. You can even find ways to disagree or hell, even insult other people without actually dehumanizing them. Refer back to their actions, their words, even their opinions. Just don't use fundamental facets of their very existence to suggest they're inferior to you. What on earth makes that hard? Why is that something people need a higher authority or the opinion of the masses to enforce?

What is so hard about saying 'there's really no reason or justification for me using a racial slur in an argument, so I'm not going to' instead of doubling down on 'its more important to defend my right to say a racial slur than someone else's right not to be dehumanized by a racial slur, even though I don't actually want to use a racial slur anyway'? I honestly don't get it.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> --- It's honestly not hard not to dehumanize people. It's really really not. ---


And it's dead easy to humanize people. Just be nice to each other, but accept that - in being 'nice' - you might offend people sometimes.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The primary issue, from my perspective, is that there is a difference between a white author writing minorities from a position of "these people exist in the real world and should be reflected in the fictional as well" versus "white savior" depictions in which the hero white character has to be the one to tell the story FOR the minority group.
> 
> Heck, I'm a white girl and I AM TIRED of the white savior narrative. I can only imagine how minorities must feel about it.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

Looking back, I'd like to think my writing is fairly inclusive. And my characters all deal with their struggles. 
I don't shy away from inclusion, because I'm just writing about the world around me, and that is the world I see. 
And while I feel extremely comfortable including the struggles of people not exactly like me, I would never DREAM of trying to write a story centered around those struggles. That's just not my story to tell. 
That's not to say that no one can ever write about someone from another race or culture, just that I don't feel like it's my place. And speaking as a reader, why would I even want to read about something like that from someone who has clearly never experienced it? 
(And don't chime in with the old "but no one has ever been a vampire, so how could anyone write about that." It's a tired, lazy argument. If you honestly can't tell the difference between vampires and Muslims, you need more help than I can give you.)


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

crow.bar.beer said:


> If a kid in elementary school physically picks on a smaller kid because he wants to impress his buddies, is it any less bullying than if another does it as an outlet for grief over the death of his parent?


Absolutely both those things are bullying. Because in both these cases, the intent is to exert power over someone weaker. The fact that the second kid is lashing out because he's grieving does not change or excuse the fact that he is still choosing to use his greater power to make someone weaker than him feel small, as his way of making himself feel better.

The second bully's reasons might make him more sympathetic to other people than the first bully's reasons, but they are still both targeting someone they think or know won't fight back. The second bully still has the intent to feel better in his time of grief by making himself feel strong and powerful, at the expense of someone else.

Now look at their victim. A smaller, weaker kid targeted by either of those bullies, with the intent of making him feel small and weak and powerless. Except the kid goes to karate class then, learns how to defend himself. And the next time either of those bullies comes after him, fed up with being picked on, he kicks their ass instead.

By your logic, the victim of these bullies has now become a bully himself, merely because he refused to be victimized any longer and in this particular situation, he came out on top.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I'm not trying to call anyone out in particular, and I don't know your thoughts beyond this post, so if the rest of what I have to say doesn't actually apply to you, fair enough, and my apologies. But this post sums up a lot of the sentiments in this thread, from the looks of things, so this is what I'm jumping off of.
> 
> And sorry, but this is simply not true. The internet hasn't made it ridiculously easy to gather the villagers, light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks, as you described it.
> 
> ...


^^ Every word of this. Thank you. Beautifully expressed.

You know, there was a panel on this at the last historical fiction conference I went to. I was so disappointed. The air just seemed to be full of white person angst. People saying things like 'Am I _allowed_ to write..." or worse, "Why am I not allowed..." And I just thought, what *is* this? Of course you're _allowed_ to. There's no law against it. If you're worried about being criticized for an inaccurate or stereotyped portrait of a people you know nothing about- well, maybe do some research so you feel a little more confident in yourself. Is that so hard? If you knew nothing about physics and were afraid physicists would criticize you for your 'hard science' Science Fiction novel would you be complaining that you're not _allowed_ to write about physics? Would you call physicists who one star books with inaccurate physics 'bullies' and complain that they're attacking you or forming a mob? If you want to write about other races or cultures that you are not a member of, read books by members of those communities. Talk to people who belong to them. Pay some beta readers of those other races or religions. Maybe even _make some friends_. And then listen. The same way you would to a physicist you asked to review the science in your book. Don't argue with them. Don't discount what they say. They're the experts. You're the student. If you don't understand, ask some more. Once you've fixed the problems your readers spotted and understand why they were problems you'll either have the confidence to publish or you'll know it's not a story that you can successfully tell. Then, if you decide to publish, those one stars that you do get will be reduced to their proper perspective- someone's opinion- not the end of the world. Same as it is for any story.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

WHDean said:


> That's the second or third non-answer to my question. I ask again: Can a non-Muslim woman write a Muslim character or not? If not, then the answer is that the author should not have written this book.


Quoting myself here to answer your question:



> The primary issue, from my perspective, is that there is a difference between a white author writing minorities from a position of "these people exist in the real world and should be reflected in the fictional as well" versus "white savior" depictions in which the hero white character has to be the one to tell the story FOR the minority group.
> 
> Heck, I'm a white girl and I AM TIRED of the white savior narrative. I can only imagine how minorities must feel about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> That was PRECISELY my point! It is literally impossible for the people without power to bully.


Only insomuch that, in the moment of bullying, the other person outmatches them with that same power. One can be powerless in regards to another in one sense but still bully them through exercising a different power.


----------



## RandomThings (Oct 21, 2016)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Snip


I never once claimed that it was invented because of the internet. I simply said it was made easier and exactly the way you mentioned. Before the internet you needed to gather the people, you needed to get the word out, usually with flyers or word of mouth, maybe the newspapers. You had to gather together to talk. Now, you just need to log on.

Because it is so easy, because all you have to do is log on and leave a nasty comment then share it with your friends, it has become a weapon to use to vent your displeasure. It is a way of shutting people down like the ridiculous no-platforming they started to do in universities.


----------



## Joseph M. Erhardt (Oct 31, 2016)

SevenDays said:


> There is no fee for trade published books.


I just tried to find that and failed. Do you have a link? If this is so, I need to update a post on another site. Thanks.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Not sure if this is totally relevant to the discussion, but Robin Hood (allegedly) stole from the rich to give to the poor. Thus making the rich the new poor. So he probably had to steal the money back from the poor - who were now the new rich - to give to the rich - who were now the new poor.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

Joseph M. Erhardt said:


> I just tried to find that and failed. Do you have a link? If this is so, I need to update a post on another site. Thanks.


There is no link because the relationship between trade publishers and Kirkus is a thousand times different than the relationship between indie authors and Kirkus. It is a sad, longwinded, ugly story that has no relevance to the current conversation. But to be crystal clear, it has NEVER BEEN THE NORM, despite what anyone selling reviews tells you, for trade publishers to "buy" reviews. NEVER the norm. Publishers send review copies, months in advance, to potential reviewers. Reviewer either reviews or does not. No money changes hands. Period. The entire notion of selling reviews is a money grabbing scheme to separate indies from their cash.

And we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Colin said:


> And it's dead easy to humanize people. Just be nice to each other, but accept that - in being 'nice' - you might offend people sometimes.


Given that I can't see any context in which a person actually being nice involves using a dehumanizing slur aimed at gender, race or sexuality, I'm not actually sure what point you're trying to make here. Sure. I accept that in trying to be nice, I might offend someone who views the world differently than me, has different priorities. And I'm fine with that. As long as I'm not offending them by using a gender, race or sexuality based slur whose whole reason for existing is to be a means of dehumanizing a member of a minority group.

Are you agreeing with me and we're both just saying the same thing, or am I missing something here?


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> Absolutely both those things are bullying. Because in both these cases, the intent is to exert power over someone weaker. The fact that the second kid is lashing out because he's grieving does not change or excuse the fact that he is still choosing to use his greater power to make someone weaker than him feel small, as his way of making himself feel better.
> 
> The second bully's reasons might make him more sympathetic to other people than the first bully's reasons, but they are still both targeting someone they think or know won't fight back. The second bully still has the intent to feel better in his time of grief by making himself feel strong and powerful, at the expense of someone else.


Exactly, the comparison was only to illustrate, regardless of any sympathetic value of one's intent, that intent isn't relevant in the slightest to how the act itself is defined. 



> Now look at their victim. A smaller, weaker kid targeted by either of those bullies, with the intent of making him feel small and weak and powerless. Except the kid goes to karate class then, learns how to defend himself. And the next time either of those bullies comes after him, fed up with being picked on, he kicks their ass instead.
> 
> By your logic, the victim of these bullies has now become a bully himself, merely because he refused to be victimized any longer and in this particular situation, he came out on top.


That's the catch, though: you're describing an act of self-defense, but I've never indicated that self-defense is in any way synonymous with bullying. All I've done is take issue with Steve's idea that the intent of an action, such as _"standing up for the rights of someone else"_, means that the *act* could never be considered bullying, because that's not how bullying works. After all, there *are* indeed situations where someone _could_ bully someone else out of an intention to stand up for someone else's rights, aren't there?


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> It's honestly not hard not to dehumanize people.


Actually its very easy because you need to know what that community finds offensive. Japanese people hate if Japanese are called inscrutable. Irish people hate depictions that reduces them to being drunkards. Gay people hate that sympathetic writers like to kill off the gay character.

The Kirkus rumpus sounds as if it is over the problem of trying to present a character moving away from discriminatory attitudes without making clear early in the book that the author is not backing the discrimination. It is hard to get that right (especially first person POV) and I have often abandoned books, e.g., The Thorn Birds, because the balance was wrong early in the novel and I was unwilling to wait to see if the attitudes were turned around. That is an issue of narrative structure and story-telling rather than the actual racism that you get in a text like The Water Babies.


----------



## Joseph M. Erhardt (Oct 31, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> ... The entire notion of selling reviews is a money grabbing scheme to separate indies from their cash.


Well, I mean, _that much_ was obvious from the get-go.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

crow.bar.beer said:


> Only insomuch that, in the moment of bullying, the other person outmatches them with that same power. One can be powerless in regards to another in one sense but still bully them through exercising a different power.


No.


----------



## eleutheria (Mar 25, 2014)

Colin said:


> Not sure if this is totally relevant to the discussion, but Robin Hood (allegedly) stole from the rich to give to the poor. Thus making the rich the new poor. So he probably had to steal the money back from the poor - who were now the new rich - to give to the rich - who were now the new poor.


Actually, fun fact: Robin Hood, in the original story, stole the taxes the government was taking and returned it to the poor people being horribly taxed. So the poor people were in fact returned their own money.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> No.


So you're saying if Person A is weaker than Person B physically, they could never be capable of bullying them through other means, for example socially? Honestly, that's a stretch.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

crow.bar.beer said:


> So you're saying if Person A is weaker than Person B physically, they could never be capable of bullying them through other means, for example socially? Honestly, that's a stretch.


Quite a stretch. Two dozen weak victims can easily get together and bully a stronger person.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

eleutheria said:


> Actually, fun fact: Robin Hood, in the original story, stole the taxes the government was taking and returned it to the poor people being horribly taxed. So the poor people were in fact returned their own money.


Good. I like happy endings.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Laran Mithras said:


> Quite a stretch. Two dozen weak victims can easily get together and bully a stronger person.


So we go from bullying to mob rule...


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Dragovian said:


> And if she'd done that, odds are good she would have been accused of "co-opting POC voices" and still told she shouldn't have written the book. The only thing louder than calls for greater diversity are demands that white writers stay in their own lane.


That's my thought. I don't understand why writers can't write whatever they want and readers are free to read or not whatever they want.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Quoting myself here to answer your question:





paranormal_kitty said:


> Yes, if she knows WTH she is doing. She would need to know what the character's back story is first, what country the character is from. Muslims are from all over the world -- someone who grew up in Iran would be a very different experience from someone in the US. She would need to decide if the character was born into the religion or converted, what sect of the religion the character belongs to, and all of that stuff. Plus what race the character is and how that impact their identity -- are they Middle Eastern, or are they black American Muslims or another race that converted to Islam? And also how observant they are, whether they wear hijab (if female), are they still practicing or did they just come from a Muslim family?





kcmorgan said:


> Yes. This author went through a lot of trouble to get the supporting Muslim character right. But imagine if she did all that _and_ let her be the main character of her own story.


Oops! I forgot to ask whether you were Muslim women. If you're not, you can't answer the question because you'd be speaking on their behalf. You can't really assume that the standards you've set for representing their group would be acceptable to them, now can you?


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

crow.bar.beer said:


> So you're saying if Person A is weaker than Person B physically, they could never be capable of bullying them through other means, for example socially? Honestly, that's a stretch.


It's about overall power. If person A is socially higher, but person B is physically stronger, then one might not actually be more powerful. In that case, it's just a fight, or argument or whatever. It is not bullying. For it to be bullying, one person has to clearly have more power. It's not to say that is set in stone. It might be a sliding scale. And someone can be a bully and also be bullied. But not in the same exchange.

The point is, when someone is CLEARLY bullying someone else, it's not the time to think that stopping that behavior is just another form of bullying.

i.e. - Hurting someone's feelings by calling them a racist is NOT remotely equivalent to the harm they cause by actually being a racist. Stopping someone from bullying, even if they REALLY want to, even of you have to exert power over them to do it, is not the same as bullying.

tl;dr - Hurting = bad
Stopping hurting = good


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

This conversation is so weird. A Big Five publisher puts out another book stressing the relevant POV in minority struggles is that of the majority and the people who object to that are "bullies"? So what were the people who find these kinds of books harmful and wrong supposed to do if not give the book a bad review?


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Actually its very easy because you need to know what that community finds offensive. Japanese people hate if Japanese are called inscrutable. Irish people hate depictions that reduces them to being drunkards. Gay people hate that sympathetic writers like to kill off the gay character.


I understand what you're saying here, and its not that I disagree, its just that this is why I specifically talked about slurs in my post. In 2017, anyone who has online access to be involved in these kinds of discussion at all really has no excuse for not knowing that a slur they're using is dehumanizing towards the group it targets.

Now, once we get away from dehumanizing slurs, I agree, its entirely possible to offend another group out of ignorance of their cultural mores or traditions or history. And I don't think there's anything innately terrible about offending someone from another group out of ignorance. The important thing then is where do you go from there? Do you listen to them when they say 'this offends me' and now educated about that, make the choice not to offend them the same way again? Or do you not really care, or decide 'well it doesn't seem that offensive to me' despite that not being your decision to make, and continue to offend in the same way? *Shrugs*

Basically, I just mean, it is totally possible to offend someone of another group out of ignorance, its just that excuse really only works so long as no one ever tells you they're offended by that.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

This deliberate, willful misunderstanding of what it means to treat others with respect is making my head hurt and tanking my productivity. 

I'm going to do some work. 

Just try to not be a jerk. Do the best you can. It's not hard to do or to understand, despite how difficult people keep trying to make it. There are no politics involved. There is no philosophy degree required. Just try not to do stuff that hurts people, and when you do, be cool about it and try harder next time. 

Have fun!


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

It's hard for me to read about controversies like this and not think it is exactly what the publisher wanted. We've all heard of _American Heart_ now, and some of us will buy it (or borrow it from the library) to see if it is as bad as they say. So, well done publisher.

Somewhat unrelated, some folks have said that if you write from the point of view of a non-white character you will be accused of "appropriation." I do that all the time, and it has never been an issue. I've gotten comments about being female, but no POC has written to complain that I shouldn't be allowed to write POC.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> This conversation is so weird. A Big Five publisher puts out another book stressing the relevant POV in minority struggles is that of the majority and the people who object to that are "bullies"? *So what were the people who find these kinds of books harmful and wrong supposed to do if not give the book a bad review?*


They don't have to _read_ the book. I mean, it's not compulsory.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Steve Voelker said:


> i.e. - Hurting someone's feelings by calling them a racist is NOT remotely equivalent to the harm they cause by actually being a racist.


You should write a book called _The Scales of Emotional Justice _where you explain whose feelings are worth what and how people ought to feel about things. I think it would be helpful to those of us who aren't used to weighing feelings and telling other people how to feel. Personally, I didn't even know hurt feelings could be so clearly valuated.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> It's hard for me to read about controversies like this and not think it is exactly what the publisher wanted. We've all heard of _American Heart_ now, and some of us will buy it (or borrow it from the library) to see if it is as bad as they say. So, well done publisher.


That was my thought, as well.

Controversy begets visibility. And controversy over "soft" topics - i.e. topics where every mouth-breather feels he or she is making a substantive contribution (politics, economics, racism, relationships, etc.) - is quick to polarize and therefore its own accelerant.

As you say, well done publisher.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

I think some people are being willfully argumentative.

This whole argument is quite ridiculous, and there is no single, "right" answer or opinion.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> It's about overall power. If person A is socially higher, but person B is physically stronger, then one might not actually be more powerful. In that case, it's just a fight, or argument or whatever. It is not bullying. For it to be bullying, one person has to clearly have more power.


I don't personally see it as being about overall power, though, because a person could have all sorts of different strengths that, when weighed together (by which scale?), might outnumber the collective strengths of someone else (by that same scale), and yet still be bullied. Right? An emotionally-resilient, intellectually-superior kid could still be subjected to physical bullying by another kid who has lesser intellectual and emotional intelligence, simply because they're physically weaker.  Like you said, it's about the same exchange, and when considering the definition of bullying, we have to assume power is relative to the _form_ the bullying takes, not a subjective sense of _all _the power someone supposedly has or hasn't.



> i.e. - Hurting someone's feelings by calling them a racist is NOT remotely equivalent to the harm they cause by actually being a racist. Stopping someone from bullying, even if they REALLY want to, even of you have to exert power over them to do it, is not the same as bullying.


But bullying isn't about the equivalence of inflicted harm. It's about _how_ the action manifests, the form it takes. Could one person subject another to an entire host of harassment and abuse and never be considered a bully because the other person has also caused other people harm, perhaps greater harm? I don't believe that's how it works. Sometimes there's self defense, and sometimes there's mirroring of transgression.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Colin said:


> They don't have to _read_ the book. I mean, it's not compulsory.


Yes. But they do have to live in a world where these ideologies are acceptable. Keeping in mind, they find this exploitive and harmful, you really feel their response should be to just ignore it?


----------



## Wisescarab (Oct 12, 2017)

Anarchist said:


> That was my thought, as well.
> 
> Controversy begets visibility. And controversy over "soft" topics - i.e. topics where every mouth-breather feels he or she is making a substantive contribution (politics, economics, racism, relationships, etc.) - is quick to polarize and therefore its own accelerant.
> 
> As you say, well done publisher.


I am glad I wasn't the only one thinking this. It's no different than the "shock-jock" radio wars that happened in the 90's.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> Somewhat unrelated, some folks have said that if you write from the point of view of a non-white character you will be accused of "appropriation." I do that all the time, and it has never been an issue. I've gotten comments about being female, but no POC has written to complain that I shouldn't be allowed to write POC.


Yeah, funny thing about that. It's almost as if the only people who actually catch flak for writing 'diverse' characters are those whose characters are offensive stereotypes or one-dimensional cannon fodder whose purpose is to die tragically so that the main (white) character can grow...

Nah. Couldn't be!


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> Yes. But they do have to live in a world where these ideologies are acceptable. Keeping in mind, they find this exploitive and harmful, you really feel their response should be to just ignore it?


I have an old copy of _The Goebbels Diaries_ gathering dust on a bookshelf somewhere. Not something I bought; in fact, I inherited it. I could choose to read the book or not to read the book. I know this is not an exact analogy, but if I opened the cover and found the contents offensive, that would be _my_ choice. I could choose to read any number of contemporary books that I might find offensive. But I don't.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

WHDean said:


> Oops! I forgot to ask whether you were Muslim women. If you're not, you can't answer the question because you'd be speaking on their behalf. You can't really assume that the standards you've set for representing their group would be acceptable to them, now can you?


I answering as a writer. Think how boring literature would be if the only perspective our characters had was identical to our own. Seeing things in new ways is literally our job.

They got together panels of Muslims to evaluate the characterization of this supporting character, so clearly they were trying to get the perspective right. But no one questions why that perspective should be a supporting one in a story about Muslims being rounded up?


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Colin said:


> I have an old copy of _The Goebbels Diaries_ gathering dust on a bookshelf somewhere. Not something I bought; in fact, I inherited it. I could choose to read the book or not to read the book. I know this is not an exact analogy, but if I opened the cover and found the contents offensive, that would be _my_ choice. I could choose to read any number of contemporary books that I might find offensive. But I don't.


That's neither here nor there because they made a different choice. They chose to warn people about the problems with the book. What's wrong with warning people about something you find harmful?


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> They got together panels of Muslims to evaluate the characterization of this supporting character, so clearly they were trying to get the perspective right. But no one questions why that perspective should be a supporting one in a story about Muslims being rounded up?


From what I've seen, which character is the protagonist is largely determined by the _theme_ of the story. How could we question that character's supporting role without knowing the theme?


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> That's neither here nor there because they made a different choice. They chose to warn people about the problems with the book. *What's wrong with warning people about something you find harmful?*


There's nothing wrong about warning people about something YOU/THEY find harmful. But it might be better to wait until the book is published before going off in a fit of moral indignation.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

eleutheria said:


> Actually, fun fact: Robin Hood, in the original story, stole the taxes the government was taking and returned it to the poor people being horribly taxed. So the poor people were in fact returned their own money.


You've been watching too many movies. The original story is a series of ballads in which Robin is the lampooned noble who tries to do good and gets it wrong. This includes him being beaten in a sword fight with Maid Marian, who was a religious carnival figure representing St Mary of Nazareth. The myth of origin was about Robin (probably a minor noble in Barnsdale) trying to avenge someone he believed to have been wronged by the local abbot. In original it had nothing to do with the sheriff, Nottingham, taxes, or the poor. Except that the poor probably loved to hear the ballads mocking a pretentious noble. The modern equivalent is not Robin Hood movies (although Prince of Thieves references the defeat to Maid Marian), but Blackadder Series One.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Uninformed outrage should not be our society's vetting process.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

All I know is I can't wait to read this book.

I feel that pressuring Kirkus Reviews to remove the star IS bullying & mob rule. It's happening all too often these days; if people don't like the content of someone's speech or writing, they try to silence it. If they don't like the book they're welcome to not read it or to leave their review saying they didn't like it but that doesn't mean Kirkus should have to take away the star that a female Muslim reviewer gave it... how ridiculous of both Kirkus & the mob. I thought that we as writers were supposed to celebrate freedom of expression & be against censorship but apparently not everyone agrees & I find that sad.

For those saying that this was the Muslim's woman story & should have been told from her POV... maybe consider that it is actually the main character [white woman]'s story and was correctly told from her POV. Perhaps this book is about her experience realizing that her worldview was racist. There are a lot of white kids/teens raised in rural areas [or cities] as 'accidentally racist' who come to find out at about that point in their life that the worldview they raised in was wrong. How is it racist or wrong to write about this very common experience? How does it NOT help point out & address this phenomenon? I can't believe an author is being slammed by other authors for writing about whatever the heck she wants to write about.

People who want to silence perspectives that they don't agree with are the reason there is such backlash against political correctness & against the worldview that that side is trying to promote. It is doing 'that side' more harm than good to try to have mob rule of the vocal minority against the rest of the people/readers who just want to read a good story. If the reviewers truly think this book is badly written then fine. But the links posted here & that I've read have shown that people are leaving bad reviews on this book either b/c they don't think it should be read or because they feel compelled to state their opinion that the content is 'racist' or 'morally wrong.' While that is fine to do, they have to realize they're doing their side more harm than good & people will scratch their head thinking 'what happened, how did we get a backlash against us & the values we're trying to promote?' Shaming people for expressing or reading what they want is not going to win that side any fans, & instead of silencing the book it will have the opposite effect b/c now a lot of people including me are going to want to read it.

This is just like when college kids protest a speaker who was going to come talk to 200 students but now the protests & outrage go viral & thousands if not millions of people are hearing about this speaker & their ideas that the college kids thought were so dangerous & wanted to silence/suppress. It really does have the opposite effect than the protesters were intending & I always scratch my head that that's how they choose to go about it, when they could simply not go to the speech, or go to the speech & offer their own well thought out rebuttals in the spirit of free speech & open dialogue & rational debate. In the case of a book, it's fine to read it, leave a review w/ reasoned rebuttals as to what the reviewer found wrong with it, but to demand Kirkus suppress its endorsement of the book just b/c the reader doesn't agree w/ it is absurd.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Colin said:


> There's nothing wrong about warning people about something YOU/THEY find harmful. But it might be better to wait until the book is published before going off in a fit of moral indignation.


I don't need to taste dog poop to warn people not to put it in their mouth. There is no "good way" to use the suffering of minorities to teach white people a lesson. And they just came out with this same story last month, and after 600 pages of minority suffering, the main character didn't learn a thing.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Puddleduck said:


> Also, the ideologies exist in the world whether you read a book about them or not, and the problems do not originate from that book, nor can trying to tank that one book actually do anything to change whether that ideology exists in the world.


If anyone thinks it's about the "one book" they're missing the point. It's not about the one book. The point is that this is a pervasive problem, and the one book is an example. How many other "one books" have to get called out before anyone listens? No one will ever listen, because every time it gets called out, the argument gets drowned out in this faux censorship outrage. It would be nice if one author one time would actually acknowledge if they made a mistake and say they will try to do better next time, and invite feedback about how they can do that.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

kcmorgan said:


> There is no "good way" to use the suffering of minorities to teach white people a lesson.


Really? Would TKaM fall into that category? Among others? Why are things so, you'll forgive the pun, black and white? Lessons are taught in myriad ways. That's one of them. Doing well is the rub.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I don't need to taste dog poop to warn people not to put it in their mouth. There is no "good way" to use the suffering of minorities to teach white people a lesson. And they just came out with this same story last month, and after 600 pages of minority suffering, the main character didn't learn a thing.


"to teach white people a lesson"

hmmm.


----------



## eleutheria (Mar 25, 2014)

Honestly, when I read the description of this book, my first thought was that the choice of main character was a technical one - the author knew what story she wanted to write, and went about choosing the best method for her _personally_ to do so. It's really common, for instance, for scifi and fantasy media (TV, books, movies) to have an ignorant character as the POV character for the simple reason that that allows the author/director to explain the new world that they're entering. Stargate Atlantis did this with John Sheppard (old example, I know) and there are countless others. In this case, there's a foreign (to most of the reader-base) culture she's entering, along with a future-world scenario.

So to me, it read more a matter of laziness/lack of skill/optimizing the skill she has than anything more nefarious. It's perfectly possible to bring a reader into a story using a character who lives - and has always lived - in that world, but it is harder. How often do we, as writers, talk about the difficulty of info-dumps? To me, it has nothing to do with the ability of the reader to have empathy for a non-white character, and everything to do with introducing a new world/a new culture in an easier way.

Of course, I think the best thing to do is wait until the book comes out and people can read it. It's hard to criticize something you haven't read in any kind of meaningful way, and that applies here as much to Twilight.

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> There is no "good way" to use the suffering of minorities to teach white people a lesson.


Thousands of years of the collective study known as drama beg to differ.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

paranormal_kitty said:


> It would be nice if one author one time would actually acknowledge if they made a mistake and say they will try to do better next time, and invite feedback about how they can do that.


What was the mistake in this book?


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> You should write a book called _The Scales of Emotional Justice _where you explain whose feelings are worth what and how people ought to feel about things. I think it would be helpful to those of us who aren't used to weighing feelings and telling other people how to feel. Personally, I didn't even know hurt feelings could be so clearly valuated.


So you can't see a pretty clear and obvious difference between judging someone based on views and actions they and only they are responsible for (ie being racist, as in saying or doing something that diminishes a person's worth based solely on their race), and judging someone based on a basic and inherent fact of their existence (ie, their race)?

I mean, that's what that boils down to. The difference between feeling insulted for being called racist and feeling insulted for being subjected to racism is the difference between having someone hold an opinion or behavior against you and having someone hold your entire being against you.

Unless you actually feel that a person's entire being is summed up by whatever belief or behavior it was that led to them being called racist, I guess.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Colin said:


> There's nothing wrong about warning people about something YOU/THEY find harmful. But it might be better to wait until the book is published before going off in a fit of moral indignation.


But this is _Goodreads_, after all. You'll find dozens of threads here complaining about being one-starred for books not out. Lots of readers apparently use the review system to remind themselves of what they do and don't want to read. We've had this discussion so often here I'm frankly surprised to see the outrage over this.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Sarah Shaw said:


> But this is _Goodreads_, after all. You'll find dozens of threads here complaining about being one-starred for books not out. Lots of readers apparently use the review system to remind themselves of what they do and don't want to read. We've had this discussion so often here I'm frankly surprised to see the outrage over this.


That's a really good point.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Sarah Shaw said:


> But this is _Goodreads_, after all. You'll find dozens of threads here complaining about being one-starred for books not out. Lots of readers apparently use the review system to remind themselves of what they do and don't want to read. We've had this discussion so often here I'm frankly surprised to see the outrage over this.


I choose to ignore Goodreads!


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Monique said:
 

> Really? Would TKaM fall into that category? Among others? Why are things so, you'll forgive the pun, black and white? Lessons are taught in myriad ways. That's one of them. Doing well is the rub.


As I pointed out with Huck Finn, look at when those classics were written. Do we really still need a white cushion to teach that oppression is bad?


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Sarah Shaw said:


> Yeah, funny thing about that. It's almost as if the only people who actually catch flak for writing 'diverse' characters are those whose characters are offensive stereotypes or one-dimensional cannon fodder whose purpose is to die tragically so that the main (white) character can grow...
> 
> Nah. Couldn't be!


Heh.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> As I pointed out with Huck Finn, look at when those classics were written. Do we really still need a white cushion to teach that oppression is bad?


Some people might indeed really need that, actually.


----------



## RandomThings (Oct 21, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> As I pointed out with Huck Finn, look at when those classics were written. Do we really still need a white cushion to teach that oppression is bad?


Not trying to be political, but have you watched the news in the US recently... I kinda think you still do need to be teaching that.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

paranormal_kitty said:


> If anyone thinks it's about the "one book" they're missing the point. It's not about the one book. The point is that this is a pervasive problem, and the one book is an example. How many other "one books" have to get called out before anyone listens? No one will ever listen, because every time it gets called out, the argument gets drowned out in this faux censorship outrage. It would be nice if one author one time would actually acknowledge if they made a mistake and say they will try to do better next time, and invite feedback about how they can do that.


I think the pervasive problem is people riling one another up into this intense anger and then using it as a cudgel to influence a work of art's potential reach without reading the actual book in question.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

RandomThings said:


> Not trying to be political, but have you watched the news in the US recently... I kinda think you still do need to be teaching that.


It's like the way childrens' interest in certain kinds of toys and activities evolves as they grow older. It's easy for them to think something they grew out of is "dumb" or "for babies", but younger kids at a _different stage of development_ are still going to benefit from or even need that kind of stimulation in order to grow.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> As I pointed out with Huck Finn, look at when those classics were written. Do we really still need a white cushion to teach that oppression is bad?


I think that for some people, yes.

That said, I think a huge part of the problem is that the other side of the story isn't being told. White savior stories would be a lot more palatable if there were lots of POC savior stories and racism survivor stories.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> *If anyone thinks it's about the "one book" they're missing the point. It's not about the one book. The point is that this is a pervasive problem, and the one book is an example. How many other "one books" have to get called out before anyone listens? *No one will ever listen, because every time it gets called out, the argument gets drowned out in this faux censorship outrage. It would be nice if one author one time would actually acknowledge if they made a mistake and say they will try to do better next time, and invite feedback about how they can do that.


This same argument can be used for either side of the issue.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WasAnn said:


> When a bunch of people say clearly racist things like a white person shouldn't write a non-white character, that the book shouldn't even have been written from a white POV...etc...then they are engaging in racism. Some examples:
> 
> If we cringe when inserting any descriptor other than "white" into the sentence, then it's racist (sexist, ethnically or culturally bad and so on).


A number of people have said this sort of thing, but people on the other side of the debate do not agree that discrimination by POC against whites is the same as discrimination by whites against POC. Both may be forms of bigotry or discrimination, but the word "racism" is reserved for bigotry back up by institutional power and woven into the fundamental fabric of a society. Someone who's in a comparatively powerless position is not capable of producing or participating in that sort of institutional effect. So whatever bigotries they possess remain personal, individual -- and perhaps quite justifiable. This is why people on the left would see a black person going out of their way to read only books written by black authors as fundamentally different from a white person going out of their way to read only books written by white authors. The latter would be seen as reinforcing an existing racist power structure, while the former would be seen as pushing back against that structure.

I think people on the right tend to reject the left's definition of racism as a structural, institutional effect because they don't see society as being fundamentally racist. It's not that they think there are no racist people out there; they know racists exist. But they see racism as a relatively small and localized problem, especially in comparison to the past. In the absence of an overarching racist power structure in the background of everything, individual acts of prejudice look much the same: the black reader who prefers black-written books is the same as the white reader who prefers white-written books, because there is no larger problem for the black reader to be pushing back against.

I'm pointing this out because I think people often talk past one another in debates like this one, and part of the reason is that what seems "obvious" to one side is not only _not_ obvious but perhaps downright invisible to the other side. What a word like "racism" means is one of those things that differs from one side to the other. One may not agree with the other side, but it's helpful to understand how they think.

From the POV of the left, asking white writers not to tell the stories of people of color is not racism. It's a request to keep hands off some of the most valuable property POC have: their own cultures and histories. Most see traditional publishing houses as probably allotting a certain number of slots to "diverse" books -- books featuring minority main characters and focusing on issues central to people who feel outside the majority. This is a new and quite wonderful thing, as there didn't used to be much of an opportunity at all to publish those stories. Now diversity is "in," so there's some opportunity, but it's still quite limited. When white writers claim those few slots, minority authors lose the chance to tell their own stories themselves. "Sorry," an editor might say to a Muslim American author's agent, "we already have a Muslim book for 2020. Let us know what she's working on for 2023." So the Muslim author gets all the downsides that come with being a religious minority, and the (no doubt well meaning) white author gets all the benefit of selling her book into the "diverse" slot while not having to live the downsides of actually being the identity she's writing about. If the resulting story turns out to be filtered through the consciousness of a white character -- for instance, if it becomes more about the white character's opportunity to grow out of their prejudice through their encounter with a religious minority -- that adds insult to injury. The book ticks off the "diverse book" box without even really being about a minority person.

I'll add that I think most people would differentiate telling a story that is centrally about the Muslim experience from a story that simply contains a Muslim character.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

This thread is like a bad zombie sequel.

The author of the book wrote her heart and put a lot of effort into it. A lot of effort. That's enough for me. If I read it and found it offensive, I'd 1-star it and say I didn't like it - not rant on about politics. End of story.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> Yes. But they do have to live in a world where these ideologies are acceptable. Keeping in mind, they find this exploitive and harmful, you really feel their response should be to just ignore it?


What's the ideology in this case? If it's the "white saviour narrative," then are you saying the harm and exploitation comes from people writing books containing white saviour narratives? Or is the harm and exploitation that people are acting like white saviours in the real world because they read such books? Or is it something else entirely?



kcmorgan said:


> I answering as a writer. Think how boring literature would be if the only perspective our characters had was identical to our own. Seeing things in new ways is literally our job.
> 
> They got together panels of Muslims to evaluate the characterization of this supporting character, so clearly they were trying to get the perspective right. But no one questions why that perspective should be a supporting one in a story about Muslims being rounded up?


If it's morally wrong for non-x's to portray x's in fiction, the consequences for fiction seem insignificant next to the harm caused by the portrayal.

As for answering as a writer, I take that to mean you're not a Muslim woman so, on the premises offered or implied here, you shouldn't be writing about them because you're appropriating their stories (or POV) or you're representing them without knowing how they want to be represented--which, of course, you can only know how to do by being a member of the group. I'm not sure whether you're saying exactly this; I'm suggesting it because I don't see the way out once you accept the principles being floated here.



Kalen ODonnell said:


> So you can't see a pretty clear and obvious difference between judging someone based on views and actions they and only they are responsible for (ie being racist, as in saying or doing something that diminishes a person's worth based solely on their race), and judging someone based on a basic and inherent fact of their existence (ie, their race)?
> 
> I mean, that's what that boils down to. The difference between feeling insulted for being called racist and feeling insulted for being subjected to racism is the difference between having someone hold an opinion or behavior against you and having someone hold your entire being against you.
> 
> Unless you actually feel that a person's entire being is summed up by whatever belief or behavior it was that led to them being called racist, I guess.


Like I said, I'm not an expert in knowing and evaluating the feelings of others in accordance with the principles of justice. But I have to wonder whether it depends on context. If a white mother's black children called her a racist (or even just "a typical white person"), she might be hurt more than a black tycoon faced with the racism of one of his janitors (whom he summarily fires). Again, I don't know whether or how context factors in to it, which is why I encouraged Steve to write the book.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I don't need to taste dog poop to warn people not to put it in their mouth. There is no "good way" to use the suffering of minorities to teach white people a lesson. And they just came out with this same story last month, and after 600 pages of minority suffering, the main character didn't learn a thing.


Ever hear of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, _Twelve Years a Slave_, and the rest of the anti-slavery oeuvre?


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

I have several problems with aspects of this discussion. The biggest one being the term racist, which minorities have been pinning on people for years, and let's face it, mud sticks. How do you argue against that? I'm not a racist I have {insert minority affected here} friends, well that answer is always pooped on. Are you supposed to drag all your ethnically diverse friends out to parade them in public to a grilling of it your racist or not? 

Then there's the argument that you can't understand a 'minority' view unless you have walked in their shoes. No, maybe not, but a great many people can recognize the problems, empathize with it, and act accordingly against it. Otherwise, there would still be slavery (and in some countries, where, what we would call minorities live, there still is slavery.)

How about the racism shown against 'white' people? Apparently, that's not racism that's the oppressed rising up with freedom of speech against the oppressor. I'm not oppressing anyone, why should I be sneered at and painted with the same brush as someone who holds a certain view? 

And why am I called white? I hate that term - I'm not white, I'm kind of pinky yellow, and above all, I'm a person, not a colour. 

As for the argument that you don't need a 'white' person to tell other 'white' people that racism is bad - wrong! Because how many of us shut our ears to rants from people that are just banging and banging on that same drum? If anything, it just makes us more entrenched to ignore it. Show don't tell. And if people really wanted to get the message out there then they wouldn't care who was saying it, just that it was being heard.

As for the one stars - read the book without pre-judging it (impossible now) and give an honest review of the writing, not that the author isn't the colour you'd like them to be. Otherwise, write it yourself.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Becca Mills said:


> Both may be forms of bigotry or discrimination, but the word "racism" is reserved for bigotry back up by institutional power and woven into the fundamental fabric of a society.
> 
> From the POV of the left, asking white writers not to tell the stories of people of color is not racism. It's a request to keep hands off some of the most valuable property POC have: their own cultures and histories.


Racism is not limited to structures of power that is institutional racism. In British law it is any discriminatory behaviour or assumptions or indirect discrimination (requiring women to wear skirts discriminates against some cultures). When my black British neighbours (the majority population) throw packets of used nappies into the back yard of my South Asian Muslim neighbours it is racism, not discrimination. When they use the cover of storms to vandalise their back fence it is racism not discrimination. Unless the institutional restriction of the term racism is defined in law it is a trend not a definition or it is a trendy definition.

No Muslim cultural tradition has been harmed by this book (from what we know). The only cultural tradition harmed would be those who have previous experience of concentration camps, such as Native and Japanese Americans. But they are unlikely to see the harm. A common reaction of Japanese American internment survivors as the Twin Towers came down was "Oh no, its going to happen again and this time they will come for the Muslims." That fear has so far proved groundless and therefore no Muslim American cultural history has been harmed by this book as it has not happened and so it not part of history.



WHDean said:


> What's the ideology in this case? If it's the "white saviour narrative," then are you saying the harm and exploitation comes from people writing books containing white saviour narratives?


There is no evidence from what I can see that the book is a white saviour narrative. That requires a white (meaning member of the dominant race: many considered brown in the US would be deemed white in the UK) person coming to the rescue of Muslims. Just because a white main character is involved does not make it a white saviour narrative, except in the mind of offence hunters. This story is about concentration camps. A Muslim perspective would be "its awful in here" or "can we rebel like in Sorbibor death camp or Manzanar concentration camp." A white perspective is literally an outside one: outside the camp fence. Jamie Forde managed to get his Chinese American protagonist inside two different Japanese American concentration camps, but even his story is mostly outside the fence.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Atlantisatheart said:


> How about the racism shown against 'white' people?


I really wish people would read Becca's piece before they make comments like this. It's excellent.



Becca Mills said:


> A number of people have said this sort of thing, but people on the other side of the debate do not agree that discrimination by POC against whites is the same as discrimination by whites against POC. Both may be forms of bigotry or discrimination, but the word "racism" is reserved for bigotry back up by institutional power and woven into the fundamental fabric of a society. Someone who's in a comparatively powerless position is not capable of producing or participating in that sort of institutional effect. So whatever bigotries they possess remain personal, individual -- and perhaps quite justifiable. This is why people on the left would see a black person going out of their way to read only books written by black authors as fundamentally different from a white person going out of their way to read only books written by white authors. The latter would be seen as reinforcing an existing racist power structure, while the former would be seen as pushing back against that structure.
> 
> I think people on the right tend to reject the left's definition of racism as a structural, institutional effect because they don't see society as being fundamentally racist. It's not that they think there are no racist people out there; they know racists exist. But they see racism as a relatively small and localized problem, especially in comparison to the past. In the absence of an overarching racist power structure in the background of everything, individual acts of prejudice look much the same: the black reader who prefers black-written books is the same as the white reader who prefers white-written books, because there is no larger problem for the black reader to be pushing back against.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

As a Hispanic American, I've laughed out loud when I've heard people say that only white people are racist. Honestly, racism is not an attribute of any one race of human. It is a character defect, something to do with mentality, a narcissistic type of belief. I've experienced racism first hand (especially since I look more black than what one would consider Hispanic) and seen it perpetrated on others...even on my white husband. Some people are just that way. Yes it hurts. Yes it's wrong. But I don't see what this book has to do with racism, per say. More than anything, this author wanted to explore a valid topic. Should she just have stuffed it in her drawer? It got published, didn't it? She had a lot to say and did. Suppose I think it's not anyone's right to suppress another's art...the same way reviewers should say whatever they want when they review a book. But to ban it? Shame it? Hm...not sure that's healthy.

After all, why not shame and ban porn? Why not shame and ban legal prostitution in Nevada? This could get out of hand quickly. I don't necessarily agree with what the topic of the book is because I think it just stirred up trouble but maybe that's what she wanted. Love. It's so hard to do sometimes.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> There is no evidence from what I can see that the book is a white saviour narrative.


I can't make a judgement or take a course of action because I can't tell one way or the other what the issue is and how it's to be resolved. I suspect I'm not getting clarity here because the complaints themselves aren't consistent and, therefore, aren't actionable. You can see what I mean by coherent and actionable if you consider the current complaints to yesteryear's complaints about casual stereotypes in novels that have become far less common since people have pointed them out. These complaints were actionable in the sense that something could be done, namely, the writer could avoid using them.

These new complaints, however, are different. People here talk as if it's all obvious and that the only reason people disagree is that they lack compassion for others. But all I see is inconsistent and often self-refuting lines of thought.

Take the Kirkus decision. The editor claimed the review was written by a Muslim woman, but then removed the review because (apparently) other Muslims complained about it (or someone did on their behalf). The net result was that a white editor chose to privilege the views of some Muslims (or self-appointed representatives who may have been white for all we know) over the views of the Muslim reviewer by posting another review more in line with the complainers' demands. So, a majority member silences the view of a minority member in favour of other members (or self-appointed advocates who may have been members of the majority) and people here are defending this as a justice for minority voices? I fail to see how this logic works.


----------



## anikad (Sep 19, 2017)

Some of the reactions in this thread seem to fall into "white fragility" territory. 

Ultimately authors can write what they like, and readers or potential readers can comment how they like. No law that says they have to have read a book to comment. If author's don't like it, maybe they should avoid reading reviews.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

I have to say that as a new author these types of controversies don't really encourage me to write about diverse characters or use non-Eurocentric elements. Quite the opposite. It seems there is too much potential for backlash. 

Ten to fifteen years ago the opposite thing was being pushed. White authors were encouraged to write about non-white characters and to use something other than European/white mythology and cultures in their work. 

I'm not even sure what the "correct" thing is to do, because it really seems like a catch-22 situation. The criticism seems to be a lot less volatile if you just use white characters, though.


----------



## eleutheria (Mar 25, 2014)

zzz said:


> Since a moderator has decided to use this thread to advance her political agenda, and those who disagree with her dare not speak for fear of being silenced or banned, it is time to lock this thread.


While that moderator is expressing a political opinion, I see a lot of posts in this thread that disagree that have not been edited or deleted. If posts are being deleted unfairly, then you would have a point (and please take screencaps if so) but so far I have not seen that.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

zzz said:


> Since a moderator has decided to use this thread to advance her political agenda, and those who disagree with her dare not speak for fear of being silenced or banned, it is time to lock this thread.


I must say, I sort of wish my children found me this utterly terrifying. 



Puddleduck said:


> And when I say that, I'm not failing to recognize that other people think racism has a different definition. I'm arguing that their proposed definition is nonsensical, inaccurate, and self-contradictory.


That may be ... it seems like a worthwhile discussion to have, in a societywide sense. Without any sort of consensus on bigger issues like that one, people's points just sort of fly past the other side. That's probably why our threads on race and authorship, diverse characters, sensitive language, and so forth never arrive at any sort of satisfactory conclusion. It's like the two sides are in different universes; reality itself looks different, depending on where you're standing.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

anikad said:


> Some of the reactions in this thread seem to fall into "white fragility" territory.


I suffer from pink fragility. I only have to read the weather forecast on a sunny day and my face goes pink.

No pinkist comments, please.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> I must say, I sort of wish my children found me this utterly terrifying.
> 
> That may be ... it seems like a worthwhile discussion to have, in a societywide sense. Without any sort of consensus on bigger issues like that one, people's points just sort of fly past the other side. That's probably why our threads on race and authorship, diverse characters, sensitive language, and so forth never arrive at any sort of satisfactory conclusion. It's like the two sides are in different universes; reality itself looks different, depending on where you're standing.


Also, apparently not many people are actually reading the reviews from people who read the book and looking at the criticism. The examples from the book itself are cringe-worthy and show how tone-deaf and outright poorly done the book is. When people from the culture and/or religion you are writing about point out you've done it very badly and in a way that is potentially harmful, it might be a time to listen instead of lash out.

Criticism of a book is not criticism or silencing of an author. This got lost on page 3 probably, so here it is again. Read this review from a woman who read the book. If you still feel this book accomplished what it wanted to, then that's cool, you can disagree with the people the book is trying to be about, but at least you'll have spent a few minutes reading another perspective I guess: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154859482?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Puddleduck said:


> The argument that only people of one race (if that's the word we want to use for any arbitrarily defined group of people with a shared ethnic heritage; personally, I think of our race as being human) are or can be racist is an incredibly racist argument, by the very literal definition of racism. Racism _does not_ require power or institution to be racism.


The argument is not that only people of one race can be racist. The argument is that institutional racism is fundamentally different and more damaging than the kind of prejudice people of all groups express against one another. I may not like it when a black friend tells me her partner doesn't want to meet me because he doesn't like white people. It may hurt my feelings, may make me angry, may make me resentful, but it has no fundamental effect on my life. It's not like being turned down for job after job because I have a name that signals my ethnicity, or having to teach my children that they cannot exercise their right to know if they are being charged and what the charges are against them if they are stopped by or arrested by police because asking that kind of question may get them beaten or shot. It's not like having security follow me around a store because of my skin color or having neighbors call the police about a suspected burglary when they see me going into my own house. it's not like being steered into a more expensive loan or a neighborhood with only my 'kind' in it because my credit is assumed to be bad and clients of the majority ethnicity don't want to have people who look like me in 'their' neighborhood. And it's not like being immediately accused of lying, 'playing the race card' or being prejudiced against the majority race or religion whenever I try to to tell my own story.

I really don't understand why listening to other people's experiences is so hard. It doesn't diminish us. It's not an attack on us. It's not an attempt to 'replace' us. It's just other people with different experiences and different perspectives. It's not a competition. It's just all of us trying to figure out ways to live together in the world that don't exclude or disadvantage any of us.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Tara KH said:


> I have to say that as a new author these types of controversies don't really encourage me to write about diverse characters or use non-Eurocentric elements. Quite the opposite. It seems there is too much potential for backlash.
> 
> Ten to fifteen years ago the opposite thing was being pushed. White authors were encouraged to write about non-white characters and to use something other than European/white mythology and cultures in their work.
> 
> I'm not even sure what the "correct" thing is to do, because it really seems like a catch-22 situation. The criticism seems to be a lot less volatile if you just use white characters, though.


I encourage you to read Annie's post above. The book was apparently (since I have not read it, I can't say for sure) poorly done. It's also addressing a very controversial subject, which requires a lot more care than if you're just inserting diverse characters into something like a cozy mystery or a romance. And if you think minority authors never get criticism about their portrayal of race, ethnicity and culture (even their own)...you haven't been looking that hard.


----------



## Catherine Lea (Jul 16, 2013)

This isn't about literature, it's about virtue signalling. Freedom of speech is dead.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Catherine Lea said:


> This isn't about literature, it's about virtue signalling. Freedom of speech is dead.


Please explain how freedom of speech is dead. Or is that just hyperbole for hyperbole's sake?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Catherine Lea said:


> This isn't about literature, it's about virtue signalling. Freedom of speech is dead.


You do realize the irony of saying freedom of speech is dead when we are talking about people being free to criticize a work, right?


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Freedom of speech, first of all, is about one's legal right to express one's opinion. When the government takes away your right to express one's opinion, then that may become true. What's at play here with what you're referring to is us as a society having little to no respect for one another's differing opinions. We no longer look at our own opinions as that, an opinion, and now value our own opinions as if they are actually physical parts of our being. We treat anyone's disagreement with our own opinions as an assault on our bodies and characters. We've lost empathy for one another.


----------



## The Wyoming Kid (Jun 18, 2017)

Once again, political correctness raises its smeary fist.

My first instinct on this whole brouhaha is, YA books are read by _*young adults*_. Not exclusively, of course, but young adults are just that: young. This is the very age when uninformed people with not-fully-developed intellects get all snitty about things they perceive as "offensive" and "insensitive". These are the people who are driving the craziness on our college campuses, downgrading the value of a college degree. And this kind of criticism of _American Heart_ -- which I have not read -- will, if it goes unchecked, downgrade the value of literature. I'm sure they would eventually like to see some kind of larger version of the "culture cops" overseeing all writing, ferreting out every "offense", every last word which they see as violating their sanctified standards of "diversity" and "inclusion".

This is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place in the arts.

Today, it's _American Heart._

Tomorrow, maybe your books, or mine.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I encourage you to read Annie's post above. The book was apparently (since I have not read it, I can't say for sure) poorly done. It's also addressing a very controversial subject, which requires a lot more care than if you're just inserting diverse characters into something like a cozy mystery or a romance. And if you think minority authors never get criticism about their portrayal of race, ethnicity and culture (even their own)...you haven't been looking that hard.


While I realize that this book might be bad, and acknowledge that everyone has the right to criticize it, this is not the first time this issue has come up. An article a few months ago popped up about a different novel being attacked for the same reason, and I've been in several different online writing groups that discussed this topic frequently and there are quite a number of people who believe that white people shouldn't be writing about non-white characters. Many of these folks were of the opinion that white people writing about non-whites or about non-white cultures is cultural appropriation and "stealing POC voices."

I understand that criticism is just something that authors have to learn to deal with, but I'm not sure I really want to deal with a Twitter mob trying to destroy my career. I don't write controversial things (unless you count erotica, and many people do) but seeing this stuff in social media and writing groups over the past few years has definitely made me shy away from writing about the non-white characters I've made. Part of it is just not wanting to deal with backlash, but another part of it is that I truly don't want to offend someone.


----------



## RRodriguez (Jan 8, 2017)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Once again, political correctness raises its smeary fist.
> 
> My first instinct on this whole brouhaha is, YA books are read by young adults. Not exclusively, of course, but young adults are just that: young. This is the very age when *uninformed people with not-fully-developed intellects* get all snitty about things they perceive as "offensive" and "insensitive". These are the people who are driving the craziness on our college campuses, downgrading the value of a college degree. And this kind of criticism of _American Heart_ -- which I have not read -- will, if it goes unchecked, downgrade the value of literature. I'm sure they would eventually like to see some kind of larger version of the "culture cops" overseeing all writing, ferreting out every "offense", every last word which they see as violating their sanctified standards of "diversity" and "inclusion".


Wow.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

zzz said:


> Your attempt to redefine racism to fit the Liberal Agenda is 100% political, in violation of the TOS of this forum.
> 
> Either lock the thread or open it up, without fear of retribution, to those who disagree with you.


^^^ The thread needs to be locked.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

I sincerely hope this thread doesn't get locked. It's a fascinating subject that has the _potential_ to educate us all.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Laran Mithras said:


> ^^^ The thread needs to be locked.


No, it doesn't. It's valuable and I hope it remains open despite several posters' attempts to get it closed.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Colin said:


> I sincerely hope this thread doesn't get locked. It's a fascinating subject that has the _potential_ to educate us all.


Yes. It's these kinds of debates without the mudslinging that need to be had by society as a whole.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

O.K. 

Just got home from choir rehearsal and there are too many reports for me to look at . . . locking temporarily . . . . there may be some clean up.

Stand by.


re-opening.
I've had a chance to check out the reports and review the posts from this afternoon as well as have a bit of a consult with my fellow mods. We all agree that most of you all have been wonderful -- discussing rationally and with courtesy a topic that is important to all of us. There have also been a couple of people that seem to us to be going out of their way to try to start a fight. Rest assured if those members continue, they will be put on post approval or banned from the thread or from the board. If you can't comment with respect for your fellow writers, don't comment at all.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> I'm sure they would eventually like to see some kind of larger version of the "culture cops" overseeing all writing, ferreting out every "offense", every last word which they see as violating their sanctified standards of "diversity" and "inclusion".
> 
> This is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place in the arts.
> 
> ...


This is quite a leap; I actually pulled something just reading it. 

It's not censorship. You're implying the secret motive isn't personal criticism of a book (which you seem to want to censor, ironically) to some sort of police state.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Greg Banks said:


> Freedom of speech, first of all, is about one's legal right to express one's opinion. When the government takes away your right to express one's opinion, then that may become true. What's at play here with what you're referring to is us as a society having little to no respect for one another's differing opinions. We no longer look at our own opinions as that, an opinion, and now value our own opinions as if they are actually physical parts of our being. We treat anyone's disagreement with our own opinions as an assault on our bodies and characters. We've lost empathy for one another.


This is lovely.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

Annie B said:


> Also, apparently not many people are actually reading the reviews from people who read the book and looking at the criticism. The examples from the book itself are cringe-worthy and show how tone-deaf and outright poorly done the book is. When people from the culture and/or religion you are writing about point out you've done it very badly and in a way that is potentially harmful, it might be a time to listen instead of lash out.
> 
> Criticism of a book is not criticism or silencing of an author. This got lost on page 3 probably, so here it is again. Read this review from a woman who read the book. If you still feel this book accomplished what it wanted to, then that's cool, you can disagree with the people the book is trying to be about, but at least you'll have spent a few minutes reading another perspective I guess: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154859482?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1


Reviews by people who have read the book are legitimate. I'm not sure if anyone is speaking out against people who have read the book writing reviews, bashing it. That's definitely not bullying or harassment or a mob or whatever.

However no one should read that review and then feel justified to write their own review bashing the book based off what they think is in a book they haven't read.

Also, I don't see how a reviewer can speak on behalf of an entire culture, race or religion, with the assumption that everyone else involved in that religion is going to have an equal opinion about the book.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

zzz said:


> Your attempt to redefine racism to fit the Liberal Agenda is 100% political, in violation of the TOS of this forum.
> 
> Either lock the thread or *open it up, without fear of retribution, to those who disagree with you.*


Have any comments been deleted or edited? Has there indeed been "retribution"? I haven't seen or noticed it.....


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

zzz said:


> Your attempt to redefine racism to fit the Liberal Agenda is 100% political, in violation of the TOS of this forum.
> 
> Either lock the thread or open it up, without fear of retribution, to those who disagree with you.





Laran Mithras said:


> ^^^ The thread needs to be locked.


Actually, I explained what I see as the differing definitions of "racism" on the left *and* the right. First I explained the left-leaning definition, then the right-leaning definition, then built on those definitions to explain why folks on the left don't see calls to let authors of color be the ones writing about people of color as racist. At no point in that post did I assert a position of my own, other than the basic one that it's difficult to discuss these issues because the two sides have such foundational disagreements. The post was focused on the question at hand, which is whether the reaction to _American Heart_ is appropriate and how authors should write about minority people and stories. So, well within our rules.

I haven't silenced anyone or sought retribution against anyone. In fact, I haven't taken any moderation actions at all in this thread.

Since I seem to be a repeated target for this sort of thing recently, it seems worth reiterating that the moderators here are also participating members, and that attacks on the right of *any* KBoards member to post are not okay.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

Let's stay on the topic here--if you have a comment about the moderation here, the appropriate thing to do is to report the post you have issues with (even if by a moderator), contact the moderator in question to have a discussion, contact the site owners at the email kboards link at the bottom of every page or start a thread in the Suggestions & Comments forum.

And, let me add that site founder Harvey strongly wanted his moderators to participate actively in the discussions here. Argue the points, not the person. Our policy is that one of the other moderator staff will take up any moderation required (and yes, we've been known to moderate moderators). Becca is a member here first, then a moderator. And we're proud to have moderators on the team (Becca, Evenstar) who have an author's point of view.

Thanks.

Betsy
KB Admin


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Reviews by people who have read the book are legitimate. I'm not sure if anyone is speaking out against people who have read the book writing reviews, bashing it. That's definitely not bullying or harassment or a mob or whatever.
> 
> However no one should read that review and then feel justified to write their own review bashing the book based off what they think is in a book they haven't read.
> 
> Also, I don't see how a reviewer can speak on behalf of an entire culture, race or religion, with the assumption that everyone else involved in that religion is going to have an equal opinion about the book.


So you're saying, if I wrote a book and in the description said it's a book about why I think white people are stupid and evil (I don't, this is an example), you feel no one could give that book a one star rating without reading it from cover to cover?

People have opinions on things they haven't personally tried all the time. I've never shot myself in the foot or tried crack, but I have opinions on both of those things.

Not to mention I'd say about half the stories about minority groups suffering center on an outside character stepping in and saving those poor unfortunate souls. This is the second one from that publisher in the past few months. And people keep listing classics and pointing out we've been telling the story this way forever. But back then we were taking family photos in front of their lynchings. Hopefully we've gotten better and no longer need a white protagonist to filter the suffering, because the people actually suffering don't get the luxury of a filter.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> Actually, I explained what I see as the differing definitions of "racism" on the left *and* the right. First I explained the left-leaning definition, then the right-leaning definition, then built on those definitions to explain why folks on the left don't see calls to let authors of color be the ones writing about people of color as racist. At no point in that post did I assert a position of my own, other than the basic one that it's difficult to discuss these issues because the two sides have such foundational disagreements. The post was focused on the question at hand, which is whether the reaction to _American Heart_ is appropriate and how authors should write about minority people and stories. So, well within our rules.


I was just about to say... I thought your explanation of my side of the discussion was excellent. If people on the other side think you've mischaracterized their perspective I invite them to explain how. I think I can say with 100% certainty that you won't be silenced or banned for it- at least if you can do it without personal attacks or name calling.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> So you're saying, if I wrote a book and in the description said it's a book about why I think white people are stupid and evil (I don't, this is an example), you feel no one could give that book a one star rating without reading it from cover to cover?


You're okay with reviewers rating a book they haven't read? That's a pretty slippery slope isn't it?



> People have opinions on things they haven't personally tried all the time. I've never shot myself in the foot or tried crack, but I have opinions on both of those things.


This analogy doesn't work because really, shooting yourself in the foot or trying crack are nowhere near the same thing as reading a novel and then critiquing it. I think it's pretty apparent that shooting yourself in the foot is a negative experience, but I don't want to live in a society where we're pre-judging books without actually reading them. That leads us down a very dangerous path.



> Not to mention I'd say about half the stories about minority groups suffering center on an outside character stepping in and saving those poor unfortunate souls. This is the second one from that publisher in the past few months. And people keep listing classics and pointing out we've been telling the story this way forever. But back then we were taking family photos in front of their lynchings. Hopefully we've gotten better and no longer need a white protagonist to filter the suffering, because the people actually suffering don't get the luxury of a filter.


I think the reason we still see a lot of white protagonists in stories is because in most western nations the populations are still predominantly white. 

That is changing and more perspectives are coming to the fore, which is great, but the math still skews in favor of white narratives. And I don't think that's due to any nefarious racial politics in the grand sense, but more because white people still make up the majority in many countries where most of the novels we're exposed to are coming from. 

If a nation comprises of 60% white people, it makes sense that a higher proportion of the creative content coming out of that nation is going to focus more on white POVs. People tend to write what they know. Again, I don't think that's racially motivated, it's more just a function of math.

And also, as a general note about this whole thread, we should keep in mind there are white Muslims in the world.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> So you're saying, if I wrote a book and in the description said it's a book about why I think white people are stupid and evil (I don't, this is an example), you feel no one could give that book a one star rating without reading it from cover to cover?
> 
> People have opinions on things they haven't personally tried all the time. I've never shot myself in the foot or tried crack, but I have opinions on both of those things.
> 
> Not to mention I'd say about half the stories about minority groups suffering center on an outside character stepping in and saving those poor unfortunate souls. This is the second one from that publisher in the past few months. And people keep listing classics and pointing out we've been telling the story this way forever. But back then we were taking family photos in front of their lynchings. Hopefully we've gotten better and no longer need a white protagonist to filter the suffering, because the people actually suffering don't get the luxury of a filter.


Having an opinion is one thing. Posting a review is another. As we tell ourselves every day, reviews are for readers (or prospective readers). How can you advise anyone else on something you're not familiar with. (Putting aside the silly shooting-self-in-foot example.) I happen to be looking at some objects on the Lowe's Home Improvement site today.... last thing I want to see--and which would be VERY UNHELPFUL-- is a review saying "I haven't used this washing machine, and I don't know anyone who owns one, but I think it looks terrible and I don't think anyone should buy it. Boycott the manufacturer!!"

I have plenty of opinions on lots of things, but while my opinion is 100% as valid as someone else's, before spouting off on something, I usually weigh whether or not my opinion is based on experience or random third-party hearsay. If I can't back up my opinion with facts, I may not express them at all. And as for reading this type of fact-free review, I would discount and ignore them entirely.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

paranormal_kitty said:


> TBH, from what I read the complaints people had about this book are valid. I'm not sure why it would have been so hard to write it from the POV of the Muslim character. This happens a lot that minorities are made the sidekicks in their own stories so it can be written from the POV of the dominant culture.


I love criticism and I'm the first person to roll my eyes when people complain something is "too PC."

But this is ridiculous. Publications shouldn't gave to pressure from people who haven't even read the book! You haven't read the book either. How can you criticize how the author handled the story?



Annie B said:


> It is not bullying to point out that someone wrote something you find problematic that potentially contributes to a system that hurts and oppresses people. It's not bullying to say someone needs to work on their craft, which is ultimately what this is a question of. The author was trying to get across a certain kind of story and appears, in the eyes of those who live that story and for whom it is close to real life, to have failed. Nobody has ever had their career ended from being called out, so don't freak out.
> 
> If it ever happens to you, I think the lesson to be taken from this is maybe just say "I'm listening, and I'll do better" or say nothing at all if you can't say that much. You do not need to be the center of every conversation, even conversations about your work. It's out in the world once published and not all about you.
> 
> ETA: here's another review by someone who has read the book: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154859482?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1


I don't think anyone is saying that the criticism of readers isn't valid. But, just skimming the GR reviews, I can tell at least half these people didn't read the book.

I haven't read the book. I have no idea if the author really did pull off what she set out to accomplish. Maybe the book is super racist. Maybe it's enlightening. Maybe educated people disagree on whether it's one or the other. Whatever the case, we need to be able to have a dialogue about this kind of thing, rather than shutting down conversation. This is a problem in both directions, and I'v been on both sides of the debate. People who claim "PC police" are stifling discussion as much as people who claim "if you like it you're a racist."

But this does seem to be a troubling trend in YA. There's this desire for books to not contain any of the racism, sexist, etc. prevalent in the world. Books should reflect reality, and the reality is that there are racist people out there, and that not all of them are evil monsters. We're all somewhat racist, sexist, etc, because we all live in a racist, sexist, etc. society.

I do think authors who write controversial material should expect backlash. Personally, I always expect some negative reactions when I tackle more sensitive subjects. There is a certain amount of woe is me in the author community about any bad reviews. But this really does seem to be a weird trend in YA.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Are Goodreads reviews the same as reviews on a retail site? As noted upthread, lots of people use Goodreads reviews in ways that vastly differ from the typical retail site. Does this change the nature of the criticism?


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I love criticism and I'm the first person to roll my eyes when people complain something is "too PC."
> 
> But this is ridiculous. Publications shouldn't gave to pressure from people who haven't even read the book! You haven't read the book either. How can you criticize how the author handled the story?


I didn't say anything about what should be done about it. I'm just pointing out that it seems like valid criticism, and this book is not by any means the first to have this kind of narrative nor will it be the last.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

zzz said:


> Your attempt to redefine racism to fit the Liberal Agenda is 100% political, in violation of the TOS of this forum.
> 
> Either lock the thread or open it up, without fear of retribution, to those who disagree with you.


That's not a redefinition of racism. Racism has always been considered as a direct reference to the systemic aspects of racism, such as when Blacks were forced to sit in the back of buses, use separate water fountains, attend different schools, were unable to vote, etc. There is nothing either political or in violation of this site's TOS about stating what is actual facts.

These is no agenda, be it Liberal or Conservative, that erases the facts of the racism, sexism, and other "isms" we continue to wrestle with in society, and only those who try to blatantly deny such plainly obvious facts can derail such otherwise productive discussions. Hopefully we can keep this discussion on topic and actually make some progress in understanding one another.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

Since we're including articles, I'll add the one I read which was also written by someone who read the book. There is fair amount of criticism of how the Muslim character is used by the author. But a lot of it is the columnist saying the author didn't do a very good job of giving the controversial subject matter the attention it deserved. Which is more literary criticism than political correctness.

https://medium.com/@Celeste_pewter/lets-talk-about-american-heart-by-laura-moriarty-baccf6ab85c8


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Y'all are aware that there are multiple people who have read this book and are reviewing it based on what was read, right? Like, I've posted two thoughtful, critical reviews just in this thread from people who have read the book. It isn't like the people mad about the harmful rep in this novel are uninformed, plenty of people have read this book already and posted direct quotes from it to back up what they are saying.

And as for reviewing something you haven't read... that's something anyone is free to do. There are tons of reviews for products on Amazon, for example, from people who have clearly never used the product (look at the listing for the tank, forex, or for Bic Pens for Women, for examples of this). Part of that whole freedom of speech thing is that we are free to share our opinions. Just as you are free to see that someone hasn't used X product or read X book and disregard their review if you feel like it.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I didn't say anything about what should be done about it. I'm just pointing out that it seems like valid criticism, and this book is not by any means the first to have this kind of narrative nor will it be the last.


As has been mentioned, if all writers--or any artist for that matter--limited their stories and characters or other artistic creation to only "what they know personally," then life would be very boring, indeed.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Jena H said:


> As has been mentioned, if all writers--or any artist for that matter--limited their stories and characters or other artistic creation to only "what they know personally," then life would be very boring, indeed.


That has nothing to do with what I said. The only points I stated are that a) It seems to be valid criticism based on the reviews from people who did read it, and b) It's not the first time this same "white savior" narrative has been written (or acted on screen). I said nothing about limiting anyone or anything of that sort.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Annie B said:


> Y'all are aware that there are multiple people who have read this book and are reviewing it based on what was read, right? Like, I've posted two thoughtful, critical reviews just in this thread from people who have read the book. It isn't like the people mad about the harmful rep in this novel are uninformed, plenty of people have read this book already and posted direct quotes from it to back up what they are saying.
> 
> And as for reviewing something you haven't read... that's something anyone is free to do. There are tons of reviews for products on Amazon, for example, from people who have clearly never used the product (look at the listing for the tank, forex, or for Bic Pens for Women, for examples of this). Part of that whole freedom of speech thing is that we are free to share our opinions. Just as you are free to see that someone hasn't used X product or read X book and disregard their review if you feel like it.


And I'm free to say it's an asshole move.

We can go in circles like this. It's not really productive. I haven't read this book. I don't have an opinion on it. But I find this desire for books to take place in a parallel universe without racism troubling. That isn't our world. It can be nice for escapism, but it's a different kind of erasure, that's just as dangerous as an openly racist/sexist/etc. book. There's a difference between a racist book and a book with a racist character or a book that takes place in a racist world.

_please don't work around our filters, thanks. --Betsy_


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Annie B said:


> And as for reviewing something you haven't read... that's something anyone is free to do. There are tons of reviews for products on Amazon, for example, from people who have clearly never used the product (look at the listing for the tank, forex, or for Bic Pens for Women, for examples of this). Part of that whole freedom of speech thing is that we are free to share our opinions. Just as you are free to see that someone hasn't used X product or read X book and disregard their review if you feel like it.


Sure, you're free to review a book you haven't read, but when a mob forms of people who haven't read the book and then that bundle of uninformed anger influences Kirkus to pull a starred review? That's something else. That path is fraught with danger.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> And I'm free to say it's an [expletive] move.
> 
> We can go in circles like this. It's not really productive. I haven't read this book. I don't have an opinion on it. But I find this desire for books to take place in a parallel universe without racism troubling. That isn't our world. It can be nice for escapism, but it's a different kind of erasure, that's just as dangerous as an openly racist/sexist/etc. book. There's a difference between a racist book and a book with a racist character or a book that takes place in a racist world.


It sounds like you're addressing something you've seen in YA. I certainly haven't seen anything on this thread that suggests anyone wants writers to write sanitized worlds where racism doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, please point me to the post you're referring to.

_Edited quoted post. --Betsy_


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

jaehaerys said:


> Sure, you're free to review a book you haven't read, but when a mob forms of people who haven't read the book and then that bundle of uninformed anger influences Kirkus to pull a starred review? That's something else. That path is fraught with danger.


That's what bothers me the most out of all of this. Mob mentality got that review pulled, and that reviewer had every right to her opinion, just like every other reviewer does.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> From the POV of the left, asking white writers not to tell the stories of people of color is not racism. It's a request to keep hands off some of the most valuable property POC have: their own cultures and histories. Most see traditional publishing houses as probably allotting a certain number of slots to "diverse" books -- books featuring minority main characters and focusing on issues central to people who feel outside the majority. This is a new and quite wonderful thing, as there didn't used to be much of an opportunity at all to publish those stories. Now diversity is "in," so there's some opportunity, but it's still quite limited. When white writers claim those few slots, minority authors lose the chance to tell their own stories themselves. "Sorry," an editor might say to a Muslim American author's agent, "we already have a Muslim book for 2020. Let us know what she's working on for 2023." So the Muslim author gets all the downsides that come with being a religious minority, and the (no doubt well meaning) white author gets all the benefit of selling her book into the "diverse" slot while not having to live the downsides of actually being the identity she's writing about.


A very conservative friend I follow pointed out that most African American fiction is written primarily by indies. This is probably why.

*Can I just say again, that when I've written POC characters (from their POV) that no POC has ever called me out for cultural appropriation? * I think this is a completely overblown fear on the right and left. (A white liberal writer with a small publisher is the only person who has commented on it.)

I have worried as I have written Steve, Bohdi, Noa, and Tara about getting it right--and I don't think I always have--but my POC friends and fans have been very supportive. To the point of saying, "You have to write this!" when I floated ideas about _Soul Marked_ past them. (My lead character is sensitive about her hair, and I was really afraid that her sensitivity would be "old fashioned" and would get me labelled racist. But for many African American women, natural hair acceptance is a journey, so they thought it wasn't unauthentic for her to have that journey as well.)

Of course, Tara doesn't have to die for Lionel to realize he loves her!

... Although, if she _had_ died, and he'd figured out how to bring her back in non-zombie form, that might have added to the tension! Darn it! Too late to go back and add it in.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> There is no evidence from what I can see that the book is a white saviour narrative. That requires a white (meaning member of the dominant race: many considered brown in the US would be deemed white in the UK) person coming to the rescue of Muslims. Just because a white main character is involved does not make it a white saviour narrative, except in the mind of offence hunters. This story is about concentration camps. A Muslim perspective would be "its awful in here" or "can we rebel like in Sorbibor death camp or Manzanar concentration camp." A white perspective is literally an outside one: outside the camp fence. Jamie Forde managed to get his Chinese American protagonist inside two different Japanese American concentration camps, but even his story is mostly outside the fence.


It is considered a white savior book based on the fact that the story is about a Islamic-phobic young white teenager saving a highly educated Muslim woman from a detention camp by leading the woman through and Islamic-phobic country and sneaking her across the Canadian border. It says it right in the blurb description of the book. This book isn't about concentration camps. It's not even really about the oppression of Muslims. It's about one girl whose viewpoint is changed through helping and saving a secondary character that is Muslim.

What I don't know is if the book ever explained why the Muslim woman needs a teenager to help her across the country and border. I've read reviews from people who have read the book and have given examples of what they felt was marginalizing and stereotyping minorities in this book.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Annie B said:


> Also, apparently not many people are actually reading the reviews from people who read the book and looking at the criticism. The examples from the book itself are cringe-worthy and show how tone-deaf and outright poorly done the book is. When people from the culture and/or religion you are writing about point out you've done it very badly and in a way that is potentially harmful, it might be a time to listen instead of lash out.
> 
> Criticism of a book is not criticism or silencing of an author. This got lost on page 3 probably, so here it is again. Read this review from a woman who read the book. If you still feel this book accomplished what it wanted to, then that's cool, you can disagree with the people the book is trying to be about, but at least you'll have spent a few minutes reading another perspective I guess: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154859482?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1


I think it's you who's lost the thread. The OP is about Kirkus spiking two different book reviews because the reviews and the books reviewed didn't align with some people's political standards. Some people here said this was okay because...well...because the author didn't do something or other that right-thinking people here would have done in her place--or something to that effect.

Now you're saying it's all about a poorly written book, citing a review you say shows the author's poor execution. There are three criticisms in that review, two of which are subjective: the reviewer says the MC is unsympathetic and lacks self-awareness/is self-absorbed. The third criticism says the character didn't develop. If "MC didn't develop" is what this all comes down to, then I guess all the literary reviews of genre fiction were justified all along!

As for people being silenced, well, two reviewers were, one of which was a minority.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Once again, political correctness raises its smeary fist.
> 
> My first instinct on this whole brouhaha is, YA books are read by _*young adults*_. Not exclusively, of course, but young adults are just that: young. This is the very age when uninformed people with not-fully-developed intellects get all snitty about things they perceive as "offensive" and "insensitive". These are the people who are driving the craziness on our college campuses, downgrading the value of a college degree. And this kind of criticism of _American Heart_ -- which I have not read -- will, if it goes unchecked, downgrade the value of literature. I'm sure they would eventually like to see some kind of larger version of the "culture cops" overseeing all writing, ferreting out every "offense", every last word which they see as violating their sanctified standards of "diversity" and "inclusion".
> 
> ...


I don't know this 100%, but from what I've seen, the majority of the people speaking out against this book are adults, not teenagers.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

There's a difference between a white author having minority character,s even MCs, and writing a story representing itself as an insight into that minority experience.

James Bond staring Idris Elba written by White E. Guy: Good.
Growing Up in South Compton by ****** LeBlanc: Umm... No.
What One Aryan Ubermensch Thought While Watching the Holocaust by Blanche Whiteman: Could you not?


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> From the POV of the left, asking white writers not to tell the stories of people of color is not racism. It's a request to keep hands off some of the most valuable property POC have: their own cultures and histories. Most see traditional publishing houses as probably allotting a certain number of slots to "diverse" books -- books featuring minority main characters and focusing on issues central to people who feel outside the majority. This is a new and quite wonderful thing, as there didn't used to be much of an opportunity at all to publish those stories. Now diversity is "in," so there's some opportunity, but it's still quite limited. When white writers claim those few slots, minority authors lose the chance to tell their own stories themselves. "Sorry," an editor might say to a Muslim American author's agent, "we already have a Muslim book for 2020. Let us know what she's working on for 2023." So the Muslim author gets all the downsides that come with being a religious minority, and the (no doubt well meaning) white author gets all the benefit of selling her book into the "diverse" slot while not having to live the downsides of actually being the identity she's writing about. If the resulting story turns out to be filtered through the consciousness of a white character -- for instance, if it becomes more about the white character's opportunity to grow out of their prejudice through their encounter with a religious minority -- that adds insult to injury. The book ticks off the "diverse book" box without even really being about a minority person.
> 
> I'll add that I think most people would differentiate telling a story that is centrally about the Muslim experience from a story that simply contains a Muslim character.


This is a great point that I'd never have known otherwise. Thanks for bringing it up.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

jaehaerys said:


> Sure, you're free to review a book you haven't read, but when a mob forms of people who haven't read the book and then that bundle of uninformed anger influences Kirkus to pull a starred review? That's something else. That path is fraught with danger.


Again, their objection to the book is in the blurb. You don't need to read it if what bothers you about the book is in the blurb. And this is the second time within the past few months Kirkus has lauded a book for helping fight the very problems it perpetuates.

"Hey guys, we really need to pay attention to what minorities are going through. Here is someone of the majority to explain, because we all know, no one cares if it's coming from someone of that actual minority group. Back pats all around for how progressive we are.Yay!"

I remember watching this documentary where they asked a man if his ancestor was racist because he owned slaves. And he's like, "No." Then he looks up at the sky like he's recalling a fond memory and explains, "My *ancestor* loved black people, he had these two little n-word boys that he used to let sleep at the end of his bed to keep his feet warm." And you could tell from his face, he thought this was a touching story.

That is the mentality of the white savior narrative. It's the same mentality that allows for people to go on TV and say black football players should be grateful that they are rich. Their success isn't something they earned through talent, but a gift bestowed upon them by white people. It stinks of these men needing to learn their place and it's never questioned when people say it. No one ever says Bill Gates needs to be grateful.

And I think it's even worse that it's YA. Do we really want to teach another generation that minorities aren't people in the same way, that you should have compassion for them, but in the way you have compassion for a pet, because really they are helpless and can't take care of themselves. That's why half the things we write about them has a white person saving them.

If you still can't see what's problematic about white savior narratives, then I give up. (Also, I'm aware that Muslims aren't all one race, but there is a certain shade of brown that has store owners calling the police when an Indian cop buys bullets for her gun. You know, that shade of brown which had a woman jump out her car and yell at two Brazilian men about Sharia Law.)


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

inconsequential said:


> That's what bothers me the most out of all of this. Mob mentality got that review pulled, and that reviewer had every right to her opinion, just like every other reviewer does.


It's kind of stretching the truth to say a mob took down a Kirkus review. According to the OP's article, before the mob there was criticism from Medium and BookRiot which sparked the outrage.

The truth is we don't know why Kirkus pulled its review. The article states they didn't fold under criticism to a previous book. Kirkus themselves said they don't change based on outside pressure but felt the original review was lacking.

Taken at their word the mob mentality had nothing to do with it. But even if they're not telling the truth, it could've just as easily been the columnists from BookRiot and Medium - who read the book - that sealed the original review. Not the mob.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Sarah Shaw said:


> It sounds like you're addressing something you've seen in YA. I certainly haven't seen anything on this thread that suggests anyone wants writers to write sanitized worlds where racism doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, please point me to the post you're referring to.
> 
> _Edited quoted post. --Betsy_


This. You beat me to it. I haven't seen anyone calling for a sanitized parallel universe.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> There's a difference between a white author having minority character,s even MCs, and writing a story representing itself as an insight into that minority experience.
> 
> James Bond staring Idris Elba written by White E. Guy: Good.
> Growing Up in South Compton by ****** LeBlanc: Umm... No.
> What One Aryan Ubermensch Thought While Watching the Holocaust by Blanche Whiteman: Could you not?


In Britain some years ago there was an acclaimed young female Muslim writer. She was lauded, and her books won awards for their portrayal of the plight of Muslim women in the UK.

Then she was outed as a fifty-something male priest who knew a lot Muslim women in his parish and wanted to show people the problems they had to live with on a daily basis.

Suddenly his books were slammed for being written by a fifty-something male priest.

How did that change the books?


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Travelian said:


> It's kind of stretching the truth to say a mob took down a Kirkus review. According to the OP's article, before the mob there was criticism from Medium and BookRiot which sparked the outrage.
> 
> The truth is we don't know why Kirkus pulled its review. The article states they didn't fold under criticism to a previous book. Kirkus themselves said they don't change based on outside pressure but felt the original review was lacking.
> 
> Taken at their word the mob mentality had nothing to do with it. But even if they're not telling the truth, it could've just as easily been the columnists from BookRiot and Medium - who read the book - that sealed the original review. Not the mob.


Okay, if there was another reason for pulling the review, the fact still remains that the reviewer had every right to her opinion, and her opinion was pulled. Aren't we told repeatedly, time and time again, that all reviewers have every right to their opinions and if we don't like them, we shouldn't read them?

That reviewer's opinion was every bit as valid as anybody else's, and it was pulled. Unless she pulled it herself for her own reasons that had nothing to do with pressure or bullying, it should not have been pulled.

That's my humble opinion.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

inconsequential said:


> Okay, if there was another reason for pulling the review, the fact still remains that the reviewer had every right to her opinion, and her opinion was pulled. Aren't we told repeatedly, time and time again, that all reviewers have every right to their opinions and if we don't like them, we shouldn't read them?
> 
> That reviewer's opinion was every bit as valid as anybody else's, and it was pulled. Unless she pulled it herself for her own reasons that had nothing to do with pressure or bullying, it should not have been pulled.
> 
> That's my humble opinion.


You are free to have an opinion. A review site is free to not let you post it. It's a private entity and can decide what content goes up or not. Same as the mods here can delete someone's post if they feel it doesn't fit with site guidelines etc. Clearly Kirkus decided that the review no longer fit on their site. The reviewer is not prevented from reviewing it elsewhere if they want to.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

inconsequential said:


> Okay, if there was another reason for pulling the review, the fact still remains that the reviewer had every right to her opinion, and her opinion was pulled. Aren't we told repeatedly, time and time again, that all reviewers have every right to their opinions and if we don't like them, we shouldn't read them?
> 
> That reviewer's opinion was every bit as valid as anybody else's, and it was pulled. Unless she pulled it herself for her own reasons that had nothing to do with pressure or bullying, it should not have been pulled.
> 
> That's my humble opinion.


Shouldn't then the anger be directed at Kirkus and not other who were also mere expressing their views?


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> That has nothing to do with what I said. The only points I stated are that a) It seems to be valid criticism based on the reviews from people who did read it, and b) It's not the first time this same "white savior" narrative has been written (or acted on screen). I said nothing about limiting anyone or anything of that sort.


Sorry if I misunderstood, but your comment was that it was "valid criticism" that the non-white POV or story is written through the eyes of a white character. But, as we've seen on this very forum, writers get hammered by critics for trying to write characters from a different faith/race/ethnicity/orientation/whatever. So there is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing going on, and in the cases of those authors who get hammered, it seems as if they're told to "stay in their own lane," so to speak, and write only what they know from experience.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Annie B said:


> You are free to have an opinion. A review site is free to not let you post it. It's a private entity and can decide what content goes up or not. Same as the mods here can delete someone's post if they feel it doesn't fit with site guidelines etc. Clearly Kirkus decided that the review no longer fit on their site. The reviewer is not prevented from reviewing it elsewhere if they want to.


If that's how the company's policy works, fine. I personally don't care for that policy, but that's also just my humble opinion.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

Monique said:


> Shouldn't then the anger be directed at Kirkus and not other who were also mere expressing their views?


Yep.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> In Britain some years ago there was an acclaimed young female Muslim writer. She was lauded, and her books won awards for their portrayal of the plight of Muslim women in the UK.
> 
> Then she was outed as a fifty-something male priest who knew a lot Muslim women in his parish and wanted to show people the problems they had to live with on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


I think you might be misreading. Vallingrade was talking about the difference between a book that has minority characters and a book that is about the experience of minority characters. The race of the author wasn't mentioned. In your example, the book was always about the experience of minority characters. That didn't change when the author was outed. What changed was the perception that the book was written by someone who has experienced those things versus someone who has heard second hand about those experiences.

Personally, I find either valid if it's true and accurate, but there are others that disagree and believe that when a white author writes about the experiences of a minority, they are in a way stealing their voice. This was said earlier in the thread by someone better with words than me.

And I'm not surprised about backlash for it, though. It's not hard to see why people would take issue with someone pretending to be something they are not in order to profit from the painful experiences of someone else.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Again, their objection to the book is in the blurb. You don't need to read it if what bothers you about the book is in the blurb. And this is the second time within the past few months Kirkus has lauded a book for helping fight the very problems it perpetuates.
> 
> "Hey guys, we really need to pay attention to what minorities are going through. Here is someone of the majority to explain, because we all know, no one cares if it's coming from someone of that actual minority group. Back pats all around for how progressive we are.Yay!"
> 
> ...


You see but I read the blurb and thought it was about how the future children of today may grow up to be brainwashed into thinking it's okay to treat muslims as second class citizens - and the author thinks maybe this is where America is headed. Now I might be totally wrong, OR the people who think its a white savior book might be wrong. The only way anyone knows is if they actually read the book.

There was a documentary about men's rights activists last year made by a feminist, that got pulled from some screenings because of hate-mobs who claimed the film was sexist even though they hadn't seen it. There were interviews on TV by the Australian media who called the director and her film sexist, and when she asked the intereviewers if they'd actually seen the film, the answer was no, they didn't have to.

Now I've seen the film and anyone who hasn't and has an opinion on it has ZERO idea what they're talking about. The interviewers were so blinded by their preconceptions, prejudices it was just so ugly and wrong.

And to bring things back to ground - have you ever seen a trailer for a film that looked good but turned out to be bad? Or a trailer that looked bad but the film was actually good? I have. A million times. Don't judge a book by it's cover!


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> In Britain some years ago there was an acclaimed young female Muslim writer. She was lauded, and her books won awards for their portrayal of the plight of Muslim women in the UK.
> 
> Then she was outed as a fifty-something male priest who knew a lot Muslim women in his parish and wanted to show people the problems they had to live with on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


Trust me, you won't get an answer. All of these "discussions" skirt around these things as if they didn't exist. Doesn't fit the narrative.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I get around these problems by being too obscure for people to take notice.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> Again, their objection to the book is in the blurb. You don't need to read it if what bothers you about the book is in the blurb. And this is the second time within the past few months Kirkus has lauded a book for helping fight the very problems it perpetuates.


You don't see a problem with reviewing a book based on its blurb? Seriously? Do you not see the slippery slope here?



> "Hey guys, we really need to pay attention to what minorities are going through. Here is someone of the majority to explain, because we all know, no one cares if it's coming from someone of that actual minority group. Back pats all around for how progressive we are.Yay!" I remember watching this documentary where they asked a man if his ancestor was racist because he owned slaves. And he's like, "No." Then he looks up at the sky like he's recalling a fond memory and explains, "My *ancestor* loved black people, he had these two little n-word boys that he used to let sleep at the end of his bed to keep his feet warm." And you could tell from his face, he thought this was a touching story.
> 
> 
> That is the mentality of the white savior narrative. It's the same mentality that allows for people to go on TV and say black football players should be grateful that they are rich. Their success isn't something they earned through talent, but a gift bestowed upon them by white people. It stinks of these men needing to learn their place and it's never questioned when people say it. No one ever says Bill Gates needs to be grateful.


What does any of this have to do with people reviewing a book they haven't read?


> And I think it's even worse that it's YA. Do we really want to teach another generation that minorities aren't people in the same way, that you should have compassion for them, but in the way you have compassion for a pet, because really they are helpless and can't take care of themselves.That's why half the things we write about them has a white person saving them.


Again, how does this relate to the topic at hand?


> If you still can't see what's problematic about white savior narratives, then I give up.


White savior narratives? In my previous post I'd referred to predominantly white narratives coming from populations that are predominantly white. That's just math. That has nothing to do with "white savior narratives", whatever that is sounds racially charged and is not at all what I'm referring to.


> (Also, I'm aware that Muslims aren't all one race, but there is a certain shade of brown that has store owners calling the police when an Indian cop buys bullets for her gun. You know, that shade of brown which had a woman jump out her car and yell at two Brazilian men about Sharia Law.)


What the heck does this have to do with the rest of this thread?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

WordSaladTongs said:


> This is a great point that I'd never have known otherwise. Thanks for bringing it up.


As long as you ignore the paradox that a white person is "filtering" the feelings and experiences of POCs for you while asserting that it's wrong for a white person to filter the feelings and experiences of POCs.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> You see but I read the blurb and thought it was about how the future children of today may grow up to be brainwashed into thinking it's okay to treat muslims as second class citizens - and the author thinks maybe this is where America is headed. Now I might be totally wrong, OR the people who think its a white savior book might be wrong. The only way anyone knows is if they actually read the book.
> 
> There was a documentary about men's rights activists last year made by a feminist, that got pulled from some screenings because of hate-mobs who claimed the film was sexist even though they hadn't seen it. There were interviews on TV by the Australian media who called the director and her film sexist, and when she asked the intereviewers if they'd actually seen the film, the answer was no, they didn't have to.
> 
> ...


But my objection isn't to the quality of the book, it could be a well-written book about a teen who discovers her brother's hiding Muslims in the cupboard. But it'd still be a book about a girl who discovers her brother's hiding Muslims in the cupboard, or at least that's how it reads in the blurb. If it's not, then the blurb is poorly written but enough people have read it and confirmed it's about what it seems to be about, so that's a nil issue.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

WHDean said:


> As long as you ignore the paradox that a white person is "filtering" the feelings and experiences of POCs for you while asserting that it's wrong for a white person to filter the feelings and experiences of POCs.


By writing about publishing slots?


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

jaehaerys said:


> You don't see a problem with reviewing a book based on its blurb? Seriously? Do you not see the slippery slope here?
> What does any of this have to do with people reviewing a book they haven't read?Again, how does this relate to the topic at hand?White savior narratives? In my previous post I'd referred to predominantly white narratives coming from populations that are predominantly white. That's just math. That has nothing to do with "white savior narratives", whatever that is sounds racially charged and is not at all what I'm referring to.What the heck does this have to do with the rest of this thread?


#notallwhitebooks

I'm talking specifically about a problematic trope that has a 15 year old idiot "rescuing" a professor of electrical engineering because mighty ****** can do anything! I think some things are safe to dislike on premise alone.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

WordSaladTongs said:


> By writing about publishing slots?


Yes. The publishing slots narrative is itself a publishing slot because it belongs to the POC experience. She took a POC's place by relating their experiences in her words.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> #notallwhitebooks
> 
> I'm talking specifically about a problematic trope that has a 15 year old idiot "rescuing" a professor of electrical engineering because mighty ****** can do anything! I think some things are safe to dislike on premise alone.


I get disliking a premise. More than valid. What I don't get is leaving a review for a book based on premise alone.

I'm not sure what "not all white books" refers to.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

jaehaerys said:


> I get disliking a premise. More than valid. What I don't get is leaving a review for a book based on premise alone.
> 
> I'm not sure what "not all white books" refers to.


I'm explaining that I'm not suggesting that every book with a white protagonist is problematic. I'm saying that this book is problematic for a very specific reason.

And keep in mind this is Goodreads, it's not just reviews, it's how people organize their libraries. There are 108 rating total, no way to know how many people have and haven't read it. A few people have stated they haven't read it and are giving it one stars, and a few have stated they haven't read it and are giving it five stars. But when people shelve the book in their DO NOT READ folder, it shows on the page whether they rate it or not.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

So basically they took the Japanese Internment from WWII and flipped it to make it modern and included Muslims as a way to express modern criticism over the Trump Administration and the possible treatment of Muslims.

To begin, we must consider two works. One is the Turner Diaries that is written from white supremacists by a white supremacist. It was a book that was self publish and inspired Timothy McVey.

You can read more about that work here:

How the Turner Diaries Changed White Nationalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TmFVtsu118

This is an example of the problem with modern supremacist movements and freedom of speech right here in a crystal clear delineation.

There is a concurrent example from Steven King and his book called Rage that is about a young man with a troubled violent past that commits a school shooting. After one attempted shooting and another shooting that worked, King had the book pulled from any reprints. He feels that such people who commit violent acts will always find a conduit to live out a fantasy to commit such crimes, but by removing Rage from shelves he has reduced that from his own library to give such people a path. However, that even removing all violent would not contribute towards having someone with violent inclinations to not commit violence. Rather, in his view, they will find another avenue. For him that one successful act of violence inspired by his work was enough for him to pull the product.

A 3 minute interview on Steven King and Rage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TmFVtsu118

Now stepping back, we see where the worst of media leads to a problem in either degree. Both authors of each respective work are white, both works inspired violence, and two very different outcomes from the original intent and responses from either author. King pulled his book for reasons of his own moral consciousness. It is obviously something he gave a lot of thought to by himself, and something to be respected for his decision as an author.

Now, in terms of cultural appropriation, I find this to be a tiring subject. Because, for starters I am reminded of Iris Change who wrote about the Chinese experience in the United States and about China and brought attention to Japanese activities during WWII such as her respected work on the Massacre of Nanking. She was praised as a journalist and recognized as a historian. Sadly, she committed suicide in 2004.

Whereas the Seven Military Classics of Ancient China were translated by Ralph D Sawyer. The seven works are translated from Chinese into English, given a well documented research with footnotes and explanation of the various text's history. He is one of the leading scholars on Chinese Warfare, but he's also white.

In the realm of scholarship, we have someone such as Mrs. Chang who did very well for her time before her tragic death and ending a brilliant career that would have obviously bore much fruit for years to come. But, we should not have to wait for a generation to find someone with Mr. Sawyer's academic capacities to advance military history in the English language. Especially, when he has invested many years of his own life steeped in Chinese culture. Advancing Chinese culture in either direction in the west is a good thing for the Chinese themselves to show the brilliance of the culture, equally for those who are interested to learn more as well as work towards the advancement of a discipline.

Now, cultural appropriation has to do with more of pop culture than it does with history, but historical research has had issues with the splintering of disciplines in the 60's into different divisions. Which does cause issues itself. So the apparent direction more modern scholarship is against white privilege to use minority subjects because of fear that a work would be insensitive or, as someone cited before, crowded out the "available market."

So a good place to look at the issue of this is to look at the international media. As a young person who has lived through the "Japanese invasion" of Manga, Video Games, and Anime.

1. Mario from Nintendo is a white Italian plumber created by Shiguru Miamoto who is culturally and fully Japanese. 
2. Saber from Fate series is a gender flipped version of King Arthur, her name is King Arturia Pendragon and is an English green eyed blonde. She was created by Kinoko Nasu who originally created Fate Prototype, an unfinished book he wrote in high school, to go on to create Fate Stay Night.

Her wiki page for their series:

http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Saber_(Fate/stay_night)

Cosplay for the character:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/543176405027410559/

Ya, fairly much at this point as a content creator I don't care about cultural appropriation. Waste of my time. If a white woman can dress up as Saber/Arturia Pendragon and enjoy the character and not feel like she's being objectified, taken advantage of, and her culture being abused by a foreign author. We have to come to terms with creative society that certain aspects of creativity means respecting the original culture and going with prestige works. And that these "limits" are going to be hard to define boundaries, and we're going to bump into them.

Personally, I'll take the risk for creating a "Mario" or a "Saber/Arturia Pendragon or Marvel's Black Panther. I'd rather create a memorable character that people of that ethnicity can embrace and use as their own, that after my death I contribute to the world a sort of advanced character and work that propels society forwards. We need not just Sherlock Holmes, we need characters that are able to embrace as a civilization. We need Muslim Sherlock Holmes we need women Sherlock Holmes. We need more Black Panther who are just well done characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that advance the image and normalcy of these characters. We need more Wonder Woman movies. All the while maintaining our need for Harry Potter, and the last thing I knew that J. K. Rowling's given name was Joanne not Joe. Harry Pottery shows off diversity at its finest, because Joane Rowling can write compelling characters. With or without the capacity to use the restroom similar to her most famous character.

Brilliant work is brilliant work. Anything that can advance the nature of humanity is a good work. We're scholars and artists first, not special interest groups. Whether Saber/Arturia Pendragon was written by a Japanese man or Harry Pottery was written by a white woman. They have found an audience, and little boys love Harry Pottery and women seem to really like Saber. Little boys are really picky over "girly stuff," and women in the cosplay community are very respectful and mindful of feminism. So, ya things work out some how. Best to respect people and let things work out where they can and avoid the obvious pitfalls.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> #notallwhitebooks
> 
> I'm talking specifically about a problematic trope that has a 15 year old idiot "rescuing" a professor of electrical engineering because mighty ****** can do anything! I think some things are safe to dislike on premise alone.


Yeah, 15-year-olds never save whole worlds full of adults in YA.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

The notion of publishing slots does not always work even if it pleases the activists. Japanese Americans were (in the words of the blurb) taken to detention (concentration) camps for what they were told was their own safety (they asked if that was the case why are the guns pointing into the camp). Nearly all the novels that explore this are written by outsiders to the Japanese American experience. The knowledge of that episode in the literary world has been almost exclusively outsider written since two young people novelised their experiences in the 1950s. Since the 1980s there has been much more non-fiction writing about the issue by Japanese Americans, but I am not aware of any Japanese American authors of novels addressing internment. The Japanese Americans I know are very pleased that those from outside their community have written about it.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> I'm explaining that I'm not suggesting that every book with a white protagonist is problematic. I'm saying that this book is problematic for a very specific reason.
> 
> And keep in mind this is Goodreads, it's just just reviews, it's how people organize their libraries. There are 108 rating total, no way to know how many people have and haven't read it. A few people have stated they haven't read it and are giving it one stars, and a few have stated they haven't read it and are giving it five stars. But when people shelve the book in their DO NOT READ folder, it shows on the page whether they rate it or not.


Yes, I totally get that a book's premise can be troubling and I think it's absolutely fair to criticize a book's premise in a review, but only if the review is being written by someone who has actually read or at least tried to read the book. If we start down the road of just reviewing books based on premise alone we're going to wind up in a very bad place.

In terms of people using reviews to organize their Goodreads libraries, well, it'd be my preference that reviews wouldn't be used in such a way as it undermines their informative value, but I realize everyone's different and has a different approach to these things.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

WHDean said:


> Yeah, 15-year-olds never save whole worlds full of adults in YA.


I read a lot of YA and usually the adults are the idiots. The teens tend to be bright and capable. But this girl is written like a 15 yo Bubba who has to help a woman with a doctorate hitchhike...it totally supports the narrative I spoke of earlier, that minorities are like pets and they need to be taken care of.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

kcmorgan said:


> I read a lot of YA and usually the adults are the idiots. The teens tend to be bright and capable. But this girl is written like a 15 yo Bubba who has to help a woman with a doctorate hitchhike...it totally supports the narrative I spoke of earlier, that minorities are like pets and they need to be taken care of.


I recommend that you research the underground railroad, which is the inspiration of most journey to Canada stories although that railroad did not have to go that far north.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> But my objection isn't to the quality of the book, it could be a well-written book about a teen who discovers her brother's hiding Muslims in the cupboard. But it'd still be a book about a girl who discovers her brother's hiding Muslims in the cupboard, or at least that's how it reads in the blurb. If it's not, then the blurb is poorly written but enough people have read it and confirmed it's about what it seems to be about, so that's a nil issue.


What is your objection, exactly? Do you object to the book being written? That it was published? That other people might be able to read it? I'm curious what is going on inside someone who thinks they themselves should be able to make such a judgement - without even reading the material themselves??

I'm not going to read the book either because there's nothing that appeals to me. But for me to leave a review on the book based on that would be pretty narcissistic.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I read a lot of YA and usually the adults are the idiots. The teens tend to be bright and capable. But this girl is written like a 15 yo Bubba who has to help a woman with a doctorate hitchhike...it totally supports the narrative I spoke of earlier, that minorities are like pets and they need to be taken care of.


Why would anyone assume that an Iranian-born electrical engineer would the foggiest idea of how to hitchhike through the U.S., let alone count it as a mark against an author for not assuming it? Do Iranian engineering schools teach hitchhiking? Second, how would someone who's supposed to be in an internment camp get anywhere without help?


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> What is your objection, exactly? Do you object to the book being written? That it was published? That other people might be able to read it? I'm curious what is going on inside someone who thinks they themselves should be able to make such a judgement - without even reading the material themselves??
> 
> I'm not going to read the book either because there's nothing that appeals to me. But for me to leave a review on the book based on that would be pretty narcissistic.


My main objection is this woman wrote the book thinking she was "helping". In an ideal world, she and anyone else looking at this story would recognize how demeaning it is.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

So, if this book was written by a Muslim woman and the MC was a Muslim teen leading a 'white' woman out through baddie territory and discovering that what the baddies had told her all along was a lie - then this book should be slated as not being written through the eyes of the white woman and the writer should be slated because she's not 'white'?

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> My main objection is this woman wrote the book thinking she was "helping". In an ideal world, she and anyone else looking at this story would recognize how demeaning it is.


I agree that based on the premise coupled with the negative reviews that this book may be demeaning. But I wouldn't make that determination unless I'd actually read it.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

WHDean said:


> Why would anyone assume that an Iranian-born electrical engineer would the foggiest idea of how to hitchhike through the U.S., let alone count it as a mark against an author for not assuming it? Do Iranian engineering schools teach hitchhiking? Second, how would someone who's supposed to be in an internment camp get anywhere without help?


So she knows enough about the US to suggest they shouldn't take rides from black people because that increases their chances of being pulled over, but she doesn't know enough to find Canada without the help of a 15 year old? Just to be clear, she teaches in the US.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> So she knows enough about the US to suggest they shouldn't take rides from black people because that increases their chances of being pulled over, but she doesn't know enough to find Canada without the help of a 15 year old? Just to be clear, she teaches in the US.


That only works when the unknown item is requisite for the known one. If she knew how to drive a car, but not where the gas pedal was, you'd have a case. None of this stuff or anything raised by Justina Ireland is damning. Ireland also says this:



> And it's worth mentioning that all of the dialogue from Muslim Woman on the Run is terribly stilted, like English is her second language and she can't be very good at it EVEN THOUGHT [sic] SHE HAS A F****** ADVANCED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEGREE.


Does this reviewer get out much? Since when does having an advanced degree in engineering have any connection with English fluency? Native English-speakers hardly improve their command of the language by studying engineering.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

P.J. Post said:


> The book didn't matter anymore, he betrayed his readers. And for writers, that's the Unforgivable Sin.


So did Alex Haley, but that didn't destroy him or his book when it was found that he plagiarised a 'white' author's book and wrote Roots.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

P.J. Post said:


> Apples and pianos. Haley didn't betray his readers.


How so? Isn't plagiarism one of the most basic forms of reader betrayal?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Yes. The publishing slots narrative is itself a publishing slot because it belongs to the POC experience. She took a POC's place by relating their experiences in her words.


Good point.

__
https://139448275729%2Fdear-white-writers
 has written about this. So has Claire Light. Jacqueline Woodson also. These women are all writers of color, and they can definitely speak for themselves.

Personally, I hope _Kirkus _did not force its reviewer to make changes to her review. That would, you know, totally suck. I hope she herself instigated the edits, after reading others' criticisms of the book and deciding they had merit ... but yeah, that may not be the case.

The editor's note says that "books with diverse subject matter and protagonists are assigned to Own Voices reviewers -- writers who can draw upon lived experience when evaluating texts. Our assignment of the review of American Heart was no exception to this rule and was reviewed by an observant Muslim person of color (facts shared with her permission)." But of course, communities are not monolithic. Just because you assign a book review to an observant Muslim woman of color doesn't mean her take on the book will replicate that of the majority of observant Muslim women of color. She might be the one-in-four or one-in-ten or whatever who see things differently. That's a chance you take in assigning a review to a particular person.



Mercia McMahon said:


> The notion of publishing slots does not always work even if it pleases the activists. Japanese Americans were (in the words of the blurb) taken to detention (concentration) camps for what they were told was their own safety (they asked if that was the case why are the guns pointing into the camp). Nearly all the novels that explore this are written by outsiders to the Japanese American experience. The knowledge of that episode in the literary world has been almost exclusively outsider written since two young people novelised their experiences in the 1950s. Since the 1980s there has been much more non-fiction writing about the issue by Japanese Americans, but I am not aware of any Japanese American authors of novels addressing internment. The Japanese Americans I know are very pleased that those from outside their community have written about it.


I was trying to explain why those who do object, object. Not everyone objects. There's variety within every community.

Is _No-No Boy_ one of the '50s novelizations you referred to? I read it in college in the early 1990s, but I don't remember when it was published.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Edward M. Grant said:


> In Britain some years ago there was an acclaimed young female Muslim writer. She was lauded, and her books won awards for their portrayal of the plight of Muslim women in the UK.
> 
> Then she was outed as a fifty-something male priest who knew a lot Muslim women in his parish and wanted to show people the problems they had to live with on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


It changes the books in that they were marketed as being from the perspective of someone who lived the life when they're actually from the perspective of someone pretending to have lived the life and making money off it no matter how well intentioned.

Like I could totally do a ton of research into Holocaust survivors experiences, write a book about that kind of experience and publish it while pretending to be a survivor with the aim of showing the slippery slope our society is sliding toward these days... but I'd still be making money on the pain and suffering of people whose stories I'm subsuming without having actually having to have lived through it.

Do good intentions magically make lies okay and making money from the oppression of others acceptable?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

WHDean said:


> That only works when the unknown item is requisite for the known one. If she knew how to drive a car, but not where the gas pedal was, you'd have a case. None of this stuff or anything raised by Justina Ireland is damning. Ireland also says this:
> 
> Does this reviewer get out much? Since when does having an advanced degree in engineering have any connection with English fluency? Native English-speakers hardly improve their command of the language by studying engineering.


She has the degree, I believe, from an American University and is a professor, so one might imagine her English is pretty solid...

Also, did you read those reviews? There are so many worse things in there. Like the protag wondering if Muslims can have cats, the protag talking about Muslims as though they are all the same and all from the Middle East, acting like there is a secret Muslim language ... I mean, from the reviews it sounds like there are a host of huge issues to critique just in the text alone without even getting into themes and subtext.

We as writers are free to write whatever we want. That doesn't mean everyone has to read it, or like it if they do. That doesn't mean your work cannot be criticized. If the people are you writing about, who live the real experience, have issues with what you write, that might be worth thinking about. Or not. You can also just ignore it. Lots of people do. That doesn't mean they don't get to have their say.


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

Annie B said:


> We as writers are free to write whatever we want. That doesn't mean everyone has to read it, or like it if they do. That doesn't mean your work cannot be criticized.


Criticism is only helpful when it is based on enough solid information to form a conclusion, thus we get constructive criticism. That's not the problem. The problem is that a good portion of those "critics" did little more than glance at the blurb and the other reviews before jumping on the hate bandwagon. That leads to criticism out of ignorance, which is the same reason why some people still believe vaccines cause autism. Sure, this time it was just a book review, but what if it becomes the norm for everything? Is it too much to ask for an opinion to be informed?


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Annie B said:



> Also, did you read those reviews? There are so many worse things in there. Like the protag wondering if Muslims can have cats, the protag talking about Muslims as though they are all the same and all from the Middle East, acting like there is a secret Muslim language ... I mean, from the reviews it sounds like there are a host of huge issues to critique just in the text alone without even getting into themes and subtext.


I believe the MC is a teenager and how many teenagers don't ask stupid questions? I believe the woman is a professor, not the MC, so maybe she isn't a rocket scientist, and in a dystopian world, where she's been raised to believe lies, maybe she would have some questions. The fact is; none of us has read the book, but neither have the people leaving one stars and following the herd.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I believe the MC is a teenager and how many teenagers don't ask stupid questions? I believe the woman is a professor, not the MC, so maybe she isn't a rocket scientist, and in a dystopian world, where she's been raised to believe lies, maybe she would have some questions. The fact is; none of us has read the book, but neither have the people leaving one stars and following the herd.


Again... I posted two very thorough reviews by women who HAVE read the book. Both reviews use direct examples and quotes from the book to illustrate their critiques. Reading their take on it and what I see in the text they've quoted, I don't need to read the book. I trust the women who have done the work already of reading it, especially the Muslim women, and think it is awful and harmful. That's what reviews are... they are there to maybe help steer people who will like a thing toward it and those who will not like a thing or be hurt by it away from it. That's kind of the point of sharing an opinion and doing a critique of the work.

If a nutritionist says "hey, that rock is inedible" do you eat the rock anyway because what do they know, you gotta find out for yourself? Or... maybe we trust and look to experts to help us make good decisions. In the case of books, I look to people who share similar tastes to mine, and I also listen and look to people from the groups being written about if the central premise of a book is about a marginalized group, because they are the experts. They are the people who have to live the experiences and who are harmed by poor representation, systemic bias etc.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I believe the MC is a teenager and how many teenagers don't ask stupid questions? I believe the woman is a professor, not the MC, so maybe she isn't a rocket scientist, and in a dystopian world, where she's been raised to believe lies, maybe she would have some questions. The fact is; none of us has read the book, but neither have the people leaving one stars and following the herd.


I posted early in this thread that I didn't know how anybody could judge a book they hadn't read. I've since read reviews that contained excerpts of this book. And while I think my full judgment will have to wait until I read more than that, based on the excerpts, it's probably as tone deaf and insulting as people say it is. I'm okay with a teenager being ignorant about Muslims, even starting out racist toward Muslims, but some of the insulting bits are at the end of the book. Reviewers who have read it talk about how the girl doesn't change, and I think the fact that she says two characters are talking with their "special Muslim words" at the end is pretty good evidence of that.

It's pretty likely the book deserves the beating, and anybody who thought this was a good book for white kids to read (because let's face it--that's the audience) was sorely mistaken.

A number of years ago in a fandom that will remain nameless, because that's irrelevant, a gal decided to write a story about two of her favorite characters--two white guys. She wrote an AU making them doctors, I think, and set the story in post-earthquake Haiti. I have no doubt that the whole time she was writing it, she congratulated herself on her diversity, on writing about such a relevant and important topic as the crisis in that country. No doubt.

When the story went up, it turned out that her two white men were white saviors from beginning to end completely with the Magic ***** trope in a large, ambling, Haitian doctor who spoke the most ridiculous broken English, had big hands and bright, shining eyes, and was basically amazed at how wonderful the helpful white folks were, while they were equally impressed that he could form words and tie his shoes, let alone do anything helpful or heroic. The girl wrote this story right after the earthquake and got it posted while the recovery was still ongoing, and even used pictures of the devastation throughout the story--including actual suffering Haitian people.

The insensitivity and tone-deafness alone was stunning, but combine that with the racism, and she took a hell of a well-deserved beating online. She had used a real, ongoing tragedy as merely a backdrop--it was only window dressing to write about her favorite white guys, falling for every stereotype, and had basically written the most racist thing I've ever read that wasn't intended to be racist. And a lot of people loved it, because they were as blind to their own prejudices as she was. She used the suffering of Haitians--_whom she basically dehumanized into props_--to tell a love story between two white people. It was horrific.

I have no idea if this story is quite that bad, but from the excerpts I've read, and the reviews by a few very well-spoken people, it looks like this writer did the same thing. She pleased herself by writing something she thought was socially conscious, and probably has no idea how passively racist she is, but it looks like it comes through in the text. The biases of the people who green-lit this thing with no qualms is also showing. Kirkus may have yanked that starred review, but the one up now is a glowing one, so I'm not sure why they bothered.

I think there's room for illuminating a minority struggle through a non-minority protagonist, especially if you're aiming it at a predominantly white audience, because getting them to read a minority main character in the first place doesn't seem that easy. But when the minority characters are poorly-drawn, stereotyped backdrops and everybody who looks at it and passes on it thinks that's okay, that's the biggest problem right there.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

P.J. Post said:


> This is only my opinion, of course...but Haley was a black author, writing about the history of the black experience in America. Regardless of whether or not he lifted plot points from another book or exaggerated the accuracy of his documentation, at the end of the day, he was still a black author, writing about the history of the black experience in America - in 1976. He created a bond that transcended details.


But if he did plagiarize sections of the book (and it appears he did) then that's the most basic betrayal of his readers' trust. Black or not, good and powerful book or not.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

For those who think there's only two types of bigotry (institutionalized and social), there are actually complex intersecting spectra. Trying to reduce it to "white sepremacy" vs "all POCs" is overly simplistic. Even those in cohesive "tribes" -- the alt-right, the woke left, whatever groups you draw boundaries around--don't agree within themselves.

***

For those who argue censorship is only about what the government does (I've seen this fallacious argument quite often), that definition is too narrow. Censorship is any use of power to suppress free speech. Excepting criminal speech for the purpose of this argument, the government does not generally suppress free speech.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

However, the lower we go in governmental bureaucracies, the more often we see it show up--for example, in a public school board banning controversial books.

BUT, as noted in the PBS article and in less narrow sources such as wikipedia, censorship rightly includes non-governmental, non-legal actions by any group with the power to suppress speech. Sometimes these are corporations, sometimes political groups, sometimes wealthy individuals--and sometimes they are socially connected groups of likeminded people, such as has happened with this book (for anyone that has not actually read the book and posted their own personal, actual opinion, I mean).

In fact, the very definition of mob action and bigotry includes the idea of expression not one's considered informed personal opinion, but of simply joining the mob who "heard the book was racist" and want to join in an attack on something they perceive as violating their values.

In other cases, Amazon or other vendors have been guilty of non-governmental censorship. The recent LGBT-denial issue is an example of lawful, but nevertheless troubling, censorship, whether intentional or negligent. The fact that something is lawful does not rule out that possibility that it can be considered censorship.

The key is power. Do those employing censorial methods have the power to damage or destroy a work, an author, a business? This is what has happened with this book--it and the author and the publisher are being damaged by populist censorship, even if there is no governmental censorship.

Those who dislike the book or agree with this censorship shrug and call it "consequences." Those support the book or who do not agree call it concerning, worrisome, unfair or an abuse of power.

But each side will change its tune if the subject matter of the book--or the free expression--changes. For example, broadly speaking, the same folks who see this book as offensive probably do not see the NFL protests as offensive, and vice versa. In that case of free expression, the sides are flipped. The anti-protest folks call for "consequences"--firings, fines, prohibitions, laws--and the pro-protest folks call any suppression of protest concerning, worrisome, unfair or an abuse of power.

That's why we have laws protecting free speech--to protect everyone's opinions, especially unpopular opinions--but the laws don't do much to protect free expression from the lesser abuses of censorship employed by social mobs, corporations like Amazon, groups of private individuals who have no oversight, or individuals who threaten others with legal action.

It's all censorship.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Monique said:


> But if he did plagiarize sections of the book (and it appears he did) then that's the most basic betrayal of his readers' trust. Black or not, good and powerful book or not.


People always tend to forgive "their side" their transgressions, and try to hold those on the "other side" responsible for theirs.

This is the basic narrative of racism (people like me are misguided, people not like me are criminals), misogyny (a man who sleeps around is virile, a woman is a "slut"), politics (my party makes a few mistakes, the other party is fundamentally corrupt), in fact, of any division that demonizes others.

***

However, aside from the issue of plagiarism, IMO authors or any artists who misrepresent themselves as something they are not, especially if it's a selling point and supposedly supports the work's authenticity, break faith with the readers if they lie about who they are. People who write "Special Ops" type books while claiming to have actually been SEALs, for example, and then turn out to be lying, break faith.

The priest who claimed to be a Muslim woman broke faith. If he'd hidden his identity, gender, and been vague about the details, perhaps saying something like "J. D. Smith has vast experience in the Muslim community," blah blah, that would have been no lie, the way I see it.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Annie B said:


> She has the degree, I believe, from an American University and is a professor, so one might imagine her English is pretty solid...


This is a minor point, yes, but the editor in me won't let it go. I recommend watching lectures by foreign-born engineers on Youtube. Look at the stuff put out by MIT. You don't need any more than rudimentary English to teach engineering in the Ivy League. No one cares, no one notices.



> Also, did you read those reviews? There are so many worse things in there. Like the protag wondering if Muslims can have cats, the protag talking about Muslims as though they are all the same and all from the Middle East, acting like there is a secret Muslim language ... I mean, from the reviews it sounds like there are a host of huge issues to critique just in the text alone without even getting into themes and subtext.
> 
> We as writers are free to write whatever we want. That doesn't mean everyone has to read it, or like it if they do. That doesn't mean your work cannot be criticized. If the people are you writing about, who live the real experience, have issues with what you write, that might be worth thinking about. Or not. You can also just ignore it. Lots of people do. That doesn't mean they don't get to have their say.


I'm not arguing the book is good. I knew from the description what it was and what it would read like. But sucking bad and being racist are two different things--I don't accept that clumsy, awkward preening amounts to racism. As I pointed out earlier in responding to the review you cited, the case wasn't made by that reviewer. Two of her points were subjective (the MC was unsympathetic and self-absorbed) and one could apply to any genre book (i.e., the MC didn't develop!). So I just don't see how bad became racist in that review.

By the way, let me give an example of why it's unfair to jump from ignorance and pandering to racism from something you said:



> I trust the women who have done the work already of reading it, especially the Muslim women, and think it is awful and harmful.


Someone could easily hang you on this in the same way you allow the author to be hanged. Why is it that you especially trust the Muslim women, exactly? It is because, unlike white women, they tend to be honest and forthright, telling it like it is? You see where this is going? It ain't pretty, but it's easy as pie when you assume bad intentions. Needless to say, I don't think you have bad intentions. I just don't think the line is as clear and easy as you think it is.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

P.J. Post said:


> Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But I think because of its overwhelming powerful influence on American society, and especially, when it was written, he gets a pass. However, to be fair, the book is 213k words. The plagiarism was minimal relative to the whole and didn't really affect the themes explored. And it was a phenomenon, offering hope through a common experience, a common tragedy and for a common future.


See, for me, it's the opposite. It makes the betrayal that much worse. Not the same but ... Cosby, America's dad - ground breaking comic and yet, horrible SOB. The status as someone to be admired makes the betrayal cut that much deeper for me.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

David VanDyke said:


> For those who think there's only two types of bigotry (institutionalized and social), there are actually complex intersecting spectra. Trying to reduce it to "white sepremacy" vs "all POCs" is overly simplistic. Even those in cohesive "tribes" -- the alt-right, the woke left, whatever groups you draw boundaries around--don't agree within themselves.
> 
> ** snip **


But this isn't censorship. Writing one star reviews for a book, even one they didn't read, isn't censorship. Calling out Kirkus for posting a review they don't agree with isn't censorship. Why? Because random people on the Internet, even a well-organized vocal group of them, don't have the power to force Kirkus to retract the review. Just like calling out the publisher for publishing the book isn't censorship because again, the group does not have the power to force it to happen. In both cases, Kirkus and the publisher are the ones that get to decide whether to respond to the demands favorably or unfavorably. They aren't forced to. Calling for people to boycott a book isn't censorship, because those doing so have no power over buyers.

And all that ignores the actual content of the book in the OP. A lot of people have said that what is wrong is people calling out a book, or leaving one star reviews for a book, that they haven't read, that they couldn't know its actually what they think it is. Does this opinion change if the criticisms end up being valid?

It's already been pointed out that some of the critical reviews are from those who have read the book. Their reviews state that in their opinion, the book misses the mark by a mile. It's pretty clear to me based on the blurb, and everything else I've seen said, that the author intended to retell Huckleberry Finn by with shining a light on more current events/climate, in this case Islamic-phobia. Unfortunately, it seems the author fell a bit short. Or very short, in some people's opinion. The author probably had good intentions. But intentions don't protect someone for valid criticism.

To me, it is far more harmful to try and silence voices speaking out about this book (or other books they find troublesome) than for a very vocal minority to rail against it. And I dare say that most of the critics are not calling for the book to be banned, or censored, or taken off sale, but rather are calling out problems they see that are very prevalent, especially in the YA market.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes, a hero who fails us has further to fall than mere mortals.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

WHDean said:


> This is a minor point, yes, but the editor in me won't let it go. I recommend watching lectures by foreign-born engineers on Youtube. Look at the stuff put out by MIT. You don't need any more than rudimentary English to teach engineering in the Ivy League. No one cares, no one notices.
> 
> I'm not arguing the book is good. I knew from the description what it was and what it would read like. But sucking bad and being racist are two different things--I don't accept that clumsy, awkward preening amounts to racism. As I pointed out earlier in responding to the review you cited, the case wasn't made by that reviewer. Two of her points were subjective (the MC was unsympathetic and self-absorbed) and one could apply to any genre book (i.e., the MC didn't develop!). So I just don't see how bad became racist in that review.
> 
> ...


I trust them because the book is supposed to be about them, so why wouldn't I trust the people who live the experience of being Muslim women every day, and who are most familiar with the cultures and religions being utilized in the work? How is that confusing? Seriously...

If a story reinforces and makes worse racist stereotypes, it's problematic at best and yes, racist. It doesn't matter what the author intended because if they didn't intend to put forward awful stereotypes and reinforce systemic problems, they failed at the most fundamental level of craft: communicating the story.

It all boils down to bad craft, in the end. Our stories aren't told in a vacuum, and they can and do have real world effects on real people. I think controversies like this are a good reminder that what we write can and will affect real people.


----------



## Ezekiel Stone (Jun 13, 2017)

Sometimes I honestly think that we need to shut the 'net down for a year or two to let emotions and vitriol calm down just a little.  I haven't read the book, nor have any intention too as I really don't like YA dystopia, but given the muslim character has, from what I understand, escaped from a concentration camp, she wouldn't be just hitch-hiking across the US.  She'd need some form of assistance, but whether this equates to white saviour narrative I couldn't say.

All I can say is that there is some mob mentality out there, from both sides of the culture war, and it feels like we  are heading towards book burnings and threats against authors, though hopefully it is just a small minority.  Authors were meant to be brave and challenging, questioning the status quo.  Except in the current climate it seems we are having to play it a lot more safe.  Don't rock the boat.  Don't stir up the angry mobs.

Shakespeare would be glad he doesn't have to write in the current time.


----------



## AlecHutson (Sep 26, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> Any suppression of free speech inevitably creeps. Any time someone's words are suppressed, especially by those with power (whether official or unofficial), it becomes easier to suppress them more and more, to constantly move the goalposts, because the supposed values they are "enforcing" become secondary to the rush of power that comes from the enforcement itself.
> 
> Mob power is one form of power. It's been around since ancient times. Mobs revel in their self-righteous power. Mobs hate those who are different, or who step out of line. Mobs burn books, destroy art, attack those who don't share their values. It doesn't really matter what those values are (and this is the crux)--the mob dynamic itself becomes the greatest evil.


Yes. Fantastic post.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

I'm still waiting for an explanation on why people having opinions on this book without having read it are any different from the people throughout decades prior who banned and boycotted books by minority authors, based solely on their content. You think homophobes who campaigned to keep books featuring gay content out of schools actually read those books before decrying them for pushing a deviant lifestyle?

If you're against this behavior itself, then be against this behavior across the board. But the more people keep trying to push this narrative that this behavior is synonymous with so-called culture cops, the more it comes across as it only being an issue when books by straight white authors are the ones under fire.

If the politically correct atmosphere you all decry is as all-powerful as you keep claiming it is, then why is it that all the articles that keep popping up about this behavior over the last several months, all the examples of it that get coverage and mainstream visibility and spark these discussions and this outrage on the author's behalf....

Why do all these articles only ever show when it's white authors who are being bullied by minority readers?

Look at the current political and social climate. Look at the Neo-Nazi marches and rallies, look at who in various governments (not just the US) has a large speaking platform and what kinds of things they're saying. And then ask yourselves:

Do you honestly, truly believe, that this only happens to white authors? That there are no authors whose books and livelihoods are targeted and trashed because they're Jewish, because they're black, because they're trans or gay or Latino? 

Because I can't even begin to express how incredibly not accurate that is. And yet - because people are right, this is far from the first time this discussion has come up in the last several months - and yet every time it does, we have people insisting that this only happens because political correctness has gotten out of control, because people are too sensitive and are looking for any excuse to be offended, etc etc. And this is so dishonest. I'm sorry, but it is.

How do you convince yourselves that you're arguing against censorship, that your only concern is that white authors are being censored and silenced by vocal dissidents WHILE AT THE SAME TIME refusing to acknowledge the literal decades of minority authors being actually censored (as in banned by government mandate in public schools) based solely on a book's content, without needing to read it to form an opinion? 

It doesn't work. You can not insist the one is not like the other, that this is different, that its political correctness that is the cause here, the villain....unless your actual concern isn't really 'I just don't like people getting outraged over a book they haven't even read.'

No Neo-Nazi has ever needed to read a book by a Jewish author before feeling justified in bullying or harassing that author.

Ergo, you can not blame that on political correctness. And yet over and over and over, all I'm hearing in this thread is that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if it weren't for people being too sensitive and looking for any excuse to get offended.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Jena H said:


> But, as we've seen on this very forum, writers get hammered by critics for trying to write characters from a different faith/race/ethnicity/orientation/whatever. So there is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing going on, and in the cases of those authors who get hammered, it seems as if they're told to "stay in their own lane," so to speak, and write only what they know from experience.


I disagree. What we've seen on this forum is some people claiming that writers 'can't' write characters of different races, faiths or ethnicity, that they're being censored or shouted down by the mob, while the writers who DO actually write characters of different races etc. have uniformly said that they, personally, have never experienced this reaction, at least from people belonging to the groups they're writing about. I think maybe we should give the experiences of people who've actually done this 'forbidden' thing a little more weight, no?


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

And I've flat out said that writing characters different from ourselves is part of our job. We're only one way. We can't really populate our books with me-clones. Not to mention, I'm so weird, readers would complain about how unrealistic my characters are if they were all modeled after me.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation on why people having opinions on this book without having read it are any different from the people throughout decades prior who banned and boycotted books by minority authors, based solely on their content. You think homophobes who campaigned to keep books featuring gay content out of schools actually read those books before decrying them for pushing a deviant lifestyle?
> 
> If you're against this behavior itself, then be against this behavior across the board. But the more people keep trying to push this narrative that this behavior is synonymous with so-called culture cops, the more it comes across as it only being an issue when books by straight white authors are the ones under fire.
> 
> ...


I agree with this and it's an excellent comparison. Political Correctness isn't the issue. If someone with extreme political views, right or left, reads a book and hates it then they're justified in writing their one star review, like everyone else. But what isn't justified is if after finishing that review, the reviewer then sets up a hate campaign on social media to incite a whole bunch of people to leave equally hating reviews who haven't even read the book. No amount of linking to negative reviews of the book that are authentic justifies all the fake reviews also attached.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I agree with this and it's an excellent comparison. Political Correctness isn't the issue. If someone with extreme political views, right or left, reads a book and hates it then they're justified in writing their one star review, like everyone else. But what isn't justified is if after finishing that review, the reviewer then sets up a hate campaign on social media to incite a whole bunch of people to leave equally hating reviews who haven't even read the book. No amount of linking to negative reviews of the book that are authentic justifies all the fake reviews also attached.


I mean, sure, I'd agree with that. But by the same token, no amount of fake reviews invalidates the criticisms of the reviews you yourself describe as justified. You can't say the one without the other, unless your only goal is to invalidate any and all negative attention regardless of whether it's actually criticism or just jumping on the bandwagon.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Monique said:


> See, for me, it's the opposite. It makes the betrayal that much worse. Not the same but ... Cosby, America's dad - ground breaking comic and yet, horrible SOB. The status as someone to be admired makes the betrayal cut that much deeper for me.


Many people agree with you: from the Wikipedia article on Alex Haley, "Haley and his work have been excluded from the Norton Anthology of African-American Literature, despite his status as the United States' best-selling African-American author. Harvard University professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., one of the anthology's general editors, has denied that the controversies surrounding Haley's works are the reason for this exclusion. In 1998 Dr. Gates acknowledged the doubts surrounding Haley's claims about Roots, saying, "Most of us feel it's highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village whence his ancestors sprang. Roots is a work of the imagination rather than strict historical scholarship.""

The 'best-selling author' thing is another point. This woman's book will likely sell far better than it would have on its own merits without the controversy. Some of us would rather have the respect, of course, but if the book becomes a best-seller I think it rather undercuts the notion that her work is being suppressed.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

Kalen ODonnell said:


> I mean, sure, I'd agree with that. But by the same token, no amount of fake reviews invalidates the criticisms of the reviews you yourself describe as justified. You can't say the one without the other, unless your only goal is to invalidate any and all negative attention regardless of whether it's actually criticism or just jumping on the bandwagon.


That's correct the reviews from people who have read the book are valid.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

I find this discussion fascinating. Actually, I find most of the discussion about race and minority status in publishing on KB fascinating. Author outrage is interesting.

I was on Twitter the night this controversy started. I read one of the original thread that criticized this book and the original reviews. It wasn't an organized mob, it was a thoughtful critique of the book and the review that was originally posted. 

Several people have mentioned and it seems to be glossed over. That the original criticism came from people that actually read the book. People that most likely obtained ARC for reviews. The function of ARC is to generate excitement and get reviews in advance of the books release. It's unfair and irresponsible to assume that negative reviews be withheld until after publication. If you don't want risk negative reviews before publication don't send out ARC. 

Another issue that had been pointed out but ignored is how READERS is the Goodreads rating system. From a book club owners perspective the Goodreads rating and shelf system is an enlightening tool. And I completely understand why some users would rate a book as 1 star if they don't want to read it. It affects which books Goodreads will recommend to you. So, if I liked XYZ, Goodreads will recommend a number of books to me. Then Goodreads recommend book ABC based off my enjoyment of XYZ. But ABC is about dinosaur shifters, I don't read dinosaur shifters so I rate it as a 1 star. That lowers the chance that I will be recommended dinosaur shifters books in the future. 

Listen, I doubt very many people are reading books based on the Goodreads starred review alone. Everyone that I have talked to b actually do read the reviews. And the reviews of the books people they are friends with and have similar taste to out rank John Doe's glowing 5 star review on the best day.

Reviews, both positive and negative, are there to help the reader make an informed judgement before purchase. Just like you research a car before buying, I research most of my books before buying/loaning/reading. I do that by reading constructive not the "This book is racist" one liners. But reviews that started this debate and I make my decision based on that. It's insulting to think that as reader you expect b me to judge you're book based off intent instead of executions but not be able to judge a quality review from a personal attack.

Those people that claim authors, particularly white authors, are abandoning diversity in books fail to realize that statistics proves them wrong. Studies have shown in both Children and Romance book traditionally published, white authors publishing books about POC outnumber book own voice authors. 

If these discussions about harmful representation make your nervous then as someone stated previously you are not ready to write diversely. You are not ready for the criticism that can come from writing diversely poorly. Instead, it seems you want diversity cookie with a glass of cold vanilla almond milk for at least trying. Keep your book on you hard drive or  make the characters homogeneous and lacking diversity because the diversity cookies are in short supply and the almond milk is spoiled.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

Black and white are opposite ends of the *same *construct. We are all the *same *colour - we are just different shades of Melanin.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

K.D.McVey said:


> Black and white are opposite ends of the *same *construct. We are all the *same *colour - we are just different shades of Melanin.


What does this have to do with anything? There is a long and brutal history of racism in the US that persists to this day. Islamic-phobia and harmful stereotypes of Muslims is a part of that. That's what people are critiquing in the book. Saying things like "but we're all one race: human" or the equivalent doesn't actually really do anything except show extreme privilege and erasure of the day to day systemic problems that PoC face in the US (and around the world).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> Were these things not acceptable in the first place? I missed the memo on that one.


Wait. What?

Are you seriously asking whether or not profiting off of oppression was not acceptable? I'm hoping I misread, but I know better than to give the benefit of the doubt when in this kind of discussion.



> I might have some interest in an author's personal life as a matter of fan-dom, but who or what the author is (or is not) doesn't change what is in the book.


It changes them from something coming from personal experiences to the guesses and approximations of an outsider.

Also all the lying to get people to buy the book.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Annie B said:


> What does this have to do with anything? There is a long and brutal history of racism in the US that persists to this day. Islamic-phobia and harmful stereotypes of Muslims is a part of that. That's what people are critiquing in the book. Saying things like "but we're all one race: human" or the equivalent doesn't actually really do anything except show extreme privilege and erasure of the day to day systemic problems that PoC face in the US (and around the world).


Extreme privilege - there's been a study here in the UK that shows that white working-class boys are less likely to go to uni than their asian or black counterparts, are they extremely privileged or can they speak up?

When the man who led the equality commission for twenty years and invented political correctness in this country, Trevor Phillips, asks the question has political correctness gone mad, says it has and apologizes for the damage it has caused to the fabric of our society, our communities, our way of life, the snowflake culture, and for the lack of community cohesion that has come about because of it, you have to stand up and say; told ya that would happen.

We can all point to someone as being more privileged, but what does that have to do with mob rule against a book that they haven't read?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Extreme privilege - there's been a study here in the UK that shows that white working-class boys are less likely to go to uni than their asian or black counterparts, are they extremely privileged or can they speak up?
> 
> When the man who led the equality commission for twenty years and invented political correctness in this country, Trevor Phillips, asks the question has political correctness gone mad, says it has and apologizes for the damage it has caused to the fabric of our society, our communities, our way of life, the snowflake culture, and for the lack of community cohesion that has come about because of it, you have to stand up and say; told ya that would happen.
> 
> We can all point to someone as being more privileged, but what does that have to do with mob rule against a book that they haven't read?


I'll just link Gaiman here: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/43087620460/i-was-reading-a-book-about-interjections-oddly

If you replace "political correctness" with "treating other people with respect" you will see just how silly these statements get.

I am not here to educate anyone on what privilege is. Do your own emotional labor.

There is no mob rule against a book they haven't read. People read the book and made very cogent critiques of it. These detailed crits that explain what the book contains and is about angered other people who are tired of books like this being published for valid to them reasons. It's not a mob and it is weird so many people think that hearing the voices of the traditionally oppressed and marginalized among us is "mobbing"... Books that promote and further oppressive, harmful stereotypes hurt real people and reinforce inequitable systems.

Also... most of the "outrage" is coming from the author and people who are mad that other people don't like the book.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Monique said:


> Anyone who reads a book can feel however they want about it and express that. Kirkus should have either stood by their review (preferable) or been honest about why they removed it.
> 
> No one should be shocked if they write something controversial that, ya know, controversy follows.


Controversy can be a beautiful thing. It can make people who aren't offended by the topic want to read it. The Divinci Code comes to mind. The people on one side of the fence scream loud and the people on the other side get their wallets out. But I agree if you're going to go there you should be ready for it. Boyd Craven puts a warning right in his blurbs that he's going to offend some people, but he found his readers.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Atlantisatheart said:


> ... what does that have to do with mob rule against a book that they haven't read?


People have addressed this over and over again. There are many threads on this board complaining that Goodreads readers use the star system to mark books that they do or don't want to read. The one I remember in particular asked how people could be giving a one star for a book that wasn't even released yet. This is not, by the wildest stretch of the imagination 'mob rule'. And as for Kirkus, all the reviews posted were made by people who _had_ read the book.

Freaking out about things that haven't actually happened is not helping to make your case.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Sarah Shaw said:


> I disagree. What we've seen on this forum is some people claiming that writers 'can't' write characters of different races, faiths or ethnicity, that they're being censored or shouted down by the mob, while the writers who DO actually write characters of different races etc. have uniformly said that they, personally, have never experienced this reaction, at least from people belonging to the groups they're writing about. I think maybe we should give the experiences of people who've actually done this 'forbidden' thing a little more weight, no?


It's kind of weird, but the only time I was seriously attacked for being bigoted was from certain angry people from the sub-culture _in which I was raised_. When I've written about other people, languages, genders, and cultures than my own I haven't actually received very much of this.


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

Annie B said:


> What does this have to do with anything? There is a long and brutal history of racism in the US that persists to this day. Islamic-phobia and harmful stereotypes of Muslims is a part of that. That's what people are critiquing in the book. Saying things like "but we're all one race: human" or the equivalent doesn't actually really do anything except show extreme privilege and erasure of the day to day systemic problems that PoC face in the US (and around the world).


I am sorry if my comment upsets you. You are, of course, correct. However, some of us would like to do what we can, in our small ways, to influence the future.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Annie B said:


> I'll just link Gaiman here: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/43087620460/i-was-reading-a-book-about-interjections-oddly
> 
> If you replace "political correctness" with "treating other people with respect" you will see just how silly these statements get.
> 
> ...


Replacing global cooling with global warming and then climate change didn't make the subject about anything other than global weather either. You can dress it down any way you want and call it by a new name to make it more palatable to the masses, it doesn't change the narrative or the fact that it's gone so far off tangent that it's worrying the guy who led the charge in this country.

I live in the land that invented privilege, your answer is just deflecting.

'... hearing the voices of the traditionally oppressed and marginalized among us is...' I think my eyes just rolled into the back of my head. A statement meant to silence white people from speaking and make them feel guilt by association - akin to racist. Unfortunately, it doesn't work anymore because as I said; the climate has changed and people are fed up with being shouted down. Those people did not read the book - they are basically book burners for the modern age.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Becca Mills said:


> Is _No-No Boy_ one of the '50s novelizations you referred to? I read it in college in the early 1990s, but I don't remember when it was published.


Yes John Okada's No No Boy was published in 1957 and was better received in the Japanese American community because it dealt with those who rebelled against serving in the war effort while their family remained in a concentration camp. It was preceded in 1953 by Monica Sone's Nisei Daughter, which caught a lot of flak from the community for being too positive about the experience. I notice that on Amazon it is reviewed as a memoir, but I always understood it to be a novel based on her life story. I also discovered through those reviews a Japanese Canadian equivalent from the 1980s Joy Kogawa's Obasan, which is also a novelised life story.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

Annie B said:


> I'll just link Gaiman here: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/43087620460/i-was-reading-a-book-about-interjections-oddly
> 
> If you replace "political correctness" with "treating other people with respect" you will see just how silly these statements get.
> 
> ...


Are you okay with these reviews?

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2149851156

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2150748427

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2154243577

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2131828867

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2117021956

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2131692473

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2150043893

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2155258176


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

MonkeyScribe said:


> It's kind of weird, but the only time I was seriously attacked for being bigoted was from certain angry people from the sub-culture _in which I was raised_. When I've written about other people, languages, genders, and cultures than my own I haven't actually received very much of this.


Out of the hundreds of characters that I have written, I have only ever written three black main characters and one of those was an MC because I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes. At readers requests, I gave him his own book and was told that I wrote him as 'human' (odd as he was a shifter.)


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> '... hearing the voices of the traditionally oppressed and marginalized among us is...' I think my eyes just rolled into the back of my head. A statement meant to silence white people from speaking and make them feel guilt by association - akin to racist.


I'm a white person, and I didn't feel any guilt by association, nor perceive any attempt to make me feel so. But I don't have anything to feel guilty about, so I don't feel emotionally threatened by the voices of oppressed and marginalized people, nor think their voices are meant to induce guilt. I imagine oppressed and marginalized people would appreciate having their voices _heard_, but listening and not talking aren't exactly the same thing.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Are you okay with these reviews?
> 
> https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2149851156
> 
> ...


I'm fine with any review, because people are free to express their opinions. We all get annoying reviews that clearly are by people who either didn't read our books or missed what we meant (enough of them, and you might start to worry you also missed writing what you meant properly but that's entirely up to the author). It's part of writing a book that is then put out into the world. We don't control the actions of other people. The best we can do is decide how we want to react and feel about it. The author of the book in question has chosen to react the way she has. Someone else might have handled this differently.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

Annie B said:


> I'm fine with any review, because people are free to express their opinions. We all get annoying reviews that clearly are by people who either didn't read our books or missed what we meant (enough of them, and you might start to worry you also missed writing what you meant properly but that's entirely up to the author). It's part of writing a book that is then put out into the world. We don't control the actions of other people. The best we can do is decide how we want to react and feel about it. The author of the book in question has chosen to react the way she has. Someone else might have handled this differently.


Just to clarify - the annoying reviews are the sort of thing people are up in arms about (I'm assuming) and not the actual critical reviews of people who read the book.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Atlantisatheart said:


> When the man who led the equality commission for twenty years and invented political correctness in this country, Trevor Phillips, asks the question has political correctness gone mad, says it has and apologizes for the damage it has caused to the fabric of our society, our communities, our way of life, the snowflake culture, and for the lack of community cohesion that has come about because of it, you have to stand up and say; told ya that would happen.


Trevor Philips was never responsible for political correctness. As chair of the Council of Racial Equality he called for an end to an equation of racism to colour because the majority of cases his organisation dealt with involved white victims. By the time he took over the CRE had already designated White Irish as a separate racial identity, which creates the oddity that when I am in Ireland (including the UK bit) I am white but when I am in Britain I am not white, but White Irish (with a bit of Welsh). It probably took the appointment of a black Briton to the post to get that point made about anti-white racism. As PJ says the whole world is not America and as a Briton I was always stunned that the US media had a problem with acknowledging racism not perpetrating by whites (e.g., the burning of Korean stores in the LA riots).


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Just to clarify - the annoying reviews are the sort of thing people are up in arms about (I'm assuming) and not the actual critical reviews of people who read the book.


It was the reviews by people who had read the book that got everyone talking about it, however, and likely those criticisms are what caused Kirkus to rethink their own review and if they had missed how potentially problematic and stereotyping this book could be. Kirkus didn't pull their review because of the people who hadn't read it. Everyone is talking about it because of those who did read it, especially the crits that I already posted in this thread. Somehow that fact seems to have been lost in the pages here, with everyone leaping on "poor author" without investigating that yes, there is legitimate criticism by people who read the entire book.

For what it is worth, I think it is worth reading the reviews I linked to, because they are very well done and quote text to support and illustrate their opinions, as a well-written critique should imo. It's not difficult to decide reading those reviews if this kind of book is or isn't something you want to spend your time or money on.

Also, for people who wish to improve their craft and want to know how they might do so and write outside their own cultural and social experience, I highly recommend this site as a place to start. http://writingtheother.com/ They offer a workshop and there are also books you can purchase if you want to engage in self-study. The "resources" page there is a great place to begin.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Those people did not read the book - they are basically book burners for the modern age.


Um ... wee bit of false equivalency there.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

MonkeyScribe said:


> It's kind of weird, but the only time I was seriously attacked for being bigoted was from certain angry people from the sub-culture _in which I was raised_. When I've written about other people, languages, genders, and cultures than my own I haven't actually received very much of this.


  I think this is very common. Every group has its myths and illusions about themselves. It probably takes an insider to identify those things and call attention to them in a way that really stings. Those of us looking in from the outside tend either to get it wildly wrong and just end up perpetuating stereotypes or we really study the culture and look on it with considerable sympathy, seeing its strengths more than its failings. I know that, having immersed myself in Czech language and history for many years I have a much more positive view of the culture than most of either my Czech or expat friends.

I think, for the most part, people belonging in particular to marginalized communities are happy to have their perspectives presented, regardless of the people who are doing it. At any rate, I certainly haven't heard anyone complain about Tony Hillerman's Navajo detective stories or Robert Van Guilik's Judge Dee mysteries. Or Alexander McCall Smith's Botswana detective stories, even though Smith has never actually set foot in Botswana.

Of course that's not what's happened in this case, by all accounts. We have a story about a young white girl. The marginalized group is there as a prop to her hero's journey. I don't think any group of people would be exactly delighted to have their people portrayed in such a way. But with a group as vilified as Muslims are at present no doubt there are some members of the community who are happy to see themselves portrayed in any way that isn't overtly villainous. Hence the disagreement between the two Muslim reviewers.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Trevor Philips was never responsible for political correctness. As chair of the Council of Racial Equality he called for an end to an equation of racism to colour because the majority of cases his organisation dealt with involved white victims.


Ah yes, but he was the go-to guy for everything involving race relations and equality for the Labour party when they were in power. Having met Mr Phillips when I worked for the labour party I can honestly say that he stood on the side of political correctness. Why else would he have apologised for it if he was nothing to do with it?


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

C. Gockel said:


> Um ... wee bit of false equivalency there.


I don't believe so. We are now in the digital age and there is no need to physically go to all the libraries and rip out the books to toss them in the fire if you can trash a book online before it's even out and it has the same effect.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't believe so. We are now in the digital age and there is no need to physically go to all the libraries and rip out the books to toss them in the fire if you can trash a book online before it's even out and it has the same effect.


And what's the legal mechanism for doing that? Outside of places like China, I mean. Can I go and take your book down if I don't like it? No. Does a publishing house have to take a book down if a bunch of anonymous people on Goodreads mark a book they haven't read with a one star to let themselves know it's not one they want to buy? No. Get back to me when any of that's happening- or is even legally possible- and I'll join you manning the barricades.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I feel kind of bad for the author, to be honest. She wrote a book that might have been seen as groundbreaking and important 20 or 30 years ago, and no doubt thought of it this way in her mind all the way through the process. Now she's being attacked by the people she thought of as her allies, not the people she was writing the book against.

I'm sure she's devastated right now.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Annie B said:


> For what it is worth, I think it is worth reading the reviews I linked to, because they are very well done and quote text to support and illustrate their opinions, as a well-written critique should imo. It's not difficult to decide reading those reviews if this kind of book is or isn't something you want to spend your time or money on.


I don't think people that are arguing that what is happening is "digital book burning", "racist", and "censorship" care that there are numerous reviews detailing the problems with this book. All the car about it's that people are using the Goodreads system in a way that they disapprove of and that the original review from Kirkus was pulled.

It's been pointed out numerous times that no one called for Kirkus to pull their review. In fact, they pulled that review very quickly. So, quickly that I thought it was odd. Kirkus could have stood by their review but they didn't, maybe they read the numerous negative reviews and realized that it missed valid troubling issues. Kirkus had realised released why they pulled the review. It's their rate was a private company to do so.

The author exercised her freedom of speech by writing a problematic book. Her intent doesn't matter. If a reader takes the time out to read your 100+ manuscript and still misses you intent, then you did your job poorly. If she wanted this to be a redemptions story and instead people are getting white saviour. The blame is on the author not the reader.

Everyone is for freedom of speech until others speak freely and it hurts their pocket books.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't believe so. We are now in the digital age and there is no need to physically go to all the libraries and rip out the books to toss them in the fire if you can trash a book online before it's even out and it has the same effect.


Saying a book is bad and urging people not to read it is hardly the same as burning them. The book is still for sale, and has in fact been distributed by a major publisher, right? It's not even facing soft censorship.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

MonkeyScribe said:


> She wrote a book that might have been seen as groundbreaking and important 20 or 30 years ago


I don't think so. Not a book, but twenty years ago we had this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_(1998_film)
And it had the virtue of having a clear rationale for the camps. I only saw it once, about the time it was released, but I remember being very moved by Tony Shalhoub's portrayal of a father whose young son is caught up in one of the sweeps.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Monie said:


> I don't think people that are arguing that what is happening is "digital book burning", "racist", and "censorship" care that there are numerous reviews detailing the problems with this book. All the car about it's that people are using the Goodreads system in a way that they disapprove of and that the original review from Kirkus was pulled.
> 
> It's been pointed out numerous times that no one called for Kirkus to pull their review. In fact, they pulled that review very quickly. So, quickly that I thought it was odd. Kirkus could have stood by their review but they didn't, maybe they read the numerous negative reviews and realized that it missed valid troubling issues. Kirkus had realised released why they pulled the review. It's their rate was a private company to do so.
> 
> ...


That's true. Freedom of speech does not mean others have to shut up and listen.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

> Um ... wee bit of false equivalency there.





Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't believe so. We are now in the digital age and there is no need to physically go to all the libraries and rip out the books to toss them in the fire if you can trash a book online before it's even out and it has the same effect.


Has anyone tried burning a Kindle? The only truly combustible model is the Kindle Fire.

The clue's in the name...


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

MonkeyScribe said:


> Saying a book is bad and urging people not to read it is hardly the same as burning them. The book is still for sale, and has in fact been distributed by a major publisher, right? It's not even facing soft censorship.


Come on that's a cop-out. Have you read some of those reviews by idiots who haven't read the book? Yeah, what a way to remind themselves not to read it and 'urging' others to do the same. Book burning looks mild in comparison.

_edited; PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

I'm getting from this ridiculous thread that people can write what they want, but it is racist and greedy for a white to write a POC POV.  

Do people not even grasp their bigotry and racism? No, obviously not.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Come on that's a cop-out. Have you read some of those reviews by idiots who haven't read the book? F* your racist white saviour BS. Yeah, what a way to remind themselves not to read it and 'urging' others to do the same. Book burning looks mild in comparison.


You do realize that white saviour is a trope that people like to avoid. It's like the sassy black chick, manic pixie dream girl, and others. Giving people warnings of books that use tiresome tropes isn't book burning. If you think it is you don't fully comprehend what book burning is or what it use to be.

I highly doubt even if written in the age of book burning, that American Heart would have been on the list. I also doubt that any school district will try to ban it. This book is not being censored, and no one is being racist against the author for pointing out that she used tried old trope and did it poorly.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Come on that's a cop-out. Have you read some of those reviews by idiots who haven't read the book? Yeah, what a way to remind themselves not to read it and 'urging' others to do the same. Book burning looks mild in comparison.


The book is going to get more publicity than money can buy from this.

Also, this has ALWAYS happened. Books, video games, music, movies have had busy bodies and *organizations* trying to discourage people from reading, playing, listening, and watching them. SNL's "The Church Lady" was based off someone everyone knew. Most of the people slinging the mud hadn't read, played, listened, or watched the movies they disparaged.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Come on that's a cop-out. Have you read some of those reviews by idiots who haven't read the book? Yeah, what a way to remind themselves not to read it and 'urging' others to do the same. Book burning looks mild in comparison.


The right to publish has not been harmed. Some people are offended and are peacefully telling others to stay away. Some readers will, some won't.

People do this all the time about stuff they find offensive in principle. People won't see the new Ghostbusters or will tell people to stay away from heavy metal music or erotica, or will urge others to boycott a book or product or amusement park or . . . whatever for . . . whatever.

I'd certainly be frustrated in this case if I were the writer, but her books aren't being confiscated and burned. They're not even getting removed from the virtual store shelf. She has a major publisher and major distribution and will be read far more than most indies can even dream about.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Laran Mithras said:


> I'm getting from this ridiculous thread that people can write what they want, but it is racist and greedy for a white to write a POC POV.
> 
> Do people not even grasp their bigotry and racism? No, obviously not.


Maybe we are reading different threads. I'm getting from this informative thread is that people are calling out problematic stereotyping of POC. And other people are trying to call it censorship, book burning, and racism while only understanding the dictionary definition of the words and disregarding that they have deeper social, political, and historical meanings.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Laran Mithras said:


> I'm getting from this ridiculous thread that people can write what they want, but it is racist and greedy for a white to write a POC POV.


Huh? I haven't seen that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

MonkeyScribe said:


> I feel kind of bad for the author, to be honest. She wrote a book that might have been seen as groundbreaking and important 20 or 30 years ago, and *no doubt thought of it this way in her mind all the way through the process. *


If that is true, perhaps then she should have been thinking less about her own brilliance and more about her intended audience?

This statement actually reflects part of the problem with the white savior issue. It is a subconscious reinforcement of the notion that minorities are NOT CAPABLE of speaking for themselves, for telling their own stories, and that "enlightened" white folk have to help them.

The First Amendment protects her right to publish the story. It does NOT protect her from backlash from those who feel disenfranchised. It does not guarantee that she will be free of negative reviews. It does not guarantee her sales or profits. ALL the First Amendment does is prevent the government from restricting her ability to publish the book. Nowhere in the First Amendment is their also a guarantee of a captive audience incapable of criticism.

At the end of the day, we are writers. Our entire job description involves conveying ideas to others in a way that others can understand. This entire thread seems to be so focused on the WRITER that it has lost sight of the WRITER'S JOB. Our job does not exist without readers, so perhaps it is high time we all stop worrying about our precious little feelings and start thinking about how readers will interpret what we write. Readers owe us nothing. They don't owe us their time. They don't owe us their money. We owe them because we are presenting our ideas to them with the expectation that they will pay us for them and think about them.

So if you are going to write a book about the Muslim experience in America, you darn well better take the feelings of Muslims in America into account. Because if you [general you, not you specific] are going to look down from your White Privilege tower and pontificate on their experiences through the eyes of a white character, you probably should be thick-skinned enough to handle the backlash. Because, yes, 30 years ago, things were different. One of the amazing things about the Millenial generation often overlooked is that this may be the first generation that does NOT automatically assume white cisgender male is the default in media. They are prepared to call B.S. on that nonsense and ready to embrace main characters of all backgrounds not because of "diversity" but because humans come from all backgrounds. The writer, unfortunately, may still be stuck in the mindset of 30 years ago, and she's going to have to pay the price now for misreading the audience.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

MonkeyScribe said:


> The right to publish has not been harmed. Some people are offended and are peacefully telling others to stay away. Some readers will, some won't.
> 
> People do this all the time about stuff they find offensive in principle. People won't see the new Ghostbusters or will tell people to stay away from heavy metal music or erotica, or will urge others to boycott a book or product or amusement park or . . . whatever for . . . whatever.
> 
> I'd certainly be frustrated in this case if I were the writer, but her books aren't being confiscated and burned. They're not even getting removed from the virtual store shelf. She has a major publisher and major distribution and will be read far more than most indies can even dream about.


Maybe it's all a publishing ploy like back in the 80's when radio banned Frankie goes to Hollywood's Relax and everyone rushed out to buy it and enraged people are jumping on the bandwagon and doing the publicity machine's job for them. We've seen it work for indies in erotica, maybe TP are getting savvy? Who knows.

You speak of Ghostbusters, and here's the thing - I'm one of those that won't go near it with a barge poll, but I didn't run online and shout and scream about the absurdity of taking a great film and trashing it with four dweebs and a Thor. Talk about pc gone mad.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If that is true, perhaps then she should have been thinking less about her own brilliance and more about her intended audience?
> 
> This statement actually reflects part of the problem with the white savior issue. It is a subconscious reinforcement of the notion that minorities are NOT CAPABLE of speaking for themselves, for telling their own stories, and that "enlightened" white folk have to help them.
> 
> ...


But isn't this what those lofty gatekeepers are there for? Aren't they supposed to have their fingers on the pulse of the readership? How can a book that is so badly written with an archaic view that nobody wants to see anymore get through?

I don't feel sorry for the author in respect of she wrote a book then she takes her lumps. We've probably all had the vitriol one star review from readers, I know I have, (apparently one of my vampires wasn't believable - I guess he wasn't shiny enough for her) but being gang-bushed by everyone and their uncle is overkill.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> One of the amazing things about the Millenial generation often overlooked is that this may be the first generation that does NOT automatically assume white cisgender male is the default in media. They are prepared to call B.S. on that nonsense and ready to embrace main characters of all backgrounds not because of "diversity" but because humans come from all backgrounds. The writer, unfortunately, may still be stuck in the mindset of 30 years ago, and she's going to have to pay the price now for misreading the audience.


Hear, hear! I'd just like to add that this 60-something white woman has been called out before by people in their teens for her use of terms for the LBGTQ community that were common in her youth. I somehow managed to survive- even feel grateful for- the experience without falling into a faint over this 'violation' of my 'freedom of speech'. I was always taught that freedom cuts both ways. Don't demand respect for yourself that you are unwilling to accord to anyone else.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Extreme privilege - there's been a study here in the UK that shows that white working-class boys are less likely to go to uni than their asian or black counterparts, are they extremely privileged or can they speak up?
> 
> When the man who led the equality commission for twenty years and invented political correctness in this country, Trevor Phillips, asks the question has political correctness gone mad, says it has and apologizes for the damage it has caused to the fabric of our society, our communities, our way of life, the snowflake culture, and for the lack of community cohesion that has come about because of it, you have to stand up and say; told ya that would happen.
> 
> We can all point to someone as being more privileged, but what does that have to do with mob rule against a book that they haven't read?


I agree w/ you. It seems to me that some of the very people decrying 'white saviors' are sounding like 'white saviors' in that they feel that because in their opinion certain groups are oppressed, then they have to be protected by the majority race to the extent that no one can even tell stories about minority characters except minorities. That's ridiculous. Let minorities speak for themselves... the Muslim woman who wrote the Kirkus Review was fine with the book. Let everyone write whatever kind of story they want to write & don't 1-star it just b/c you disagree w/ the politics. I am sure that some of these people saying that is okay would be here flipping a lid if they got a 1 star review saying 'I didn't read this book but from the blurb it's clear it's SJW BS, so, it sucks & I give it 1 star!' The hypocrisy is astounding.

I'm from a rural area where becoming aware of racism was very much something that happened in teenage years. I don't understand why it's so bad to write about a white teenager having her eyes opened to racism. This very much happens in small town USA [& probably big city USA as well, although that's not my experience so I don't know for sure] all the time; in fact, sometimes it doesn't ever happen, which is sad. Some people live their entire lives being racist & not even knowing it b/c it's literally all they know & all they are raised w/ & around. It's so ironic to me that people are opposed to this book when it seems to do what they want it to do- point out racism & injustice & have people open their eyes to that. It seems like you just can't win w/ some people!

People where I'm from would not say they are privileged; I do okay b/c I'm intelligent (is IQ a privilege now?!) & scrappy AF but not everyone is like that. Many in my town are jobless, education-less, penniless, & drug addicted. They were born to neglectful or abusive or mentally ill parents & that cycle continues despite skin color. I understand that some 'on the left' [ironically I count myself as a member of 'the left' but not this BSC stuff!] think the people in my town are privileged just b/c the color of most of their skin happens to be white. But they would wholeheartedly disagree & that is their right as well, & preaching to them about privilege based only on color of skin or apparently gender is never going to get them on the right side [or what I obviously believe is the right side]. A story about a white teenager from my town who comes of age & finds out she's racist is completely realistic but apparently it's not supposed to be told b/c we should wait for a minority to tell that same story [although it IS the story of a white character's perspective so I don't get that at all either]. That is just so condescending & again is also IMO very 'white savior' like.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

writerlygal said:


> I'm from a rural area where becoming aware of racism was very much something that happened in teenage years. I don't understand why it's so bad to write about a white teenager having her eyes opened to racism. This very much happens in small town USA [& probably big city USA as well, although that's not my experience so I don't know for sure] all the time; in fact, sometimes it doesn't ever happen, which is sad. Some people live their entire lives being racist & not even knowing it b/c it's literally all they know & all they are raised w/ & around. It's so ironic to me that people are opposed to this book when it seems to do what they want it to do- point out racism & injustice & have people open their eyes to that. It seems like you just can't win w/ some people!
> 
> People where I'm from would not say they are privileged; I do okay b/c I'm intelligent (is IQ a privilege now?!) & scrappy AF but not everyone is like that. Many in my town are jobless, education-less, penniless, & drug addicted. They were born to neglectful or abusive or mentally ill parents & that cycle continues despite skin color. I understand that some 'on the left' [ironically I count myself as a member of 'the left' but not this BSC stuff!] think the people in my town are privileged just b/c the color of most of their skin happens to be white. But they would wholeheartedly disagree & that is their right as well, & preaching to them about privilege based only on color of skin or apparently gender is never going to get them on the right side [or what I obviously believe is the right side]. A story about a white teenager from my town who comes of age & finds out she's racist is completely realistic but apparently it's not supposed to be told b/c we should wait for a minority to tell that same story [although it IS the story of a white character's perspective so I don't get that at all either]. That is just so condescending & again is also IMO very 'white savior' like.


I grew up in and still live in a town that is just like this. I think people are assuming that every white person is a college educated middle class person from the suburbs or an urban area and understands diversity issues. Someone coming from an all white isolated town where everyone is poor and/or drug addicted would definitely make you not really aware of racial issues, and I think people here have a really hard time understanding the politically correct lingo like privilege and all that. It just doesn't compute to the average person here. It's just not a thing you really talk about or consider in the type of world I live in. Which is why I've been hesitant to even look into including diversity in my books. I don't want to mess up.

I was watching a youtuber talk about these issues a few months ago (can't remember the channel name or I would link to it) but they were discussing criticism of Sarah J. Maas. Many people were saying that Maas' books were too white and straight. Then Maas included a bisexual character or something like that and the video creator felt it wasn't authentic. She went on to say that maybe the push for diversity is wrong on a lot of fronts and it leads to people writing about things they don't really understand, and maybe its ok for Maas to write books about straight white people because she is a straight white person. Given the backlash I have seen over the past few years, I think that person might be onto something. Remember, this isn't the first time this has happened. There was a huge controversy over a YA book called _Black Witch_ recently as well.

I'm an LGBT person so I could write about that sort of thing, but I definitely couldn't write about the Muslim experience since it's so far out of my reality that it's beyond my abilities.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

writerlygal said:


> People where I'm from would not say they are privileged;


White privilege is:

When the media talks about a poor white community, it talks about how factories have closed down and jobs haven't returned.
When the media talks about a poor black community, it talks about the lack of male role models and the number of single-mother homes.

When politicians talk about poor white communities, they talk about improving access to job training and returning manufacturing to the U.S.
When politicians talk about poor black communities, they talk about combating crime, drugs, and "ending the cycle of dependency."

The drug epidemic in white communities is a health issue.
The drug epidemic in black communities is a crime issue.

The fact that nobody uses terms like "white on white crime", despite the fact that across all races, you are more likely to be the victim of violent crime from a member of your own race than "cross-race" crime.

I could go on. But the fact that people don't see their privilege is part of the problem. Some people have a weird aversion to even admitting to privilege as if someone is going to take your house away or something if you acknowledge it.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

This thread has just run-off in so many different directions.



writerlygal said:


> I agree w/ you. It seems to me that some of the very people decrying 'white saviors' are sounding like 'white saviors' in that they feel that because in their opinion certain groups are oppressed, then they have to be protected by the majority race to the extent that no one can even tell stories about minority characters except minorities.


Some people have pointed out that white authors (often established) writing minority stories, and filling the "slot" allotted to minority stories for a big publisher is problematic. This is a far cry from saying it's wrong for white people to write minority characters.



writerlygal said:


> Let everyone write whatever kind of story they want to write & don't 1-star it just b/c you disagree w/ the politics. I am sure that some of these people saying that is okay would be here flipping a lid if they got a 1 star review saying 'I didn't read this book but from the blurb it's clear it's SJW BS, so, it sucks & I give it 1 star!' The hypocrisy is astounding.


Every minimally successful author here has gotten someone on Goodreads 1-star our books without reading it. Most people don't flip their lids over it.* Also, in this case--with a trad pub company behind the author, it's friggin' publicity.*

I'm really more upset when indies get 1-starred because they report on the questionable tactics of certain promoters.



writerlygal said:


> I'm from a rural area where becoming aware of racism was very much something that happened in teenage years. I don't understand why it's so bad to write about a white teenager having her eyes opened to racism. This very much happens in small town USA [& probably big city USA as well, although that's not my experience so I don't know for sure] all the time; in fact, sometimes it doesn't ever happen, which is sad.


I'm one generation out of the holler and I'm often astounded and insulted by the people who think they are open minded who are incredibly ignorant of the realities of poor whites. And I also know that for many poor whites who haven't been exposed to people of other cultures, a first look through a white lense is a good idea. That said, bigotry through the lense of a white protagonist has been done so often, I understand why people are upset, too. *Both sides are entitled to their opinion and are allowed to express it. That isn't censorship!*



writerlygal said:


> Many in my town are jobless, education-less, penniless, & drug addicted. They were born to neglectful or abusive or mentally ill parents & that cycle continues despite skin color. I understand that some 'on the left' [ironically I count myself as a member of 'the left' but not this BSC stuff!] think the people in my town are privileged just b/c the color of most of their skin happens to be white.


People on the "left" who think being white is the ultimate privilege are wrong!

So why not write about the white rural poor through the lense of a POC, non-Christian perspective? Maybe through the eyes of someone who never had to think about money? Or write it through the lense of a rural poor white person, but don't have them save the POC character, but save themselves, while allowing the POC to grow and change as well?


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

boba1823 said:


> Recommended controversy avoidance plan:


You left out write in a sci-fi or fantasy world. ;-)


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Annie B said:


> I trust them because the book is supposed to be about them, so why wouldn't I trust the people who live the experience of being Muslim women every day, and who are most familiar with the cultures and religions being utilized in the work? How is that confusing? Seriously...
> 
> If a story reinforces and makes worse racist stereotypes, it's problematic at best and yes, racist. It doesn't matter what the author intended because if they didn't intend to put forward awful stereotypes and reinforce systemic problems, they failed at the most fundamental level of craft: communicating the story.
> 
> It all boils down to bad craft, in the end. Our stories aren't told in a vacuum, and they can and do have real world effects on real people. I think controversies like this are a good reminder that what we write can and will affect real people.


You missed the point of the analysis of your remark. The tactics used in these criticisms/attacks can be turned against anyone, including you and your books, because, under the bad faith assumption, the burden of proof is pushed onto the accused to prove their innocence, not on the accusers to prove their case. No one can prove their innocence because no one can prove that kind of negative. It's even harder when the accusation is "perpetuating" some abstract state of affairs. So you can say it's no big deal, just people having their say, and you may be able to stay on the right side of the mob. But it is an ominous trend when trade pubs bow to pressure, suppressing one minority voice because that voice didn't say the right thing.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This statement actually reflects part of the problem with the white savior issue. It is a subconscious reinforcement of the notion that minorities are NOT CAPABLE of speaking for themselves, for telling their own stories, and that "enlightened" white folk have to help them.


Good of you to ride in on your white horse and save POCs from the white saviour narrative. Clearly, your speaking on their behalf doesn't reinforce the notion that minorities are not capable of speaking for themselves. I've seen this pattern repeat itself several times: white people on white horses saying that stealing the voices of minorities by, for example, presuming to speak on their behalf, is wrong--while presuming to speak on their behalf.

I'm starting to wonder whether the biggest problem with the white saviour narrative is that it offends the aesthetic sensibilities of college-educated white people.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> White privilege is:
> 
> When the media talks about a poor white community, it talks about how factories have closed down and jobs haven't returned.
> When the media talks about a poor black community, it talks about the lack of male role models and the number of single-mother homes.
> ...


This.

We all want it to get better. But there is a huge chunk of the population that refuses to even acknowledge it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Atlantisatheart said:


> but I didn't run online and shout and scream about the absurdity of taking a great film and trashing it with four dweebs and a Thor.


... until now? 



HopelessFanatic said:


> It's already been pointed out that some of the critical reviews are from those who have read the book. Their reviews state that in their opinion, the book misses the mark by a mile. It's pretty clear to me based on the blurb, and everything else I've seen said, that the author intended to retell Huckleberry Finn by with shining a light on more current events/climate, in this case Islamic-phobia. Unfortunately, it seems the author fell a bit short. Or very short, in some people's opinion. The author probably had good intentions. But intentions don't protect someone for valid criticism.


I have to say, adapting _Huck Finn_ for a modern YA audience seems like a hugely challenging project. In _Huck_, Jim sometimes comes off as a real person and sometimes as more of a stereotype. Huck decides in the end that Jim really does deserve freedom, but that full change of heart is an awfully long time coming. Also, the book is full of humor and satire, including some satire directed at Huck himself. I don't think satirizing the MC would work terribly well for a modern YA audience, but if you strip the satire away, you're left with an MC the reader is supposed to endorse fully instead of critique. Yet that MC takes a looooong time to decide a person of color is, in fact, a full person and, in the meantime, says and thinks some rather loathsome things. And the person of color is at times a laughingstock. And mixing a lot of episodic humor into a story about a very current and contentious political subject (Twain was writing 20 years after the Civil War) seems risky, so I bet that had to fall by the wayside as well. None of the reviews I read mentioned humor, anyway.

All in all, it just doesn't seem like a promising skeleton for a new novel. More like a cluster of pitfalls surrounded with piles of landmines.



Mercia McMahon said:


> Yes John Okada's No No Boy was published in 1957 and was better received in the Japanese American community because it dealt with those who rebelled against serving in the war effort while their family remained in a concentration camp. It was preceded in 1953 by Monica Sone's Nisei Daughter, which caught a lot of flak from the community for being too positive about the experience. I notice that on Amazon it is reviewed as a memoir, but I always understood it to be a novel based on her life story. I also discovered through those reviews a Japanese Canadian equivalent from the 1980s Joy Kogawa's Obasan, which is also a novelised life story.


I read _Obasan_ in the same college class (Asian American lit ... I guess the "American" part was construed in a hemispheric sense). Of everything I read in that class, _No-No Boy_ stuck with me most powerfully. It's very strong; twenty-year-old me thought so, at any rate.

If the internment is a special topic of interest for you, I just saw a screening of an interesting documentary on the highest-security camp, Tule Lake. It focuses on the fact that quite a few interned Japanese Americans pushed back hard and suffered the consequences. I don't think the film's been generally released yet, but I bet it'll become available eventually.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

WHDean said:


> Good of you to ride in on your white horse and save POCs from the white saviour narrative. Clearly, your speaking on their behalf doesn't reinforce the notion that minorities are not capable of speaking for themselves. I've seen this pattern repeat itself several times: white people on white horses saying that stealing the voices of minorities by, for example, presuming to speak on their behalf, is wrong--while presuming to speak on their behalf.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder whether the biggest problem with the white saviour narrative is that it offends the aesthetic sensibilities of college-educated white people.


I appreciate the points you've been bringing up. Would you say there's a difference, though, between white savior and white ally? Because there has been a pretty big call for white allies lately, and I think part of that is for the white ally to teach other white people about privilege. So would you say there's a distinction? What would define that for you?


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> People on the "left" who think being white is the ultimate privilege are wrong!


What? 
How could that even REMOTELY be true?
Sure, being white doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to live some fairy tale life. No one is saying that.

I get it. White people have problems. They can be poor. They can have drug issues. Mental health issues. Abuse issues. 
I'm white, and I have had experience with ALL of those things in my family.

But I've never feared for my life at a routine traffic stop. 
I've never been anyone's property. 
I've always been allowed to vote, and marry whoever I wanted, and drink from any water fountain I damn well pease.

All of the issues that befall "poor white folks" are not unique to them. And none of them happen specifically because they are white.

Newsflash: POC have to deal with ALL of those problems too! And then they have the whole host of other issues that go along with living in a country that was founded on white supremacy.

White privilege is VERY real. We all know this. There is a mountain of data to back it up. To say that it isn't is deliberately harmful.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> * Also, in this case--with a trad pub company behind the author, it's friggin' publicity.*


The public:










The author:










The publisher:


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Good of you to ride in on your white horse and save POCs from the white saviour narrative. Clearly, your speaking on their behalf doesn't reinforce the notion that minorities are not capable of speaking for themselves. I've seen this pattern repeat itself several times: white people on white horses saying that stealing the voices of minorities by, for example, presuming to speak on their behalf, is wrong--while presuming to speak on their behalf.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder whether the biggest problem with the white saviour narrative is that it offends the aesthetic sensibilities of college-educated white people.


I'm sure there are quite a few cases where people rush in and speak inappropriately/wrongly for people of color or members of other minorities, but in cases where white folks are discussing assertions that have already made by people of color regarding a particular situation (see the reviews Annie B has linked), the criticism doesn't strike me as applicable. It also seems to propose a thread in which the probably relatively small group of KBers who happen to be Muslims of color are the only ones "allowed" to voice or support criticisms of this book, while a much larger group of KBers who don't fit that identity category are allowed to argue against them (because "white people speaking for white people" would be okay, but "white people speaking for people of color" wouldn't be). That's a sort of repugnant scenario, at least to my mind. There has to be a way not to inappropriately speak for/over people of color without stripping them of allies or stifling the voices of white folks who agree with them. Or who see the "white savior" stereotype as damaging to white folks as well as to people of color and thus actually see themselves as speaking on their own behalf.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't believe so. We are now in the digital age and there is no need to physically go to all the libraries and rip out the books to toss them in the fire if you can trash a book online before it's even out and it has the same effect.


This is another thing I agree w/ you on. My town is quite conservative & religious & there are a lot of people, including sadly my own relatives, who believe that things they don't agree w/ should be banned, silenced, 'not allowed' to be read or seen or listened to. When I was growing up, & this will really date me, but the local mom & pop movie/record store was picketed & boycotted b/c it was going to have The Last Temptation of Christ on video & the religious people in my town thought that was some mortal sin due to blasphemy. Their picketing was successful & the store did not get the movie on video, thus severely limiting the ability of anyone in the town who wished to see it [& who didn't agree w/ the mob rule/groupthink that they should be prohibited from seeing it just b/c SOME people objected to its content] from being able to. In the case at hand Kirkus pulled a star just b/c mob rule/groupthink didn't like something about the content of the book, thus limiting the book's reach b/c we all know that those starred Kirkus reviews are valuable & helpful in extending a book's reach. So yeah the author is going to be upset & people who like the book are going to be upset... it was the wrong thing to happen & any author here would be beyond p*ssed if it happened to them.

Likewise many parents including my own petitioned my public school library for the removal of books that disagreed w/ their religion or even taught a different religion. Ironically [or perhaps not] 1 of those books was about witchcraft/Wicca. I have *always* been against the suppression of literature so I would be a big fat hypocrite to sit here & say that b/c SOME people don't like the 'racist' content [or some people deem it racist] of a book that there should be negative consequences to that book or any kind of suppression of the book or its well deserved ability to reach more people [ie, a starred Kirkus Review which was given & then taken away thanks to mob rule]. It really saddens me that people on the far left have become JUST like the people on the far right that they claim are so wrong... it's backwards & 'fascist' to advocate suppressing things one doesn't agree with. Sure, these people are convinced they're doing something great for humanity by pointing out books they think are racist & thus undeserving of a platform... but so did the religious conservative people in my town. In my opinion neither of them are doing good things & both are just as bad.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> You speak of Ghostbusters, and here's the thing - I'm one of those that won't go near it with a barge poll, but I didn't run online and shout and scream about the absurdity of taking a great film and trashing it with four dweebs and a Thor. Talk about pc gone mad.


Yeah, but there was a very large group of people who did trash the concept of a female Ghostbusters - even before the movie came out. Just like there were a lot of people who trashed Fantastic Four and Star Wars: The Force Awakens for having black MCs - again before the movies came out.

An owner of a restaurant once gave Obama a hug that hit the news. And his business got hit with one star reviews by conservatives who never even went there. I've heard a story about the same happening to a place hit by liberals. Youtube and Twitter accounts can get hammered by total strangers if someone says the wrong thing.

The point is this mob mentality isn't isolated to books. It's in every audience-driven facet of society. So to make it this about PC-gone-wild-over-a-book doesn't really tell the whole story. With any public statement you make - written, visual, casual, professional, artistic - you are inviting the potential for it to go viral and incensing a group of a certain sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, political affiliation, etc.

That's life in the Internet age.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> What?
> White privilege is VERY real. We all know this. There is a mountain of data to back it up. To say that it isn't is deliberately harmful.


But I didn't say that it doesn't exist. I said it isn't the _ultimate_ privilege.

I think in this country the ultimate privilege is good parents who are invested in your success. Comfortably well-off parents without money worries is an even bigger plus, but poor parents who love and sacrifice for you are probably not far off, and may be better than neglectful well-off parents.

There are other things too, like where you live. Being a poor parent in Chicago isn't the worst thing because there are a lot of free activities / subsidized childcare and tutoring options for kids. There is a great park system, too. The public schools in Chicago do better than any other urban schools in the nation, and are best in the state when you compare apples to apples: i.e. poor black in Chicago to poor black outside the city, poor white in Chicago to poor white outside the city, middle class black to middle class black etc.. We also have fairly decent public transit. There are lots of jobs. Kids get dental and vision care free through the public schools. If you fall on hard times there are places to get housing and food. If you get sick or pregnant and go to the public hospitals they'll get you healthcare and know how to work the system for you--and are super nice and willing too!

Your privilege is not summed up by your race, religion, or skin tone--though these are facets of your privilege.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Steve Voelker said:


> What?
> How could that even REMOTELY be true?
> Sure, being white doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to live some fairy tale life. No one is saying that.
> 
> ...


You're aiming at the wrong target. Economic privilege is the problem.

And those who have economic privilege love nothing more than to see all of the economically disadvantaged tear each other apart over skin color, religion and gender while they kick back and count their millions. Fight the real enemy.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

I feel like some of you criticizing this book must never have been to rural America, if you are surprised by some of the things in this book. I don't even know if this book is set in rural America but based on my own experiences growing up there the premise of this book rings entirely true to me!

Yes, some people are surprised that a Muslim woman would be an engineer or professor b/c the stereotype is that Muslim women don't have rights & aren't even allowed to have an education, etc. [I am not saying this stereotype is correct or that I agree w/ it & I'm not trying to attack OR defend Islam- for the record I think all religions are equally stupid & evil but that is just my own personal opinion & I do get that we have freedom of religion & lots of different ones. To be fair, it was just plastered all over the news that Muslim women finally have the right to *drive* in Saudi Arabia, just one predominantly Muslim country. So can you not see how a teenager who hears about that or similar things about the limited rights of women in Muslims countries would be surprised to find out that a Muslim woman can get a PHD & become a professor of engineering? Yes, I know she is living in America but to me it is not that crazy of a jump for a white teenager in a small town to wonder, b/c they equate Islam w/ "women have no rights" & they would likely think that if a woman is Muslim then she/her family adheres to the same part of the religion that they do in other countries. Instead of being like 'gee whiz, maybe it should be pointed out to YA readers that Muslim women in the US are allowed to get an education & have a career & still be Muslim, so they're really not that different & they're certainly not 'bad,'' the far left people are trying to suppress this book-- makes no sense to me.

For the record, & yes this is ugly but it is a fact of life that I think maybe this book is trying to address & correct, YES, some kids in my town probably WOULD wonder if Muslim people can own a cat, & if I had to take a guess I would say it was probably b/c they think that in third world countries [which they *wrongfully* consider all Muslims to be apart of & one controversy/stereotype is that Muslims don't 'assimilate' into American culture- so they have this in their head even though they are wrong] don't have pets but instead have a bunch of stray animals that wander around, OR b/c they get confused & think about their Chinese stereotypes that people eat cats & dogs in other countries.

Are these things racist/stereotypical? Yes. But do teenagers in small towns [& a great deal of their parents!] think these things? Yes they most certainly do. So MAYBE it's that this author was trying to point that out. If you grow up in this kind of environment then believe me, it is a huge culture shock & awakening to find out that these things are racist & stereotypes & that a reality exists out there that you had no clue about. In the small town I'm from guess how many Muslim people there were? 0, nada, zilch, none. [It's not even THAT small... it's a decent sized town but is just that-- a town, not a city or big metro area so it is just not a place where Muslims immigrate to... historically it is very very white, I would say a very small percentage black and hispanic and asian but mostly white and Christian... there are some Mormons but there aren't even many Jews... I don't think I knew a Jewish person until I left for college, honesty!, or at least I didn't know they were Jewish, so, call me naive or racist all you want but that was seriously my experience... & if there are any Arabic or Muslim people who live in the town then it is news to me & I imagine they might not want to advertise that fact b/c, yes, it IS a place that has a lot of xenophobia & racism.]

So if this book was set in my town [I know that it isn't] then it would be incredibly realistic b/c people DO think these things & many more & probably much worse things about Muslims! YES they still do need it pointed out to them that this is wrong & racist & if a book can do that, more power to it-- it should be celebrated, NOT suppressed! For all we know the questions of the 15 year old were exaggerated by the author to point out the crazy things that some white teenagers *really do think* about Muslims. If so then it could be a device similar to parody or satire, or even if her character was really that ignorant/naive... YES, that is really a thing that happens, & that people think. You can not like it & you can say it's wrong but 1 starring this book isn't going to do anything about it. PERHAPS writing a book pointing out that this kind of thinking is real & wrong is actually the right way for the author to be handling it [if indeed that's what she's trying to do... I have no clue since I'm not her, but it's just as likely that that was her intention than it is that she's a big awful racist herself who purposefully writes awful evil racist stuff without trying to make any kind of point or social commentary or make people think about racism at all.]

People are assuming they know what the author's 'statement' or purpose was with this book or even that there was one. The great thing about literature is that it's subjective and open to each person's interpretation. Like many here, I haven't read this book [although now I really want to]. But from my viewpoint based on the blurb, the article I read about the Kirkus Review that was linked here, & people's comments & links to reviews other people have written, this book's statement could very well be that Islamophobia is the new 'phobia'/racism & people are learning they are 'racist' or 'xenophobic' about Muslim people like they used to be [& some still are unfortunately] about black people or other groups. She could be saying to watch that history doesn't repeat itself [ie internment camps for groups deemed dangerous] & that although many Americans really do think the way this 15 year old girl does, they should wake up & realize their own prejudices could be damning other people. In my opinion it's a GOOD message for a book to have & if it's from the perspective of a white person, well, white people are the ones who need to hear that message! As some here have pointed out it's often the dominant culture that must lead the way in changes that impact minorities since minorities are by definition underrepresented. Also, as someone else pointed out, the fact is that the majority of the country is still white, & that it's therefore likely that white people will write about white people coming to grasp with racism or w/ things that are happening to minorities or other cultures etc. I honestly don't think that's some kind of a sin to write about; it just makes common sense that that would be quintessential white American experience; it sure was for me & I don't really appreciate being made to feel guilty for relating to things I read that could very well be about me/ my town/ people I know etc.

PS Even if that's NOT the message or statement the author was trying to send I still don't think biased attacks on the book or the removal of its Kirkus Star are justified or a good thing.

PPS The fact that people are getting upset about a professor with an accent is absurd! I went to a college that was quite prestigious & liberal & we had a lot of faculty who were born overseas & guess what- ALL of them had accents, some of them quite heavy. It is not at all racist or mean or bad to write about a professor who was born in another country but lives & teaches in this country & who still has a heavy accent. That's not saying anything bad about a race or even that character... it's just a simple fact of life that is actually very realistic. Have none of you ever had foreign-born professors [or have known a foreign-born professional] with an accent? If you guys had moved to another country after being born here, & learned that language & now taught at a college in that country using that language do you seriously think you would be accent-free in that foreign language? Or if an author portrayed American-born professors who move to another country & teach at a university there as having an American/foreign accent, would that be racist? I think not! It would just be something about that character that was probably quite realistic. IMO this is just a crazy criticism of the book & an example of how when everything is 'racist' or xenophobic etc., the ACTUAL racist/xenophobic things start to lose their impact or importance b/c everyone is tired of hearing everyone cry wolf about every little thing that could be possibly taken as racist or xenophobic.

_Removed political comment. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

jaehaerys said:


> And those who have economic privilege love nothing more than to see all of the economically disadvantaged tear each other apart over skin color, religion and gender while they kick back and count their millions. Fight the real enemy.


I can't decide if they do it on purpose, or if it is just a happy accident for them.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

Steve Voelker said:


> What?
> How could that even REMOTELY be true?
> Sure, being white doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to live some fairy tale life. No one is saying that.
> 
> ...


The best analogy I've seen is the video game analogy. Unfortunately the word 'privilege' comes preloaded with a ton of associations - beach houses in the Hamptons, private jets, bottomless bank accounts - and too many people can't get away from that context of the word (which is weird when you consider how many other words in English do double, triple, quadruple duty and we have no similar trouble automatically distinguishing between a dinner table, tabling the motion, a water table, and a table of contents).

Pretend life is a video game with settings for game difficulty. When you pick up the controller, if you're wearing a lace-up shoes, you get an automatic 'low' setting for difficulty. You can play on 'low difficulty' _and still lose_ to someone playing on 'high difficulty.' You still have to play. You still have to go through all the stages that everyone else goes through. The game might still be very hard indeed. You don't pick up the controller and the screen says, 'Congratulations!! You are the all time high-scorer!!'

And there are settings for character attributes too. Maybe there's a setting for speed that maxes out if you use your right hand. So if you're wearing lace-up shoes but you're left-handed, you're going to have a lower game difficulty setting but you're going to be slower than the guy next to you, who's wearing loafers but is right-handed. You might score higher than him because you're at a lower difficulty setting. He might score higher than you because he has a speed boost. But his speed boost doesn't change your game difficulty level, and your level doesn't affect his speed. You're both going to have to work hard at the game. Either one of you can win, or lose.

People can have privilege in factors other than race (place of birth, family income, health, intelligence, gender, sexual orientation, etc) that give them a 'boost' and make the 'game' a little easier for them. Maybe someone is a heterosexual white male but is poor and has health concerns. He has areas of privilege AND he has areas of disadvantage. His white skin doesn't give him a hefty paycheck or improve his medical condition. Maybe someone is a POC and disabled, but she's wealthy and highly intelligent: She has areas of privilege AND areas of disadvantage. Her bank account isn't going to mean anything to people who only see her skin color.

Privilege in this context doesn't mean perfection or a permanent exemption from struggle or suffering. Just like the table of contents isn't where your family gathers to eat.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

Travelian said:


> Yeah, but there was a very large group of people who did trash the concept of a female Ghostbusters - even before the movie came out. Just like there were a lot of people who trashed Fantastic Four and Star Wars: The Force Awakens for having black MCs - again before the movies came out.
> 
> An owner of a restaurant once gave Obama a hug that hit the news. And his business got hit with one star reviews by conservatives who never even went there. I've heard a story about the same happening to a place hit by liberals. Youtube and Twitter accounts can get hammered by total strangers if someone says the wrong thing.
> 
> ...


I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.

Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.

I was called a racist, misogynist, and a homophobe for writing about two white characters. I am a female bisexual.

This is why I tend to be sympathetic to people who are the target of online outrage. I didn't even do anything wrong and I was still targeted, so when I see people being attacked I give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm pretty paranoid these days with everything I write. I write under a pseudonym and don't reveal many details about myself or use my picture. There are nuts out there that really do want to destroy people they have never met, for doing totally innocuous things. I wouldn't touch these type of controversies with a 50 foot pole.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

C. Gockel said:


> I can't decide if they do it on purpose, or if it is just a happy accident for them.


An accident for some I'd wager, but most plutocrats know full-well the violence of the system and know it's what got them to where they are, and that's why they actively promote it - stoking cultural wars included.


----------



## DrewMcGunn (Jul 6, 2017)

I imagine I'll offend someone with my opinion on this matter, but after reading umpteen pages of debate, its evident to me that we are all looking at this through the prism of our own worldviews.  How each of us views the world informs how we view the actions of both the author as well as the author's uninformed critics, who haven't read the book, but are acting only on hear-say or second hand information.

I've actually learned very little about the author or the book (ok, not really true, but I'm illustrating a point) and far more about the political, social and ideological worldviews of my fellow kboarders. A few years ago, I heard a speaker talking about what makes up a worldview and if I recall correctly, he said something to the effect that a worldview seeks to find meaning and morality.  Worldviews by their very nature, make claims of exclusivity.  For instance, if I believe something to be true, for instance, an earlier poster detailed what she defined as white privilege. To that poster, that statement is objectively true. What I mean by exclusivity, is that the definition cannot both be true and false. That would be incoherent.

The problem is that we are exposed to competing worldviews on kboards, which I think was one of the points Becca Mills was making, when she contrasted a US left/right dichotomy.  Most of us (myself excluded of course ) are prone to becoming intoxicated by the exuberance of our own verbosity, and when we couple that with explaining the exclusive claims of our world views, means we spend a lot of time (when we could be writing that great novel) explaining why someone else is wrong.

There has been an interesting view offered by some of our brethren/sistren (is that even a word? and dare I use it!?) from across the pond, and demonstrated that we're not simply two nations separated by a common language, but that we are prone to very different worldviews, especially when it comes to how we view culture and race.  Heck, and that's just part of the English Speaking World.

I've probably overrambled, but my point is that we should be aware that others on the board do not share our worldview and that they are just as likely to think we're wrong as we are to think they're wrong. We would do well to keep that in mind as we work to explain our position.  I'll shut up now  and sit back and wait for someone to tell me I'm wrong.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Tara KH said:


> I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.


Horrifying. I'm so sorry you went through that, Tara. 

The specter of internet "mobs" gets deployed a bit too readily, IMO. But that doesn't mean there aren't honest-to-gosh mobs on the internet. There are, and they're terrifyingly destructive.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Tara KH said:


> I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.
> 
> Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.
> 
> ...


Oh, my Lord. That is terrible, and it's wrong and against the law to threaten someone online like this. (Good luck getting it enforced though.)

I hope that no one on either side of this debate would condone death threats or violence to someone they disagree with.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

WordSaladTongs said:


> I appreciate the points you've been bringing up. Would you say there's a difference, though, between white savior and white ally? Because there has been a pretty big call for white allies lately, and I think part of that is for the white ally to teach other white people about privilege. So would you say there's a distinction? What would define that for you?


I wish I had an answer. All I can say is that I see good intentions married to destructive ideas and means. I agree with Annie that the execution was probably ham-fisted in this book, a conclusion I reached reading the synopsis. But I disagree on the underlying socio-political assumptions and implications, which is where the problem is. All I can do is exemplify why I think those assumptions are destructive.

The idea that there's a white saviour narrative, for example, and that it's racist is a gross caricature of literature, is probably unfair to this do-gooder author, and is not always a fiction either. The film_ The Mission_, for example, could be caricatured as a white saviour narrative. Yet it's based on real events. Jesuits really did create protected jurisdictions for indigenous peoples in South America and really did die protecting them. Is recounting this history perpetuating a racist white saviour narrative? Would imitating the example of the Jesuits in this case be a bad thing? Is it even a "narrative meant to shape white consciousness" at all? Or is it a film about good and evil, compassion for others, and how we do the right thing in a fallen world?

Once you reduce _The Mission _to a token of the type white-saviour-narrative and condemn people who write such things as perpetuators of racism in the name of emancipating people, all the subtly and hard questions in this story and any story like it are dismissed in favour of the imperative of stopping oppression by stopping the narratives that maintain it. All this sounds persuasive and edifying in theory. But does cramming this film and every story like it into an ill-fitting ideological box and then publicly shaming the authors really help anyone in practice? Will someone eat tomorrow or not get abused because some armchair cultural warriors shamed some writer? Or are these the actions of people who are themselves following the white saviour narrative in real life, except that their actions harm some people without actually helping anyone?

As I mentioned earlier, there's a big difference between someone exposing crude stereotypes about people and urging authors to not repeat them, and groups of people attacking and publicly shaming authors who do not actively writing the narratives they want written (see Tara KH's example above for the essence of it).

Anyway, I don't know how anyone can be a good ally, other than not being an a****** and the usual stuff that goes with empathy. But I've always had trouble not being as a******* so I'm not recommending myself as an archetype.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

Tara KH said:


> I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.
> 
> Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.
> 
> ...


I'm so sorry you went through that. Doxxing takes the Internet mob mentality to a chilling new low. It's scary reading stories of what some of these crazies out there are capable of. Which is why don't like the idea of giving out my full name or my pic either.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Steve Voelker said:


> What?
> How could that even REMOTELY be true?
> 
> But I've never feared for my life at a routine traffic stop.
> ...


Today, here in the UK, it's Anti-Slavery day. It's estimated (low) that over ten thousand people are the subject of slavery in this country. Trafficked people from eastern European countries, and here's the kicker - they're white. They join people from the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and yes, Africa. But, according to you, we should write off those white people sold into slavery today because bad things don't happen to white people. Head-sand-buried.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Once you reduce _The Mission _to a token of the type white-saviour-narrative and condemn people who write such things as perpetuators of racism in the name of emancipating people, all the subtly and hard questions in this story and any story like it are dismissed in favour of the imperative of stopping oppression by stopping the narratives that maintain it.


Hm. Thought provoking.

Maybe the problem is not the existence of white saviors, or that stories about them get told, but that those stories are so ubiquitous that they crowd out other types of stories. If that's the heart of the problem, I'm not sure how you go about reducing the preponderance of white savior stories except by targeting specific examples of the subgenre and saying "enough of this." Yeah, particular books/films/whatever end up bearing a disproportionate share of the criticism, but I'm not sure how else you could tackle the issue. The way you show the smothering pervasiveness of the trope is to point them all out and express your dissatisfaction.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Tara KH said:


> I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.
> 
> Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I hope you're okay now.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Tara KH said:


> I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.
> 
> Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.
> 
> ...


Yes, my daughter went through something similar on Tumblr with her art. Luckily she hadn't posted anything that could be traced back to her real name or identity and so we flicked the off switch on that site. The sad thing is, she suffered the abuse for months without telling us about it. She thought it would stop, or she could make it right, she only admitted what was happening when we noticed how terribly withdrawn and stressed she had become. My daughter has high end autism and believed that it was all her fault. I hate F***ing tumblr with a vengeance.

I can only imagine what you went through being hounded like that. I'm so sorry it happened to you.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Today, here in the UK, it's Anti-Slavery day. It's estimated (low) that over ten thousand people are the subject of slavery in this country. Trafficked people from eastern European countries, and here's the kicker - they're white. They join people from the Middle East, Pakistan, India, and yes, Africa. But, according to you, we should write off those white people sold into slavery today because bad things don't happen to white people. Head-sand-buried.


Human trafficking is abhorrent, but you are missing the difference between criminal activity based on opportunism and institutionalized slavery exclusively based on race. In the U.S. it was a matter of LAW for far too long that African-Americans were sub-human and property. We fought a war over it. having the actual government declare you and your entire race a thing with less rights than a horse is not remotely the same thing as individual criminal acts of human trafficking. In fact, human trafficking is an entirely separate issue from the institutionalized racism we are discussing.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Privilege does not mean nothing bad ever happens. Maybe look up terms and definitions before engaging? Privilege doesn't mean living a charmed life with no suffering. It means there are structures and advantages that you'll never even notice most likely. If you are truly interested in starting the process of learning what this means, here's a pretty good video: https://www.facebook.com/WokeFolks/videos/1014990085308007/

As for being a good ally, a huge part is learning you don't have to center yourself in everything. Learning to listen is big, too, and realize when you need to step up and when you need to sit down. Realizing that it isn't all about you.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't believe so. We are now in the digital age and there is no need to physically go to all the libraries and rip out the books to toss them in the fire if you can trash a book online before it's even out and it has the same effect.


Not the same effect at all. All this controversy ever does is make the book itself sell more copies.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> Hm. Thought provoking.
> 
> Maybe the problem is not the existence of white saviors, or that stories about them get told, but that those stories are so ubiquitous that they crowd out other types of stories. If that's the heart of the problem, I'm not sure how you go about reducing the preponderance of white savior stories except by targeting specific examples of the subgenre and saying "enough of this." Yeah, particular books/films/whatever end up bearing a disproportionate share of the criticism, but I'm not sure how else you could tackle the issue. The way you show the smothering pervasiveness of the trope is to point them all out and express your dissatisfaction.


Instead of specifically "targeting" certain stories maybe we could just allow the unwanted trope(s) to die out on their own through our own non-consumption of them. My worry is about groups vociferously targeting any given thing and saying 'enough' of that thing, because there's a slippery slope there that can lead to experiences like what Tara KH endured.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage reviewers to speak their mind on a given piece of art, but I worry about terms like 'target' and 'enough'. I'd rather see unwanted or undesirable narratives disappear out of their own obsolescence, basically dying off because there's no longer a strong enough readership out there to justify their existence rather than seeing them pushed off stage by pitchfork wielding targeters.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Human trafficking is abhorrent, but you are missing the difference between criminal activity based on opportunism and institutionalized slavery exclusively based on race. In the U.S. it was a matter of LAW for far too long that African-Americans were sub-human and property. We fought a war over it. having the actual government declare you and your entire race a thing with less rights than a horse is not remotely the same thing as individual criminal acts of human trafficking. In fact, human trafficking is an entirely separate issue from the institutionalized racism we are discussing.


The Civil War and laws declaring that POC were sub-human and chattle go back to over a century ago. That's not the law today.

Sure, you can point to that abhorrent history and to all of the terrible occurrences throughout the 20th century and right up to today and talk about institutionalized racism, but I would argue that that's a fight the economically privileged are more than happy to stoke and provoke in order to further sub-divide and dominate the economically disadvantaged - a class of people which, by the way, spreads across all social strata regardless of gender, race, religion etc. Our in-fighting is a gift to the truly privileged, to our true masters, and we fall into their trap every. single. day.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> Horrifying. I'm so sorry you went through that, Tara.
> 
> The specter of internet "mobs" gets deployed a bit too readily, IMO. But that doesn't mean there aren't honest-to-gosh mobs on the internet. There are, and they're terrifyingly destructive.


Thank you. And I think that because there really are mobs out there who attack people online over "social justice" that is why when stuff like criticism of _American Heart_ happens, people tend to defend the author or the target of the outrage.



Atlantisatheart said:


> Yes, my daughter went through something similar on Tumblr with her art. Luckily she hadn't posted anything that could be traced back to her real name or identity and so we flicked the off switch on that site. The sad thing is, she suffered the abuse for months without telling us about it. She thought it would stop, or she could make it right, she only admitted what was happening when we noticed how terribly withdrawn and stressed she had become. My daughter has high end autism and believed that it was all her fault. I hate F***ing tumblr with a vengeance.
> 
> I can only imagine what you went through being hounded like that. I'm so sorry it happened to you.


Yeah it was horrifying and I am a grown woman. I can only imagine how terrible it would be for a teen. I've seen so much bullying and hate on tumblr that it has convinced me that tumblr is the most toxic place on the internet, with twitter coming in a close second. If you even remotely do anything that isn't approved by the PC moral arbiters you can be bullied and mobbed.



Travelian said:


> I'm so sorry you went through that. Doxxing takes the Internet mob mentality to a chilling new low. It's scary reading stories of what some of these crazies out there are capable of. Which is why don't like the idea of giving out my full name or my pic either.


Doxxing is the most terrifying tool of the online bully. Getting anonymous messages are bad, but having yourself exposed to strangers who want to destroy you and everything in your life is awful.



jaehaerys said:


> I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I hope you're okay now.


It took a long time for me to get over it. I don't think I am truly over it still. I'm better but I am very paranoid these days about everything I do and say online. I used to be very open and adamant about expressing myself but no longer. I deleted all my accounts and now use fake names. Also, I shy away from anything controversial. It has affected my writing in that there are just things I won't touch. It's made me change characters and plots. Like changing the race of some of my characters to white, so that nothing can be seen as offensive to another group. I think my experience changed me politically, to be honest, because I see a lot of left wingers who seem to think it's no big deal to attack people, or they try to act like no one else can have a problem if they are in the majority.

I see people doing what was done to me in the name of progressive ideas and I just see this as a wrong way to go about it. Not only does it not change the society that we live in, it also hurts people and causes people to mock progressivism. It also gives fuel to people who hate progressive ideas. I can guarantee you that this incident with _American Heart _will show up on right winger spaces on the internet as proof that "liberals are out of their mind and are censoring people."


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Human trafficking is abhorrent, but you are missing the difference between criminal activity based on opportunism and institutionalized slavery exclusively based on race. In the U.S. it was a matter of LAW for far too long that African-Americans were sub-human and property. We fought a war over it. having the actual government declare you and your entire race a thing with less rights than a horse is not remotely the same thing as individual criminal acts of human trafficking. In fact, human trafficking is an entirely separate issue from the institutionalized racism we are discussing.


You are missing the point of the post I made to a specific poster regarding his words.

{...I've never been anyone's property. 
I've always been allowed to vote, and marry whoever I wanted, and drink from any water fountain I damn well pease.

Newsflash: POC have to deal with ALL of those problems too!...}

He was using these points to prove that white people only have mundane things happen to them. They don't as per my point. But, I'm not sure which century he's actually living in, as you say, slavery was abolished in the US.

You can call it human trifficking if you want, and deem it just a criminal act, but it's still deemed as slavery in our country. Selling a human being for work purposes and all that goes with it, ownership, rapes, beatings, deaths without recourse, and holding someone against their will. We prefer to call it what it actually is and to hell with peoples sensibilities on the issue.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Some of the claims made here about the position of whites in American society haven't been updated since about 1950--despite the fact that all the info is collected by the gov’t and publicly available. On both economic and academic measures, whites trail behind (in some cases far behind) other non-white ethnic and racial groups. East Indians, Asians, Jews, and other smaller groups like Caribbean Islanders have higher average incomes and are over-represented by longshots in universities and the professions. The gap is growing too.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

WHDean said:


> Some of the claims made here about the position of whites in American society haven't been updated since about 1950--despite the fact that all the info is collected by the gov't and publicly available. On both economic and academic measures, whites trail behind (in some cases far behind) other non-white ethnic and racial groups. East Indians, Asians, Jews, and other smaller groups like Caribbean Islanders have higher average incomes and are over-represented by longshots in universities and the professions. The gap is growing too.


Same here in the UK.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

HopelessFanatic said:


> Not the same effect at all. All this controversy ever does is make the book itself sell more copies.


It's getting covered in the National Review and alt-right blogs. And right now it's reached an Amazon 12K rank in preorders 3 months before its release priced at $10.99. So no - she ain't hurting.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Travelian said:


> *It's getting covered in the National Review and alt-right blogs.* And right now it's reached an Amazon 12K rank in preorders 3 months before its release priced at $10.99. So no - she ain't hurting.


I wonder if that's the audience she thought she would get...


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Travelian said:


> It's getting covered in the National Review and alt-right blogs. And right now it's reached an Amazon 12K rank in preorders 3 months before its release priced at $10.99. So no - she ain't hurting.


Well, we did say this at the start, and good - maybe it will make stupid sheep stop hate-mobbing things.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

No one deserves death threats, or cruel messages, or calls for violence against them, no matter what they write. Are there people out there right now saying those things about this author? I don't know. I hope not, but between the anonymity of the Internet and inflamed tempers, there probably is. Does that mean that the people leaving one star reviews for a book they didn't read are responsible for the actions of those who take it too far? Are the people who read the book and gave it negative reviews (which is what actually started this whole thing. This isn't the case of someone reading the blurb and starting a hate campaign. It started as advanced readers reviewed the book and then word spread.) responsible for the actions of those who take it too far as well as responsible for the actions of those who left one-star reviews on a book they hadn't read? 

Where's the line? Mob mentality isn't what leads to death threats, and calls for violence, or anything. It's a person problem, not a political correctness problem. I've gotten nasty messages for the crime of being a female playing an online video game. I've gotten emails and messages from people who didn't like what I said about something that included the hope that I get raped. And I'm a nobody. And it's no one else's fault for the things people do. Blaming people who have spoken out against this book and author, regardless of if they've read the book or only heard the book was offensive, for the actions of those that take these sorts of things too far isn't helpful. 

As for the white savior trope, it isn't just about a white main character saving a minority from something harmful. It is dehumanizing the minority, usually by using stereotypes or false beliefs, and leaves with the message that the only one who can save the minority character is the white main character because the white main character has something the minority character doesn't. As for a white character going from racist to enlightened, that in itself isn't the problem. The problem arises when the character never actually gets to the enlightened part and/or when the minority character(s) that help the character on their journey to enlightenment are nothing more than stereotypes themselves, many times false ones, or nothing more than props to support the main character. 

Does this particular book do those things? According to reviews by people who have read the book, including practicing Muslims, it does. And that's what other people are responding to. The book isn't published yet or available for everyone to read. And even if it were, there are going to be those who find the book too offensive to want to support the author (or publisher) financially.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

What disturbs me the most in this thread though is the thinking that if you're offended by something and speak out about it, you are labeled as oversensitive, or just looking to be offended. Or in this case, doesn't matter what the author could have done, someone would have been offended. When you offend someone, you have a few choices in how you respond. You can, apologize and say "I didn't mean to offend you." Or you can buckle down, and respond that what you said wasn't offensive, the person offended is just viewing you with bad intentions. 

When you accidentally bump into someone, do you say 'I'm sorry', or do you tell them if they hadn't been in your way, they wouldn't have gotten bumped?


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Tara KH said:


> I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.
> 
> Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.
> 
> ...


This is horrible. I'm so sorry you went through that. There is a very real fear that people will take their beliefs and offenses and use them as a weapon. No one deserves to be treated like that. No one.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

HopelessFanatic said:


> What disturbs me the most in this thread though is the thinking that if you're offended by something and speak out about it, you are labeled as oversensitive, or just looking to be offended. Or in this case, doesn't matter what the author could have done, someone would have been offended. When you offend someone, you have a few choices in how you respond. You can, apologize and say "I didn't mean to offend you." Or you can buckle down, and respond that what you said wasn't offensive, the person offended is just viewing you with bad intentions.
> 
> When you accidentally bump into someone, do you say 'I'm sorry', or do you tell them if they hadn't been in your way, they wouldn't have gotten bumped?


I can tell you from personal experience that there are in fact people who are oversensitive and looking to be offended. I think everyone is assuming that just because someone is offended that they are automatically right. 
Given what happened to me, I do not believe that everyone has to apologize. I think in some cases they should, but in many cases, no way. I never apologized or backed down. Because I truly believe I did nothing wrong. There are cases where people are angry and offended even if someone did nothing wrong.



HopelessFanatic said:


> This is horrible. I'm so sorry you went through that. There is a very real fear that people will take their beliefs and offenses and use them as a weapon. No one deserves to be treated like that. No one.


Thank you and yeah its a real fear. I think this is something that needs to be taken into account in these kinds of controversies. Also, since this stuff just ends up getting attention for the book then I don't think it really helps the cause anyways.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Well, we did say this at the start, and good - maybe it will make stupid sheep stop hate-mobbing things.


Are they still stupid sheep hate-mobbing if they're right? Is everyone who speaks out against something they find offensive a stupid sheep?


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Interesting indeed. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if the book didn't have "American" in its title.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Tara KH said:


> If you even remotely do anything that isn't approved by the PC moral arbiters you can be bullied and mobbed.


Right-wingers use these tactics as well. So do people who don't really fit on the left-right spectrum. There's no justification for it, whoever's doing it (IMO).



jaehaerys said:


> Instead of specifically "targeting" certain stories maybe we could just allow the unwanted trope(s) to die out on their own through our own non-consumption of them. My worry is about groups vociferously targeting any given thing and saying 'enough' of that thing, because there's a slippery slope there that can lead to experiences like what Tara KH endured.
> 
> It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage reviewers to speak their mind on a given piece of art, but I worry about terms like 'target' and 'enough'. I'd rather see unwanted or undesirable narratives disappear out of their own obsolescence, basically dying off because there's no longer a strong enough readership out there to justify their existence rather than seeing them pushed off stage by pitchfork wielding targeters.


If this kind of story _does_ function to reinforce a racist status quo, non-consumption won't happen without a big push; without strong pressure, such stories will continue to be produced and consumed eagerly because that's how culture works to reinforce the status quo. That attempt to exert pressure is what we're seeing now.

If the pressurers are wrong, and this kind of story _doesn't _function to reinforce a racist status quo in any significant way, non-consumption could kill it off pretty quickly. But the only way to prompt non-consumption is to let people know _This is one of those white savior books we've collectively decided to ignore_. People will do that through reviews. We end up with something like what's happening now.

I'm just not seeing an easy way to replace public objection. You can replace the word "targeting" with something that doesn't include a martial metaphor -- how about "singling out"? -- but I doubt that semantic change will make the objection/pressure feel any better to the author of the book.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Valerie A. said:


> Interesting indeed. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if the book didn't have "American" in its title.


Yes, it would have. Which you would realize if you read the actual criticism of the book.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

HopelessFanatic said:


> Are they still stupid sheep hate-mobbing if they're right? Is everyone who speaks out against something they find offensive a stupid sheep?


How do they know it's offensive when they haven't read it for themselves, and why hate-crime it because of a few people that didn't like it? There was a Muslim women who read it and didn't have a problem with it, does that make her a bad Muslim? A bad person? Misguided? But, oh no, we can't have that view because people who haven't read it and are white angry people have taken offense.

Let's jump over this cliff! 
Why? 
Because everyone else is doing it.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Tara KH said:


> I can tell you from personal experience that there are in fact people who are oversensitive and looking to be offended. You are assuming that just because someone is offended that they are automatically right.
> 
> Given what happened to me, I do not believe that everyone has to apologize. I think in some cases they should, but in many cases, no way. I never apologized or backed down. Because I truly believe I did nothing wrong. There are cases where people are angry and offended even if someone did nothing wrong.


You're right. My words were too general. There are situations where people use being offended as a weapon. I can't speak for every case, but in my experience, those people aren't really offended. They just want an excuse to be hateful or hurt someone.

I don't believe anyone should apologize to someone who is being abusive or hateful to them. In your situation, not apologizing was the right thing to do. They didn't want an apology. They probably didn't even want you to admit you were wrong (Not saying you were wrong. I don't believe you were.)

Not absolutely clear cut, you're right.

My comment was more directed toward the initial response to the OP, and the continued conversation not just about this book, but about political correctness in general. The automatic assumption based only on the information that Kirkus pulled the starred review on a book written by a white woman with a white protagonist with a dystopian YA book about Muslim internment camps, was that people are offended by everything or looking to be offended. There was the attitude that people that are offended by this book (and I've seen it in countless other threads) are being oversensitive.

Even when more information was provided, including links to reviews by people who have read the book, people are still claiming that it's a big overreaction, or that it is equivalent to book burning or censorship. That calling the book racist is wrong. People are defending a book they never read, while discounting the opinions of both people who have read the book and people who haven't read the book. To be clear, this isn't directed at you.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> If this kind of story _does_ function to reinforce a racist status quo, non-consumption won't happen without a big push; without strong pressure, such stories will continue to be produced and consumed eagerly because that's how culture works to reinforce the status quo. That attempt to exert pressure is what we're seeing now.


I'm not sure that these book reviews are the way to go about stopping books like this from being published. It seems like when this happens that it just gets attention for the book that otherwise wouldn't otherwise be there. I wouldn't know anything about either_ Black Witch _or _American Heart _without the controversies around them. I saw many people online saying that they would buy _Black Witch_ as a rebellious act against the PC police. So does this kind of reaction help or hurt? Honestly, I could see some cynical publishers seeing this as a strategy to make some money.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Right-wingers use these tactics as well. So do people who don't really fit on the left-right spectrum. There's no justification for it, whoever's doing it (IMO).


Yes, this. People on the left don't believe that people on "their team" would do such things, and people on the right don't believe people on "their team" do such things. Being friends with people on both sides who have gotten death threats, I can say, yes, assuredly it does happen.

I tend to believe when you get out to the fringes of both sides you find some really unhappy horrible people who want to hurt others.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Well, we did say this at the start, and good - maybe it will make stupid sheep stop hate-mobbing things.


Given that this behavior happens daily. And that groups on all sides of the spectrum are guilty of it - probably not.

I'd go even farther by saying this mob mentality plays a large part in the current divisiveness in US politics. And will likely only get worse.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> How do they know it's offensive when they haven't read it for themselves, and why hate-crime it because of a few people that didn't like it? There was a Muslim women who read it and didn't have a problem with it, does that make her a bad Muslim? A bad person? Misguided? But, oh no, we can't have that view because people who haven't read it and are white angry people have taken offense.
> 
> Let's jump over this cliff!
> Why?
> Because everyone else is doing it.


Are you ignoring the fact that all this started because of negative reviews by other people (including practicing Muslims) WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK! And hate-crime? Really? Is there a huge push to have the author stoned? Strung up? Hurt? Or are people speaking out against a book that they view as racist. And yes, there are people who take things way too far. That needs to be called out, too. But don't lump every single person that has a problem with this book, or anything else, as being haters, or oversensitive, or stupid sheep. Some people can make intelligent decisions for themselves based on well-thought out and written reviews.

And if this is really just an issue about 1-starring books you haven't read because you're offended, why isn't it also an issue of 5-starring a book you haven't read because you're offended that someone else was offended? Are those people stupid sheep, too? I mean, how do they know it's not offensive? They haven't read the book...


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2017)

HopelessFanatic said:


> What disturbs me the most in this thread though is the thinking that if you're offended by something and speak out about it, you are labeled as oversensitive, or just looking to be offended. Or in this case, doesn't matter what the author could have done, someone would have been offended. When you offend someone, you have a few choices in how you respond. You can, apologize and say "I didn't mean to offend you." Or you can buckle down, and respond that what you said wasn't offensive, the person offended is just viewing you with bad intentions.
> 
> When you accidentally bump into someone, do you say 'I'm sorry', or do you tell them if they hadn't been in your way, they wouldn't have gotten bumped?


Exactly.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> There was a Muslim women who read it and didn't have a problem with it, does that make her a bad Muslim? A bad person? Misguided? But, oh no, we can't have that view because people who haven't read it and are white angry people have taken offense.
> 
> Let's jump over this cliff!
> Why?
> Because everyone else is doing it.


Isn't it possible that there was a Muslim who read it and wasn't offended, and there have been others who have read it and were? Not everybody is bothered by the same things, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone who is sensitive about a subject just because others aren't.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> I tend to believe when you get out to the fringes of both sides you find some really unhappy horrible people who want to hurt others.


Indeed, and on both extremes I believe these people have more in common with one another than they do with the rest of us on either side who think the question is important and are quite capable of having a calm, respectful conversation about it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Tara KH said:


> I'm not sure that these book reviews are the way to go about stopping books like this from being published. It seems like when this happens that it just gets attention for the book that otherwise wouldn't otherwise be there. I wouldn't know anything about either_ Black Witch _or _American Heart _without the controversies around them. I saw many people online saying that they would buy _Black Witch_ as a rebellious act against the PC police. So does this kind of reaction help or hurt? Honestly, I could see some cynical publishers seeing this as a strategy to make some money.


Heh. I wouldn't be surprised by that in the least. Like Anarchist said ...



Anarchist said:


> The publisher:


But over time, at least people become more aware that this is a trope that bugs the heck out of some of our fellow citizens and is seen in some quarters as counterproductive. I know the first time someone pointed the white savior trope out to me, I was totally taken by surprise. I'd never noticed it. It was invisible to me because it was so _normal_. Once it was identified for me, I started seeing it everywhere. Same with the no-catchy-name trope where people of color and/or "exotic" locales are present just to prompt/nurture the psychodrama/transformation of a white MC ... the _Heart of Darkness_ trope, maybe.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

WHDean said:


> I wish I had an answer. All I can say is that I see good intentions married to destructive ideas and means. I agree with Annie that the execution was probably ham-fisted in this book, a conclusion I reached reading the synopsis. But I disagree on the underlying socio-political assumptions and implications, which is where the problem is. All I can do is exemplify why I think those assumptions are destructive.
> 
> The idea that there's a white saviour narrative, for example, and that it's racist is a gross caricature of literature, is probably unfair to this do-gooder author, and is not always a fiction either. The film_ The Mission_, for example, could be caricatured as a white saviour narrative. Yet it's based on real events. Jesuits really did create protected jurisdictions for indigenous peoples in South America and really did die protecting them. Is recounting this history perpetuating a racist white saviour narrative? Would imitating the example of the Jesuits in this case be a bad thing? Is it even a "narrative meant to shape white consciousness" at all? Or is it a film about good and evil, compassion for others, and how we do the right thing in a fallen world?
> 
> ...


The message that I get from reading about being a white ally is that empathy isn't really enough. Of course, that message is tailored to the U.S. and I've been specifically reading about it re: our racial tensions. But as you rightfully point out, where does that cross into savior territory?

I thought this was a really good video drawing a distinction: http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12043737/amanda-seales-white-savior-vs-ally/

One of the main points she makes are that saviors try to dominate the convo, whereas allies try to help POC voices be better heard. For me, that's what's happening in this thread (I think--I'm not sure if there are any POC being drowned out by well-meaning saviors, but I could be wrong!). Based on this video and your description of _The Mission_, it seems it would fall into ally territory whereas the tale about a white teacher coming into an all-black, inner-city school and saving them is ... not so much.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

Sarah Shaw said:


> Indeed, and on both extremes I believe these people have more in common with one another than they do with the rest of us on either side who think the question is important and are quite capable of having a calm, respectful conversation about it.


The horseshoe effect: People on the extreme end of a position have more in common with the people on the opposite extreme end than either of them have in common with people in the center.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

MonkeyScribe said:


> Isn't it possible that there was a Muslim who read it and wasn't offended, and there have been others who have read it and were? Not everybody is bothered by the same things, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone who is sensitive about a subject just because others aren't.


Nor should you dismiss everyone who wasn't offended as is the case with the review from the Muslim woman. As several people have pointed out, it seems to be white people who are offended, which is ironic considering the supposed problem trope with the book.

Re- the word hate-crime in a different post should read hate-mob - apologies.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

SerenityEditing said:


> The horseshoe effect: People on the extreme end of a position have more in common with the people on the opposite extreme end than either of them have in common with people in the center.


We tended to use the metaphor of the pendulum swinging so far in one direction that it goes over the top when I was in school, but yes, same idea.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

I hadn't heard that one, but it almost makes more sense, with the kind of sudden 'conversion' that sometimes happens. I've never seen it play out _politically_, myself: The people I personally know who've 'switched sides' (ostensibly because of some controversy or another) are all people who always seemed to be at least modestly aligned with their 'new' side anyway. But I've seen it dozens of times with regard to religion and other, less serious issues. (Fandoms, etc.) In fact, I had a falling out with a friend years ago for pointing out that she was not only preaching to the choir about something, but was doing so 'with the zeal of the newly converted.' That was... less than judicious of me, I have to say.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

WordSaladTongs said:


> The message that I get from reading about being a white ally is that empathy isn't really enough. Of course, that message is tailored to the U.S. and I've been specifically reading about it re: our racial tensions. But as you rightfully point out, where does that cross into savior territory?
> 
> I thought this was a really good video drawing a distinction: http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12043737/amanda-seales-white-savior-vs-ally/
> 
> One of the main points she makes are that saviors try to dominate the convo, whereas allies try to help POC voices be better heard. For me, that's what's happening in this thread (I think--I'm not sure if there are any POC being drowned out by well-meaning saviors, but I could be wrong!). Based on this video and your description of _The Mission_, it seems it would fall into ally territory whereas the tale about a white teacher coming into an all-black, inner-city school and saving them is ... not so much.


That movie _has_ been criticized for not having much of the Guarani POV and for inaccuracies that favor the white characters, but it's 30+ years old and created for an audience that likely wasn't familiar with the subject matter before.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

WordSaladTongs said:


> The message that I get from reading about being a white ally is that empathy isn't really enough. Of course, that message is tailored to the U.S. and I've been specifically reading about it re: our racial tensions. But as you rightfully point out, where does that cross into savior territory?
> 
> I thought this was a really good video drawing a distinction: http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12043737/amanda-seales-white-savior-vs-ally/
> 
> One of the main points she makes are that saviors try to dominate the convo, whereas allies try to help POC voices be better heard. For me, that's what's happening in this thread (I think--I'm not sure if there are any POC being drowned out by well-meaning saviors, but I could be wrong!). Based on this video and your description of _The Mission_, it seems it would fall into ally territory whereas the tale about a white teacher coming into an all-black, inner-city school and saving them is ... not so much.


I can see what she's saying about saviours in the video, but the role of the ally seemed a little too abstract to me (e.g., listening and fighting racism). If the person you know needs a job, for example, then the thing to do is to help get them a job. But then I see the value of individuals and the misery of concrete problems more easily than those of groups and abstract problems.

The Mission doesn't really fit into allies or saviours at all. It's about how you confront injustice in the world. I brought it up as an example of an important work that would be lost by being lumped into the saviour narrative based on superficial aspects of the plot.

As for this thread, we started with two Muslim reviews, one from the spiked Kirkus review and one from Goodreads. The spiked review has been dismissed by white people and the Goodreads review has been eclipsed by all the accretions from white reviewers cited in the OP and by white commentators here. Looks to me like white people picked the view they liked, added what they thought the POC should've have said, and then trumpeted it as the POC view.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> That movie _has_ been criticized for not having much of the Guarani POV and for inaccuracies that favor the white characters, but it's 30+ years old and created for an audience that likely wasn't familiar with the subject matter before.


Anyone who said that either hasn't seen the movie, doesn't know much about art, or interprets everything through exactly the sort of narrow, reductive, ideological lens I mentioned above. The film isn't about the Guarani. It's about how people confront injustice in the world.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

boba1823 said:


> Since _The Black Witch_ has been brought up a few times, and it (potentially) relates to some of the conversations earlier in this thread -
> 
> Are the people who have objected to _The Black Witch_ as being racist objecting to it being racist toward fictional races, e.g. fairies and werewolves and whatnot, or does it also portray regular skin-color real world type racisms?


I believe the objection was to fantasy racism against werewolves and stuff.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

_But this isn't censorship. Writing one star reviews for a book, even one they didn't read, isn't censorship. Calling out Kirkus for posting a review they don't agree with isn't censorship. Why? Because random people on the Internet, even a well-organized vocal group of them, don't have the power to force Kirkus to retract the review. Just like calling out the publisher for publishing the book isn't censorship because again, the group does not have the power to force it to happen. In both cases, Kirkus and the publisher are the ones that get to decide whether to respond to the demands favorably or unfavorably. They aren't forced to. Calling for people to boycott a book isn't censorship, because those doing so have no power over buyers. _

I suggest it is censorship if the book gets suppressed, i.e., if mob power is exercised to the point that the well is poisoned. Note, I'm not talking about people who have actually read the book expressing their personal views in reviews or anywhere else. I'm talking about a group, whether loosely or tightly organized, trying to torpedo a book because they disagree with what they think it contains, based on hearsay. You can call it soft censorship. If it rises to the level of publishers thinking about withdrawing the book or Kirkus potentially withdrawing a review, it is certainly censorship.

_And all that ignores the actual content of the book in the OP. A lot of people have said that what is wrong is people calling out a book, or leaving one star reviews for a book, that they haven't read, that they couldn't know its actually what they think it is. Does this opinion change if the criticisms end up being valid? 
_

That's hindsight--crying wolf, and then getting lucky when the wolf happens to actually show up.

It goes to intent. Anyone who intends to suppress a book without making a personal, informed judgment, especially if they (as a group or as a powerful individual, no matter) have the power to do so, is censorship. It's no different from what some people thought when the LGBT books were being kicked out or kicked back--someone with power was making an uninformed judgment, and uninformed judgments tend to be wrong.

_It's already been pointed out that some of the critical reviews are from those who have read the book. Their reviews state that in their opinion, the book misses the mark by a mile. It's pretty clear to me based on the blurb, and everything else I've seen said, that the author intended to retell Huckleberry Finn by with shining a light on more current events/climate, in this case Islamic-phobia. Unfortunately, it seems the author fell a bit short. Or very short, in some people's opinion. The author probably had good intentions. But intentions don't protect someone for valid criticism. _

I completely agree--for those who actually read the book. Some of the bad reviews were from people who clearly did not read the book. It's those that I, like most authors, think are wrong and invalid. Get enough of them together--such as those trying to torpedo Hillary's book with mass 1-stars--and it becomes censorship.

_To me, it is far more harmful to try and silence voices speaking out about this book (or other books they find troublesome) than for a very vocal minority to rail against it. And I dare say that most of the critics are not calling for the book to be banned, or censored, or taken off sale, but rather are calling out problems they see that are very prevalent, especially in the YA market. _

People have the right to say what they like--but as has often been discussed, it may not be wise for Amazon or other vendors to extend the privilege of actually reviewing the book to those who clearly 1) have not read it and 2) have a pre-decided agenda and 3) are simply jumping on board attacking something someone told them is bad.

It's a knotty problem, for sure. Do we censor censorship? Is trying to limit the damage caused by jumping on a bandwagon, trying to get people to discuss something rationally, censorship?

I know I can't stop social media mobs from doing this kind of thing.

_edited; PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> Um ... wee bit of false equivalency there.


Only a little. It's not much of a stretch to think that, if someone is willing to one-star a book while declaring proudly they hate it but did not read it, they would likely be happy to ban its sale and deny others the right to have it.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

HopelessFanatic said:


> You're right. My words were too general. There are situations where people use being offended as a weapon. I can't speak for every case, but in my experience, those people aren't really offended. *They just want an excuse to be hateful or hurt someone.*


*Most. Definitely.*

My 17 year old daughter is being bullied by *teachers* and students right now - yelled at, full water bottles thrown at her head, pushed, and spat at for having a belief the bullies don't share.

And it comes from the people who claim to be the most tolerant.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

WHDean said:


> Anyone who said that either hasn't seen the movie, doesn't know much about art, or interprets everything through exactly the sort of narrow, reductive, ideological lens I mentioned above. The film isn't about the Guarani. It's about how people confront injustice in the world.


Sure, no one can possibly have a different opinion about anything without being an idiot, right? It's not even a matter of opinion that there were inaccuracies in it. No one's saying it should be banned (since that seems to be the conclusion everyone jumps too whenever anything is criticized). Just pointing out that it was not without flaws.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Travelian said:


> Yeah, but there was a very large group of people who did trash the concept of a female Ghostbusters - even before the movie came out. Just like there were a lot of people who trashed Fantastic Four and Star Wars: The Force Awakens for having black MCs - again before the movies came out.
> 
> An owner of a restaurant once gave Obama a hug that hit the news. And his business got hit with one star reviews by conservatives who never even went there. I've heard a story about the same happening to a place hit by liberals. Youtube and Twitter accounts can get hammered by total strangers if someone says the wrong thing.


Exactly. Hear, hear.

This is the meta-problem, and it supersedes whatever happens to be the issue of the moment. The issue is that social media empowers, and often inordinately empowers, without conferring corresponding responsibility.

So, power without responsibility and accountability is innately corrupting. That's what can create de facto censorship--social mobs of people empowered to hurt others (cyber-bullying by another name) with no accountability. Liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter in the long run.

It's the irresponsible mob action itself that's dangerous, not the excuse to take it.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

WHDean said:


> Some of the claims made here about the position of whites in American society haven't been updated since about 1950--despite the fact that all the info is collected by the gov't and publicly available. On both economic and academic measures, whites trail behind (in some cases far behind) other non-white ethnic and racial groups. East Indians, Asians, Jews, and other smaller groups like Caribbean Islanders have higher average incomes and are over-represented by longshots in universities and the professions. The gap is growing too.


You do realize that a lot of these groups are immigrants. And immigrants especially the first few generations are normally more educated than none immigrants. Also people with parents that went to college are more likely to attend college. So, whites are trailing not because these groups are displacing them in academic or economics but these groups often immigrate with higher educational and economic status from the start. They have the capital and education to move.

Think of when Cubans started migrating to the US, the first arrivals where the most wealthy and educated. It's the same with other immigrant groups. That statistics, along with other statistics, is misleading without background information.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Valerie A. said:


> Interesting indeed. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if the book didn't have "American" in its title.


Yes, because some people criticising the actually read it. No one is criticising the title.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Tara KH said:


> I want to say that I have been on the receiving end of one of these internet mobs, and it is absolutely terrifying and horrible to endure that.
> 
> Before I started self-publishing, I wrote a lot of fanfic and posted it on my tumblr profile. There are people out there who have taken it upon themselves to police every fandom and cleanse it of things that are seen as not PC enough. What I did that made these people angry was write a fanfic where a heroine and a villain of a popular movie had a romantic relationship. This was enough for people to tell me that I was promoting a toxic relationship and was going to cause young girls to get into abusive relationships. Which didn't make any sense because there was no abuse whatsoever in my story or anything. I endured months of people making fake accounts and sending me death threats, telling me I deserved rape (since I was going to cause young girls to be raped) and that I needed to kill myself. I'm talking like 50 messages a day. They found my twitter and Facebook accounts through info I posted on my tumblr and threatened to dox me and get me fired from my job. One person used their blog to copy everything I said on my own profile and attack me. This went on for MONTHS. The same group who targeted me also attacked many other people, singling them out because they wrote about the same two characters being in a relationship.
> 
> ...


Bingo.

And yet, many of these bullies no doubt felt they were righteously fighting evil--because the means justify the end in their eyes.

The ends almost never justify the means. I say "almost" just to avoid absolutism--but I can count the times I thought good ends justified evil means on zero hands.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

boba1823 said:


> So.. do some people object to that primarily because they think it might it could encourage real-life racism? (Which is.. well, not crazy at least)
> 
> Or are they offended on behalf of the werewolves?


Hrm, from the Goodreads page it seems some people were offended by quotes from the book that referred to the fantasy beings in a derogatory way. So I have no idea whether they thought it would encourage racism or they were offended for werewolves.

I'm sure people who would be offended by _Black Witch_ would probably also be offended by my stories, but that is one thing I don't care about. If someone is super-offended over fantasy werewolf racism then they need to get a life.

That said, I feel a little differently about the _American Heart_ issue. It's a real life group who is marginalized, and while I don't believe in attacking the author or leaving reviews for something that isn't even out yet, I think its possible the author should have been a little more careful.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

HopelessFanatic said:


> Are they still stupid sheep hate-mobbing if they're right?


It's still a hate-mob if they're right, because the target always morphs from the work, to the author herself.

Hating on the book, if you've read it? No problem.

Hating on the author, to the point of threats (and I would bet large sums of cash money the author has gotten threats, probably rape and death threats) is evil, _even if the hate-mob was 100% right about the book itself._


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

SerenityEditing said:


> The horseshoe effect: People on the extreme end of a position have more in common with the people on the opposite extreme end than either of them have in common with people in the center.


Yup.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> It's still a hate-mob if they're right, because the target always morphs from the work, to the author herself.
> 
> Hating on the book, if you've read it? No problem.
> 
> Hating on the author, to the point of threats (and I would bet large sums of cash money the author has gotten threats, probably rape and death threats) is evil, _even if the hate-mob was 100% right about the book itself._


This. This whole thing has me worried about exactly this. Because while most people here seem able to separate book content from author of said content, I'm concerned that not everybody _out there_ are equally able.

This whole situation makes me incredibly uncomfortable, because what if this whole thing ends with this author being hurt, or killed, or so upset by all this that she kills herself? All over writing a book she likely didn't mean to be perceived as problematic.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

inconsequential said:


> This. This whole thing has me worried about exactly this. Because while most people here seem able to separate book content from author of said content, I'm concerned that not everybody _out there_ are equally able.
> 
> This whole situation makes me incredibly uncomfortable, because what if this whole thing ends with this author being hurt, or killed, or so upset by all this that she kills herself? All over writing a book she likely didn't mean to be perceived as problematic.


I kind of get the feeling that the author might be a clueless victim in this. Supposedly the publisher had editors and sensitivity readers? How did no one say anything? Maybe the publisher knew it would be controversial and that would lead to $$.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> If this kind of story _does_ function to reinforce a racist status quo, non-consumption won't happen without a big push; without strong pressure, such stories will continue to be produced and consumed eagerly because that's how culture works to reinforce the status quo. That attempt to exert pressure is what we're seeing now.
> 
> If the pressurers are wrong, and this kind of story _doesn't _function to reinforce a racist status quo in any significant way, non-consumption could kill it off pretty quickly. But the only way to prompt non-consumption is to let people know _This is one of those white savior books we've collectively decided to ignore_. People will do that through reviews. We end up with something like what's happening now.
> 
> I'm just not seeing an easy way to replace public objection. You can replace the word "targeting" with something that doesn't include a martial metaphor -- how about "singling out"? -- but I doubt that semantic change will make the objection/pressure feel any better to the author of the book.


I'm more hoping non-consumption would occur from individuals deciding on their own and of their own volition that a given piece of art they find offensive is not something they personally want to support and so they don't, rather than come to that decision as a part of a social pile-on for the sake of feeling part of a virtuous in-crowd.

That is probably a naive wish because: internet, but the opposite makes me leery because there are examples from history, Tara's story included, where online pressure crosses over into something truly awful.

Having said that, I'm not certain that this applies to 'American Heart'. My main issue with that whole circumstance is that reviewers were reviewing the book without having read it.

Whether or not those are the reviews that caused Kirkus to pull their starred review, I don't know, as Annie B has pointed out there are plenty of reviews from those who have read the novel and had problems with it so it's possible that's why Kirkus did what it did. And if that is the case, I think that is more than valid.

Again, I don't have an issue with calling a work out as being racist, etc in a review of that work, but my preference would be that it be done by reviewers who'd actually consumed or at the very least attempted to consume said work.

I hope that I've explained this somewhat coherently, as with any difficult subject matter, there is a fair bit of nuance to parse.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> Since _The Black Witch_ has been brought up a few times, and it (potentially) relates to some of the conversations earlier in this thread -
> 
> Are the people who have objected to _The Black Witch_ as being racist objecting to it being racist toward fictional races, e.g. fairies and werewolves and whatnot, or does it also portray regular skin-color real world type racisms?


There is the shimmering skin master race that dominates by keeping their blood pure, and sometimes symbolizes their unity with armbands. Oh, and there is the colored race, they are mostly slaves and serve the master race which killed off most of their males in the past. And then there are the lupines that immigrated into their territory and try to change the culture, also their males are believed to be rapists (although it seems to be the master race that goes around raping everybody). And there is the most hated group, though not exactly a race, more of a belief system, something like a religion one might say...

But it's okay because magical Hitler's granddaughter collects a group of these "evil ones" (her words, not mine) and forms a team with them. You see, she understands their pain, because the prejudgement she suffers from for looking just like the woman who nearly wiped out all their races is just like the pain of being enslaved, mutilated, driven to near extinction and living under an oppressive force. Totes the same. The lesson being, you shouldn't judge people who are part of the group actively committing genocide against you because they might be a really nice person (which she's not). YAY! Bonding!

Actually, it kinda mirrors the sentiment of this thread, where pointing out something being racist is just mean ole bullying.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> Actually, it kinda mirrors the sentiment of this thread, where pointing out something being racist is just mean ole bullying.


I don't view the 'pointing out of something being racist' as "mean ole bullying", but rather as a needless, and purposefully created distraction meant to divert people from the real problem effecting millions regardless of their gender, race or religion - that being economic inequality and the violence of poverty.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

That book sounds really bad. I don't know a lot about the situation and nothing about the book outside the context of this thread, but I think it's perfectly legit to boycott books you find obnoxious, to mention that they're obnoxious, etc., _in proportion to the notoriety of the book in question_. Therefore, legit to have lots of "worst writer in the world" discussions about books purporting to be PNR or erotica and their unhealthy messages when the books in question are Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey.

An internet mob descending on some hapless indie, one starring, sending death threats, doxxing, etc., when the crime is really just that the person is a bad, clumsy writer? Not cool.

The book in the OP seems closer to the former than the latter, but it still seems to be skirting the line between professional critique and personal attack.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

MonkeyScribe said:


> That book sounds really bad. I don't know a lot about the situation and nothing about the book outside the context of this thread, but I think it's perfectly legit to boycott books you find obnoxious, to mention that they're obnoxious, etc., _in proportion to the notoriety of the book in question_. Therefore, legit to have lots of "worst writer in the world" discussions about books purporting to be PNR or erotica and their unhealthy messages when the books in question are Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey.
> 
> An internet mob descending on some hapless indie, one starring, sending death threats, doxxing, etc., when the crime is really just that the person is a bad, clumsy writer? Not cool.
> 
> The book in the OP seems closer to the former than the latter, but it still seems to be skirting the line between professional critique and personal attack.


The crits are about the book though, not the author, for the most that I've seen. The only comments I've seen about the author are that she's handling this badly (which, imo, she really is) and that she seems a bit clueless at best as to the impact this story would have. I do think it is legit to ask how this got past editors etc, because it is weird that nobody stopped and said, wait a minute, this premise is super flawed and problematic. But the critiques of the book are of the book and the writing/story therein. None of the reviews I've seen say this author should quit forever or is a terrible human etc.

I mean, I know how this got past editors etc. Publishing has a problem with whose narratives they publish and what kinds of stories they tell, a known issue that many have spoken up about but which has yet to be truly addressed. Much the same as these issues are finally in wide discussion in the US but not actually addressed yet.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Annie B said:


> The crits are about the book though, not the author, for the most that I've seen. The only comments I've seen about the author are that she's handling this badly (which, imo, she really is) and that she seems a bit clueless at best as to the impact this story would have. I do think it is legit to ask how this got past editors etc, because it is weird that nobody stopped and said, wait a minute, this premise is super flawed and problematic. But the critiques of the book are of the book and the writing/story therein. None of the reviews I've seen say this author should quit forever or is a terrible human etc.


Very good points.



> I mean, I know how this got past editors etc. Publishing has a problem with whose narratives they publish and what kinds of stories they tell, a known issue that many have spoken up about but which has yet to be truly addressed. Much the same as these issues are finally in wide discussion in the US but not actually addressed yet.


Working in publishing, I have found editors and writers are almost always wonderful people. NY can be a little . . . myopic, however. And the way people are thinking about diversity in books has changed a lot just between some of the editors in their late 20s and the YA readers who are only ten years younger than them. A lot of people recognize this intellectually, and yet . . .


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

White privilege isn't a hard concept to grasp. Don't call it privilege. Call it something else. It's not about having it easy, it's about having it easier. 

All things being equal, a white man and a black man, same age, same level of education, same upbringing, same intelligence and contacts, the black man is going to have barriers to get through that the white man doesn't, because of racism. The white man won't get pulled over in an unfamiliar town because the cop doesn't think a white man can afford that car. He won't get stopped outside a store because the security guard doesn't think he should be able to afford the designer belt he bought. He won't get stopped and questioned walking down the street. He won't have people wonder if he's criminal because of his white skin. He won't have applications for jobs, housing, loans passed up at a glance because he has a name like John Jones or Brian McDonald. Nobody's going to cross the street when they see him coming because they're worried he might be a gang member. White women, all things being equal, aren't automatically assumed to have a slew of kids supported by a welfare check or some kind of drug history or a bunch of baby-daddies. 

Those are things white people and people who pass as white just don't have to deal with that black people do. We have the privilege of not being viewed with suspicion based on our race which isn't granted to others. 

Some might argue that all that's not true, despite massive evidence that it is. But there's little excuse for not understanding what's meant by the term.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

jaehaerys said:


> I don't view the 'pointing out of something being racist' as "mean ole bullying", but rather as a needless, and purposefully created distraction meant to divert people from the real problem effecting millions regardless of their gender, race or religion - that being economic inequality and the violence of poverty.


It's possible to care about more than one problem. When people are shot outside of mosques or beaten in the street for wearing a hijab, I doubt being a doctor or an engineer gives them much comfort.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

jaehaerys said:


> I don't view the 'pointing out of something being racist' as "mean ole bullying", but rather as a needless, and purposefully created distraction meant to divert people from the real problem effecting millions regardless of their gender, race or religion - that being economic inequality and the violence of poverty.


Do you really think racism isn't a problem? That everyone who feels it is and is pointing it out is part of some secret agenda to deny that there are also other problems like economic ones? The world has oodles of problems. Racism and economic despair or two of them.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> This is what I'm unclear about -
> 
> Is the attitude "In the context of the book, these people/attitudes are bad..."
> 
> ...


She took real life races and situations and coded them into fantasy races in a poor and obvious way. Reading my descriptions, are you having any trouble figuring out who these groups are meant to represent? So the first factor is god forbid children of color read this, they will know every horrible stereotype ever spoken in regards to them.

And the whole thing reeks of this "both sides" narrative, that people who fight against racism are just as bad as people who fight for it and the true mid-path for sensible people is to do nothing. Hmmmm, I seem to remember a similar mentality in the past. Oh yeah, the 1930s.

I'm frightened by what's happening. But I'm not scared of the extremists, there have always been extremists. I'm scared of the ambivalence. Because when they average person doesn't care, then the extremists can do whatever they want and one side has tweets, the other has guns.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

David VanDyke said:


> It's still a hate-mob if they're right, because the target always morphs from the work, to the author herself.
> 
> Hating on the book, if you've read it? No problem.
> 
> Hating on the author, to the point of threats (and I would bet large sums of cash money the author has gotten threats, probably rape and death threats) is evil, _even if the hate-mob was 100% right about the book itself._


My response was in the context of leaving one-star reviews on a book that wasn't read, but rather being reviewed based on someone else who had reviewed the book's review (gah mouthful).

The context of the OP, based on the article, is not about the author receiving death threats or threats of violence against her. I'm not saying that doesn't happen or isn't happening. The article was about Kirkus pulling a starred review possibly (but unconfirmed) based on the backlash received from the review in the first place.

Attacking the author is wrong. Death threats are wrong. Threats of any kind are wrong. They aren't justifiable. I never said that. I actually said the opposite.

But right now those who are either offended or worried about the contents of this particular book based on reviews and statements made by reviewers who have read the book are being lumped into the same category as those who send death threats, who rage against the author, who call for action to be done against the author. Leaving a one star review, even of a book you didn't read, isn't bullying. Leaving a one star review calling the author horrible things, even from people who have read the book, is harassment, and shouldn't be tolerated. Sharing by tweeting or FBing reviews of the book saying that the book is racist is not bullying. Tweeting, or sharing, or making posts calling the author racists and making threats and otherwise harassing the author, is harassment and shouldn't be tolerated.

My point is that those threats, that harassment, that hate against this author is not caused by people being too politically correct, or social justicing, or anything like that (And I'm not saying you directly said that at all, but there's plenty of that in this thread), it happens because people are jerks.

Again, what I said that you quoted was in context of leaving reviews or being offended by a book they haven't read, not to justify bullying or harassment.

Someone else said it before, the actions of those that are taking this too far are very much a problem because it gives people on the "other" side something to point at and claim that EVERYONE on "that" side is like that.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> We're still talking about books here, right?
> 
> I took "profiting off of oppression" to mean, in this context, profiting from writing a (successful) book that involves/deals with/references (etc.) the oppression of some group. I imagine the same considerations would apply to movies, television shows, and other forms of entertainment media.
> 
> ...


*BY PRETENDING TO BE ONE OF THOSE OPPRESSED PEOPLE*

Let us not forget that this particular discussion in the monument to why humans will never deserve nice things (because people will forever support institutional, casual and especially socialized racism), started with a story about a guy guy who was pretending to be a young Muslim woman to sell his book.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> Sure, no one can possibly have a different opinion about anything without being an idiot, right? It's not even a matter of opinion that there were inaccuracies in it. No one's saying it should be banned (since that seems to be the conclusion everyone jumps too whenever anything is criticized). Just pointing out that it was not without flaws.


Idiot about art was one of three options, the others being ideologue and didn't see the film. Anyone who saw the film and knew anything about writing would know that showing the Guarani POV would spoil it. Their complete otherness from the Spaniards is essential to tension in the story. You should actually watch it and see why instead of presenting it as "flaw."



Monie said:


> You do realize that a lot of these groups are immigrants. And immigrants especially the first few generations are normally more educated than none immigrants. Also people with parents that went to college are more likely to attend college. So, whites are trailing not because these groups are displacing them in academic or economics but these groups often immigrate with higher educational and economic status from the start. They have the capital and education to move.
> 
> Think of when Cubans started migrating to the US, the first arrivals where the most wealthy and educated. It's the same with other immigrant groups. That statistics, along with other statistics, is misleading without background information.


First generation start lower than whites and second generation (in the groups I mentioned) exceed whites. Look at this from Pew, for example:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/

Second, look at college enrollment by ethnicity. The groups I mentioned are over-represented. It's common knowledge and these stats are widely available.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

boba1823 said:


> I thought it might be something like that, but people often surprise me, so I wasn't sure.
> 
> So if I write a fantasy type book that has Orcs in it - and everyone else really hates those guys because they're stupid, and tend to be violent, and yada yada yada, and these perceptions of Orcs happen to be pretty much true - this is not the sort of book that readers of certain views are going to object to because it's racist-against-Orcs? (Even though the book essentially is in fact racist against Orcs)


No one is going to be offended by that.

I think part of the problem with writing as a craft in general is that writers ( I'm including myself even though I don't publish) don't realize that our ignorance and views can steep into our work even in fantasy and sci-fi. When called out about the go to defense is that this is a made up world, it's fairies not Muslims, it's Orcs not blacks, it's wolves not Hispanics/Latinos.

Writers have to be honest about their work and the ideas and symbolism that can creep in without their notice. I didn't notice that a majority of my reading included children as central characters until a writing partner pointed it out. That's a non problematic example, but think of others things that can creep in without you noticing.

From what I'm reading about American Heart and the authors response the above seems to be the situation. She failed to execute her goal with the book, instead of acknowledging, listening, and learning from people's very well constructed critiques she responded very poorly. Calling into questions if her main characters flaws was partially due to her own.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> I thought it might be something like that, but people often surprise me, so I wasn't sure.
> 
> So if I write a fantasy type book that has Orcs in it - and everyone else really hates those guys because they're stupid, and tend to be violent, and yada yada yada, and these perceptions of Orcs happen to be pretty much true - this is not the sort of book that readers of certain views are going to object to because it's racist-against-Orcs? (Even though the book essentially is in fact racist against Orcs)


Only if those orcs were taken from their homeland by elves and forced to work in the fields until a civil war between the elves brought freedom to the orcs and they now live together, but slavery or not, the orcs should really learn some gratitude considering the elves brought them to this rich land and taught them to be civilized.

So yeah, as long as your story is really about orcs and elves and werewolves you're fine.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

WHDean said:


> Idiot about art was one of three options, the others being ideologue and didn't see the film. Anyone who saw the film and knew anything about writing would know that showing the Guarani POV would spoil it. Their complete otherness from the Spaniards is essential to tension in the story. You should actually watch it and see why instead of presenting it as "flaw."


I have seen it (and was deeply familiar with the subject before seeing it). I didn't even offer my opinion on it...only some criticisms that have been levied and the objective fact that it contains inaccuracies. But if I did offer my opinion, I don't have to justify it to you or anyone else. That's all.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

WHDean said:


> Idiot about art was one of three options, the others being ideologue and didn't see the film. Anyone who saw the film and knew anything about writing would know that showing the Guarani POV would spoil it. Their complete otherness from the Spaniards is essential to tension in the story. You should actually watch it and see why instead of presenting it as "flaw."
> 
> First generation start lower than whites and second generation (in the groups I mentioned) exceed whites. Look at this from Pew, for example:
> 
> ...


Your study didn't contradict what I said. I said that first generation immigrants are normally more educated than the population of the country they immigrate too. I also said that educated people "pass on" their value of education to their children. Your study proves that second generation children are more educated than their parents. The same thing can be said with wealth especially since wealth is generational and has a compounding effect (if handled properly).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

jaehaerys said:


> I don't view the 'pointing out of something being racist' as "mean ole bullying", but rather as a needless, and purposefully created distraction meant to divert people from the real problem effecting millions regardless of their gender, race or religion - that being economic inequality and the violence of poverty.


I mean sure, we can discuss the evils of Capitalism all night, and I'm sure the people who are calling 'calling out racism' 'censorship' would just delight in that one...

...but the problems of racism are intertwined with economic injustice. See, the race problem as it exists in the West vis-a-vis 'white vs brown' was created and fostered by the East India Trading company to justify getting cheap labor for their delicious rum operations to Christians who up until then were not in favor of hating Africans because they were kind of instrumental in the survival of their religion, not to mention the whole 'Western Civilization' Kush accidentally invented by teaching Europeans how to learn.

The ETC cooked up this big lie based on the Mark of Cain, paid corrupt reverends to preach it, and almost a thousand years later, well here we are, debating over whether being told that pretending to have insights about a people you aren't a part of is equal to the fact that it's legal for a cop to murder me as long as he says he was 'scared' just because my ancestors didn't taint our pure Cro Magnon blood by intermixing with stinking, subhuman Neandertals.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

WHDean said:


> As for this thread, we started with two Muslim reviews, one from the spiked Kirkus review and one from Goodreads. The spiked review has been dismissed by white people and the Goodreads review has been eclipsed by all the accretions from white reviewers cited in the OP and by white commentators here. Looks to me like white people picked the view they liked, added what they thought the POC should've have said, and then trumpeted it as the POC view.


Do you really think that white people are the only ones who have spoken up, either in this thread or elsewhere? That only white people are up in arms, one starring the book and calling it racist?

And I haven't seen a single person in this thread that said the Kirkus review should have been removed, nor dismissing it as invalid because obviously the reviewer was wrong.

And just looking at this thread, so many are anonymous, how do you even know who is white and who isn't?

I haven't seen anyone say that every single POC thinks this book is racist. Claiming that this whole thing is white people speaking over POC and telling them how to feel, rather than what POC actually feel, dismisses the words of every non-white person that has spoken, here or elsewhere. I'm a bit baffled and maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you meant.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

HopelessFanatic said:


> And just looking at this thread, so many are anonymous, how do you even know who is white and who isn't?


It's almost as if he's assuming white as the default...

That or 'No, your'e the real racist' is another one of the hopelessly typical arguments brought up whenever race is the topic of discussion.

Or both.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Because when they average person doesn't care, then the extremists can do whatever they want and one side has tweets, the other has guns.


Tweets aren't harmless. You can destroy a person's life by doxxing and harassment. I'm not suggesting its that same as shooting a gun, but it can be weaponized.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Both the reviews I linked to are written by WoC. This is most definitely not a case of white people talking over minorities in terms of the criticisms. But I get the impression a lot of the people offering those types of responses in this thread aren't particularly interested in what is actually happening and want to just go with their own narratives.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Tara KH said:


> Tweets aren't harmless. You can destroy a person's life by doxxing and harassment. I'm not suggesting its that same as shooting a gun, but it can be weaponized.


Yes, public opinion can be used as a weapon, but my entire point was about false equivalencies which you admitted is true, so I don't understand the purpose of this comment.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

HopelessFanatic said:


> What disturbs me the most in this thread though is the thinking that if you're offended by something and speak out about it, you are labeled as oversensitive, or just looking to be offended. Or in this case, doesn't matter what the author could have done, someone would have been offended. When you offend someone, you have a few choices in how you respond. You can, apologize and say "I didn't mean to offend you." Or you can buckle down, and respond that what you said wasn't offensive, the person offended is just viewing you with bad intentions.
> 
> When you accidentally bump into someone, do you say 'I'm sorry', or do you tell them if they hadn't been in your way, they wouldn't have gotten bumped?


Or you could not apologize and acknowledge they have the right to not read your book or give it bad review if it offends them. That's what real freedom is, the right to speak your mind and the right of others not to listen if they don't want to.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

boba1823 said:


> If I ever decided to move into minority/multicultural Romance, I would most definitely come up with a pen name and bio that sounded like it fit the relevant culture.


That is really cringey.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

paranormal_kitty said:


> That is really cringey.


Very


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> Lol, well the book itself would be really super more cringey, because I wouldn't know how to write one like that - so it's not something I ever anticipate actually trying.


Congratulations!

Questionable ethics aside, you are officially smarter than authors who try to show what it's like to be someone they've never been.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> That is really cringey.





Monie said:


> Very


Is it? I think this is an interesting and a not too clear issue.
If Indian Romance became the next big fad, who would be the bigger seller if you had to guess, John Smith or Anika Patel?
I think everyone can be honest and admit it would be Anika Patel. The same reason why many men who write romance take on a feminine sounding pen name.

Wasn't there a study that found that people will more likely read a book from an author with a familiar sounding name, rather than an "exotic" name, floating around somewhere? I'd imagine there are many authors doing the exact opposite to mask "exotic" names and escape extra scrutiny.



Vaalingrade said:


> Congratulations!
> 
> Questionable ethics aside, you are officially smarter than authors who try to show what it's like to be someone they've never been.


So writers can't use their imagination. I'm sure J K Rowling doesn't know what it's like to be a boy wizard. 
Any writer not writing a memoir is violating this ludicrous rule.

I keep thinking a lot of the criticism towards people who attempt to step in some else's shoes is that the critics forget that we as human beings, and especially writers, are highly empathetic creatures.

We use our own experiences to connect the world or to create new worlds. Our imagination and empathy is so important in this job. I honeslty believe that asking writers to essentially 'stay in their lane' is to stifle that imagination and empathy.

I don't know what it's like to be hated and persecuted for my beliefs, but who can't guess? Do people honestly think being the victim of persecution is so special that we all can't understand it and relate it to things that have occured in our own lives? Were you the fat kid or the loser or the slut in school? Was one of your friends? Then you understand persecution. You understand it's causes and effects. You understand it's impact on people's lives. I can keep going with examples. Every human has these experiences and we as writers take our own experiences and use them to give life and credibility to our stories and try to enrich people's lives through those stories.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Charmaine said:


> Is it? I think this is an interesting and a not too clear issue.
> If Indian Romance became the next big fad, who would be the bigger seller if you had to guess, John Smith or Anika Patel?
> I think everyone can be honest and admit it would be Anika Patel. The same reason why many men who write romance take on a feminine sounding pen name.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point. JK Rowling used initials to hide the fact that she was a woman because of historical discrimination against women in publishing. Numerous women have had to do this. It was because she wanted to pretend to be a man and make all other money. If she thought that publishers would give Joanne Rowling the same chance she would have used it. Women do this when applying for jobs also because initial don't indicate gender.

By using Patel instead of Smith you aren't doing the same thing as Rowling. There are plenty of white writers that had written and sold to publishers book with POC as main characters. In fact most children books with black main characters are written by white people. There's no need to change your name for publishing successful. You might actually be doing more harm to your chance than good.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Monie said:


> You're missing the point. JK Rowling used initials to hide the fact that she was a woman because of historical discrimination against women in publishing. Numerous women have had to do this. It was because she wanted to pretend to be a man and make all other money. If she thought that publishers would give Joanne Rowling the same chance she would have used it. Women do this when applying for jobs also because initial don't indicate gender.
> 
> By using Patel instead of Smith you aren't doing the same thing as Rowling. There are plenty of white writers that had written and sold to publishers book with POC as main characters. In fact most children books with black main characters are written by white people. There's no need to change your name for publishing successful. You might actually be doing more harm to your chance than good.


I wasn't comparing Rowling and Smith/Patel. However, the more I think about the more curious I become about the argument. When you link them all together they do hold some similarities. John Smith to Anika Patel hides gender, the same as Joanne Rowling to J K Rowling was designed to hide gender. Rowling's name change was done due to gender discrimination and to increase her chances of getting her book published. But, I could say the same thing of Smith/ Patel. Although, instead of getting published, in this case, I would measure the success of an indie by their sales and Smith/Patel would absolutely increase their sales.

In general male romance writers overwhelmingly do better when using a gender-neutral or feminine sounding pen name. So let's assign John Smith the feminine pen name, Joan Smith. The only thing we're disputing then is the difference between Anika Patel vs Joan Smith in respect to success in Indian Romance. In that case, I would argue that most readers would gravitate towards Patel either consciously or subconsciously.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Annie B said:


> Yes, it would have. Which you would realize if you read the actual criticism of the book.


You are right, and I didn't express myself accurately enough. What I meant to say, and should have said, is that much of the resentment for the book seems to come from the embarrassing portrait of America (or at least white American youth) it paints. One of the reviews is precisely what gave me this idea. The reviewer writes: "Sarah-Mary literally doesn't care about a weeping young Muslim woman who has seen her last hopes of escape dash away from her. She only cares that Sadaf might think America isn't an amazing country because we can't be having that now, can we?"


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> I wasn't comparing Rowling and Smith/Patel. However, the more I think about the more curious I become about the argument. When you link them all together they do hold some similarities. John Smith to Anika Patel hides gender, the same as Joanne Rowling to J K Rowling was designed to hide gender. Rowling's name change was done due to gender discrimination and to increase her chances of getting her book published. But, I could say the same thing of Smith/ Patel. Although, instead of getting published, in this case, I would measure the success of an indie by their sales and Smith/Patel would absolutely increase their sales.
> 
> In general male romance writers overwhelmingly do better when using a gender-neutral or feminine sounding pen name. So let's assign John Smith the feminine pen name, Joan Smith. The only thing we're disputing then is the difference between Anika Patel vs Joan Smith in respect to success in Indian Romance. In that case, I would argue that most readers would gravitate towards Patel either consciously or subconsciously.


I'm a bit neutral on this topic, but I think in weighing it, it's important to consider what these name changes are for. Joanne/JK or John/Joan takes advantage of gender bias. Women know more about romance, men know more about everything else. That's the subconscious judgement people are trying to either avoid or take advantage of.

In the case of Smith/Patel, it's a matter of experience. People will assume someone named Patel has more experience with Indian relationships, which then brings up the question if Rowling did the same thing when she pretended to be a vet to sell more thrillers.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Charmaine said:


> The only thing we're disputing then is the difference between Anika Patel vs Joan Smith in respect to success in Indian Romance. In that case, I would argue that most readers would gravitate towards Patel either consciously or subconsciously.


Studies of diversity in Romance proves think wrong. Having the last name Patel or anything else that might indicate culture or religion is a hindrance not only in traditional publishing but also indie/self publishing. Especially is the romantic leads are POC.

Why?

Because white women don't read romances staring POC, especially if they're written by POC. The situation is not reversed. WOC do read books written white main characters and written by white authors.

Think about it. If there where millions of dollars to be made just by pretending to be black in romance, than real Kline black women romance authors would be struggling. Beverly Jenkins would have been a households name years ago.

Yes, Ms. Patel might cater to an audience looking for culturally relevant romance. But Ms. Smith's audience is bigger and overlaps Ms. Patel's.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Monie said:


> Studies of diversity in Romance proves think wrong. Having the last name Patel or anything else that might indicate culture or religion is a hindrance not only in traditional publishing but also indie/self publishing. Especially is the romantic leads are POC.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


Those are really good points! I wonder if white women not reading POC romances by POC authors has anything to do with their lack of representation in those novels? What I mean by that is that I have noticed that POC authors tend to write romance between 2 POCs and white authors when involved in POC romance tend to write interracial romance. This is all really fascinating.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

kcmorgan said:


> Only if those orcs were taken from their homeland by elves and forced to work in the fields until a civil war between the elves brought freedom to the orcs and they now live together, but slavery or not, the orcs should really learn some gratitude considering the elves brought them to this rich land and taught them to be civilized.
> 
> So yeah, as long as your story is really about orcs and elves and werewolves you're fine.


I think it's naive to believe that avoiding a parallel history for the orcs would be enough to convince people that the story was "really" about orcs and elves and werewolves. And all it takes is for one person on Tumblr to decide that "dumb and violent" = "thinly-disguised racial stereotype" for the mobs to start lighting torches. Because let's be honest, there are very few (no?) combinations of negative traits that haven't been associated with some minority group at some point in time, and people will see the parallels they see.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

Dragovian said:


> I think it's naive to believe that avoiding a parallel history for the orcs would be enough to convince people that the story was "really" about orcs and elves and werewolves. And all it takes is for one person on Tumblr to decide that "dumb and violent" = "thinly-disguised racial stereotype" for the mobs to start lighting torches. Because let's be honest, there are very few (no?) combinations of negative traits that haven't been associated with some minority group at some point in time, and people will see the parallels they see.


In my experience this is true. Sorry to say but there are people out there that are looking for things to be offended about and read all kinds of horrible things into something were NEVER intended to be offensive to any group.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Dragovian said:


> I think it's naive to believe that avoiding a parallel history for the orcs would be enough to convince people that the story was "really" about orcs and elves and werewolves. And all it takes is for one person on Tumblr to decide that "dumb and violent" = "thinly-disguised racial stereotype" for the mobs to start lighting torches. Because let's be honest, there are very few (no?) combinations of negative traits that haven't been associated with some minority group at some point in time, and people will see the parallels they see.


And yet somehow no one is arguing the vampire versus werewolf feud in Twilight is really about colonialisms. Somehow, hundreds of books with fantasy races manage to get published every day without hordes of angry tweeters calling them racist.

Is it possible for a liberal group to overreact and see bigotry where there isn't any? Yes. And every example is held up as an example of what oversensitive special butterflies they are and everything that can be twisted to look like an example of that. But even so, I can think of more unarmed police shootings than I can of twitter mobs destroying lives unjustly.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

kcmorgan said:


> And yet somehow no one is arguing the vampire versus werewolf feud in Twilight is really about colonialisms. Somehow, hundreds of books with fantasy races manage to get published every day without hordes of angry tweeters calling them racist.
> 
> Is it possible for a liberal group to overreact and see bigotry where there isn't any? Yes. And every example is held up as an example of what oversensitive special butterflies they are and everything that can be twisted to look like an example of that. But even so, I can think of more unarmed police shootings than I can of twitter mobs destroying lives unjustly.


Which does not actually refute what I said, which is that no, you can't tell someone "don't do X and you'll be fine." Not when all it takes in certain spheres of social media is for one person, acting in good faith or not, to decide your work is problematic.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Dragovian said:


> Which does not actually refute what I said, which is that no, you can't tell someone "don't do X and you'll be fine." Not when all it takes in certain spheres of social media is for one person, acting in good faith or not, to decide your work is problematic.


Yes, and a toilet seat can fall from the sky, land on your head and kill you. Something being possible doesn't make it likely.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Thinking about _American Heart_ and _The Black Witch_ together ... they share a white/allegorically white character who begins the novel in as a bigot and ostensibly progresses toward a more enlightened outlook. My impression is that the authors spend a good chunk of each novel establishing the MC as bigoted so that her enlightenment will be notable and meaningful. I'm assuming the idea is that once the MC becomes more enlightened, the reader will dismiss the MC's initial bigotry. The author has her say/do these things merely to establish her horrible problem. The reader is not meant to see any advocacy of bigotry in these books.

But the message I'm putting together from some of the reviews I've read, and especially from Laurie Forest's review of _The Black Witch_, is that the real-world, pragmatic effect of the bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plot is that readers of color and those belonging to other minority groups have to spend the bulk of a book being bombarded with bigotry. The fact that the bigotry is being presented as wrong and bad and something the MC must overcome doesn't really sap its power to wound. It's still grueling to slog through it. Forest articulates the idea most clearly here:



> I understand that it's supposed to be a redemption story in which deeply seated prejudices are uprooted and the main character learns. But here's the thing. She doesn't learn. Even with 100, 50, 30, pages left, Elloren Gardner was still saying and doing racist things. Additionally, it takes 350+ pages before that redemption arc even starts, and those pages before it are filled with some of the most vile hatred and vitriol I've ever seen from a protagonist.


When I first read Forest's review, my reaction was pretty much, "Of course bad characters say and do bad things. How can you put bad/flawed people in your books if you can't have them say and do bad things, included bigoted things?" It just didn't make sense to me as a critique.

But now that I've thought about it for a bit, and in the context of this thread, her point has sunk in and makes more sense. I'm imagining slogging through page after page of an MC being a bigot. Say, hundreds of pages of that. I'm imagining someone who regularly experiences bigotry directed at themself reading all that. Maybe the book frequently reminds such readers of real-life experiences of discrimination they've had. Then, at the end, the MC sees the error of her ways. Maybe that change is skillfully handled and feels real and earned. Maybe it's poorly handled and feels tacked on and unconvincing. Either way, would the change at the end be enough to mitigate the impact of the hundreds of pages of bigotry that preceded it? Or would it feel more like a scale that had a ton of horrible stuff on one side and a couple teaspoons of better stuff on the other? The good stuff wouldn't _erase_ the experience of all the bad stuff. It has to outweigh it somehow, or alter the remembered experience of having read it. The MC's change has to make the reader feel it was worth it to slog through all that yucky material and whatever personal memories it raised. And maybe it just wouldn't. Maybe the reaction would be that seeing a repellent character become a little less of a heel really is not enough to make it worthwhile wading through their pre-change bigotry.

Now that I'm thinking of it that way, I'm feeling pretty dense for not having thought about it that way before. And I'm wondering where it leaves the bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plot. It's a hugely common trope in fantasy, where inter-species/creature/practitioner/nation/whatever tensions and/or discrimination are practically de rigueur. Fantasy uses of the trope don't always feel like allegories of real-world racism, but often there are at least some parallels. It's sort of hard for me to imagine the genre without those elements. Nearly every series I think of, there's at least a little of it. So ... are there ways to make bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plots/subplots less problematic? Are there optional features that make those plots especially problematic in some cases? Maybe I need to read _The Black Witch_, so I can see how the way the trope is handled there differs from the way it's handled in series that haven't drawn criticism.

Anyway, I hope this thread hasn't petered out. I'm really curious about this.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Thinking about _American Heart_ and _The Black Witch_ together ... they share a white/allegorically white character who begins the novel in as a bigot and ostensibly progresses toward a more enlightened outlook. My impression is that the authors spend a good chunk of each novel establishing the MC as bigoted so that her enlightenment will be notable and meaningful. I'm assuming the idea is that once the MC becomes more enlightened, the reader will dismiss the MC's initial bigotry. The author has her say/do these things merely to establish her horrible problem. The reader is not meant to see any advocacy of bigotry in these books.
> 
> But the message I'm putting together from some of the reviews I've read, and especially from Laurie Forest's review of _The Black Witch_, is that the real-world, pragmatic effect of the bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plot is that readers of color and those belonging to other minority groups have to spend the bulk of a book being bombarded with bigotry. The fact that the bigotry is being presented as wrong and bad and something the MC must overcome doesn't really sap its power to wound. It's still grueling to slog through it. Forest articulates the idea most clearly here:
> 
> ...


There is so much to untangle here. There is a difference between a white savior narrative and a bigot redemption arc. Dances with Wolves and Dangerous Minds are white savior narratives. White person shows up, goes native, saves the minorities, everyone cheers. Bigot redemption arcs are like American History X and Enemy Mine. I don't think bigot redemption arcs are inherently problematic. Characters having false beliefs and then learning they were wrong is almost a universal in the way we tell stories. White savior stories on the other hand are built off of white supremacy. They are popular due to a belief white people shouldn't have to empathize with non-white protagonists. And almost always the white person saves the day _by being the best minority in the story._ Of course Tom Cruise becomes the best samurai in a 30 minute montage. He's white. Of course a guy can show up on an alien planet and be a better Na'vi than the Na'vi, he's white. It's an insulting, unrealistic and irritating trope and it's like half the stories we tell about minorities.

But the most important thing you need to understand about the Black Witch before we discuss how these trope play out in the book is that it's a terrible book. Can I call her a white savior? No, cause she doesn't really save anyone. Can I call it a bigot redemption story? No, cause it ends in her in a Nazi armband wearing a slave labor silk gown and trying to decide which boy to take to the ball--the handsome rapey Nazi or the sexy aloof Muslim anti-christ. She spends most of her time cooing over these boys and all the rape, mutilation, abuse and oppression happening to minorities all around her is just background noise. Sure baby Muslims are getting their wings ripped off but the real crime is the rapey Nazi didn't notice her new dress. Yes, the writing is so bad that trying to have a serious debate about the themes is almost laughable.

I think the major crime of The Black Witch is the protagonist's habit of equating the horrible things being done by her people to her own suffering. Her own suffering being that minorities are mean to her because she possibly has the power to destroy them all like her grandmother almost did. I see a lot of those false equivalences going on today. "My people are making plans to wipe you and your people from the planet, one of the colored servants tripped me when I went into the kitchen. See, we all have problems." And yeah, she makes these same stupid equivalences for the entire book.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Thinking about _American Heart_ and _The Black Witch_ together ... they share a white/allegorically white character who begins the novel in as a bigot and ostensibly progresses toward a more enlightened outlook. My impression is that the authors spend a good chunk of each novel establishing the MC as bigoted so that her enlightenment will be notable and meaningful. I'm assuming the idea is that once the MC becomes more enlightened, the reader will dismiss the MC's initial bigotry. The author has her say/do these things merely to establish her horrible problem. The reader is not meant to see any advocacy of bigotry in these books.
> 
> But the message I'm putting together from some of the reviews I've read, and especially from Laurie Forest's review of _The Black Witch_, is that the real-world, pragmatic effect of the bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plot is that readers of color and those belonging to other minority groups have to spend the bulk of a book being bombarded with bigotry. The fact that the bigotry is being presented as wrong and bad and something the MC must overcome doesn't really sap its power to wound. It's still grueling to slog through it. Forest articulates the idea most clearly here:
> 
> ...


I like the you thought this out Becca. I'm not familiar with fantasy so I don't know how the tropes are handled in books that aren't n controversial. But like you I for research purposes I'm planning to read some of the books that caused a stir this year.

One of the questions I have when this happens is if the author has responded better, been more receptive to the criticism, would the responses have been different?

So, instead of jumping on FB and ranting to followers about being attacked but acknowledging the flaws in the book. Would the issue have gotten so big?


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> Thinking about _American Heart_ and _The Black Witch_ together ... they share a white/allegorically white character who begins the novel in as a bigot and ostensibly progresses toward a more enlightened outlook. My impression is that the authors spend a good chunk of each novel establishing the MC as bigoted so that her enlightenment will be notable and meaningful. I'm assuming the idea is that once the MC becomes more enlightened, the reader will dismiss the MC's initial bigotry. The author has her say/do these things merely to establish her horrible problem. The reader is not meant to see any advocacy of bigotry in these books.
> 
> But the message I'm putting together from some of the reviews I've read, and especially from Laurie Forest's review of _The Black Witch_, is that the real-world, pragmatic effect of the bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plot is that readers of color and those belonging to other minority groups have to spend the bulk of a book being bombarded with bigotry. The fact that the bigotry is being presented as wrong and bad and something the MC must overcome doesn't really sap its power to wound. It's still grueling to slog through it. Forest articulates the idea most clearly here:
> 
> ...


Not every book is for every reader. If you're sensitive to content in a particular book or film, don't watch it or stop watching it.

All I can think about reading this is one of my favorite films, American History X and Derek Vineyard's journey into white supremacy, and his journey back out. Undoubtedly one of the most powerful films of all time. If you get the Blueray you'll see on the cover it says WARNING ADULT THEMES among other things. That's advice for anyone who might be offended / disturbed by such content to not watch it.

Where this leaves the bigot-to-englightment plot is that it is to be experienced by those who aren't bothered by the disturbing content.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> Thinking about _American Heart_ and _The Black Witch_ together ... they share a white/allegorically white character who begins the novel in as a bigot and ostensibly progresses toward a more enlightened outlook. My impression is that the authors spend a good chunk of each novel establishing the MC as bigoted so that her enlightenment will be notable and meaningful. I'm assuming the idea is that once the MC becomes more enlightened, the reader will dismiss the MC's initial bigotry. The author has her say/do these things merely to establish her horrible problem. The reader is not meant to see any advocacy of bigotry in these books.
> 
> But the message I'm putting together from some of the reviews I've read, and especially from Laurie Forest's review of _The Black Witch_, is that the real-world, pragmatic effect of the bigot-progresses-to-enlightenment plot is that readers of color and those belonging to other minority groups have to spend the bulk of a book being bombarded with bigotry. The fact that the bigotry is being presented as wrong and bad and something the MC must overcome doesn't really sap its power to wound. It's still grueling to slog through it. Forest articulates the idea most clearly here:
> 
> ...


It's more than just slogging, from what I understood reading these reviews and following the people talking about these books. It's that not only is the bigot's journey the center of the novel(s), it is that the minorities exist to help that person's personhood and teach them warm, valuable lessons about treating other people like people, while meanwhile those minorities themselves are object lessons and plot points thinly disguised with stereotype to represent their supposed identities. So imagine reading hundreds of pages where a caricature of your culture/religion/etc is presented as the benign teacher whose entire existence (and usually some kind of acute suffering, sometimes at the hands of the very person they are supposedly helping learn to be a basic level of decent human) is to teach the white person how to not be a trash human.

Who wouldn't get tired of that? Who wouldn't get tired of the only people you see who look like you in movies, books, games etc being stereotypes or villains or criminals etc...?

Work doesn't exist in a vacuum where no other parts of life or history influence that work or how it is received, including the history and experiences that each reader personally brings to it when they are reading a work. Keeping that in mind when you are writing isn't being politically correct, it's being a good writer who is thinking in deep and nuanced and complex ways about their craft, their voice and message (and if you think your fiction doesn't have some kind of message, you are fooling yourself, we all bring parts of our belief systems and knowledge to every story we tell), and their story. Sometimes that means you have to take a hard look at your ideas and ask yourself "is this my story to tell? Who does this affect? What am I trying to say? How do I make sure these characters come alive on the page and how do I write with respect and care for my potential audience?"

If these are not things you think about and not questions you want to consider, the good news for you is... you don't have to. For all the talk of a mob, I've never seen a career ruined by being called out. We are free to write whatever we want to write. Just accept that readers are free to hate what you write or to not read it at all. But in the end, you can do whatever you want. There is no spoon.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Not every book is for every reader. If you're sensitive to content in a particular book or film, don't watch it or stop watching it.
> 
> All I can think about reading this is one of my favorite films, American History X and Derek Vineyard's journey into white supremacy, and his journey back out. Undoubtedly one of the most powerful films of all time. If you get the Blueray you'll see on the cover it says WARNING ADULT THEMES among other things. That's advice for anyone who might be offended / disturbed by such content to not watch it.
> 
> Where this leaves the bigot-to-englightment plot is that it is to be experienced by those who aren't bothered by the disturbing content.


Unfortunately, the books we're discussing are directed towards our children.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Unfortunately, the books we're discussing are directed towards our children.


Oh so is that the issue - adult themes in children's books?


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Oh so is that the issue - adult themes in children's books?


Grossly handled adult themes in children's books. I'd rather a teen watch American History X, curb stomping and all than read the Black Witch.

If I'd read that book as a teen, I probably would have been too scared to go to college. I would have been like, "If ya'll really as bad as that white lady say ya'll are, I think I'm gonna stay put."


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

American History X also was as much about what happens after the white guy has made the journey towards caring for other people and seeing them as people, and his journey to try to redeem himself and save others from making his mistakes. It doesn't have the same kind of narrative if you dig down into it.  Also American History X didn't shy away from facing America's deep problems with racism head on, which is one of the things that made it groundbreaking since even now (you can see it in this thread even) people want to pretend that because slavery ended in 1865 everything is just fine and all distant history.

Also, again... any one of these books on its own wouldn't be the worst thing ever but part of the reason people are angry is because this kind of repeated narrative and cardboard stereotyped characters are so common that another one just adds to the pile, reinforcing real life harmful views that affect real people.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Annie B said:


> Work doesn't exist in a vacuum where no other parts of life or history influence that work or how it is received, including the history and experiences that each reader personally brings to it when they are reading a work. Keeping that in mind when you are writing isn't being politically correct, it's being a good writer who is thinking in deep and nuanced and complex ways about their craft, their voice and message (and if you think your fiction doesn't have some kind of message, you are fooling yourself, we all bring parts of our belief systems and knowledge to every story we tell), and their story. Sometimes that means you have to take a hard look at your ideas and ask yourself "is this my story to tell? Who does this affect? What am I trying to say? How do I make sure these characters come alive on the page and how do I write with respect and care for my potential audience?"


I think writers/creators need to explore this more deeply. I believe this helps people grow as writers. Not every story that pops onto your head is your story to tell.

This discussion made me think about on of my stories and the representation of a gay character. The character in my story dies and it never occurred to me that this might be a trope that the LGBT+ community is tried of seeing. I don't want to erase the character and want him in the story. He doesn't have to die and he won't now. This discussion made me realize that I was blindly following in the footsteps as other writers and killing off a gay character and using him as plot device.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Grossly handled adult themes in children's books. I'd rather a teen watch American History X, curb stomping and all than read the Black Witch.
> 
> If I'd read that book as a teen, I probably would have been too scared to go to college. I would have been like, "If ya'll really as bad as that white lady say ya'll are, I think I'm gonna stay put."


My apologies I'm not familiar with that book. Obviously, a book can be racist and offensive - what I take issue with is the bigot-to-enlightenment plot being fundamentally racist and offensive. Sounded like Becca Mills was making a case for it.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> My apologies I'm not familiar with that book. Obviously, a book can be racist and offensive - what I take issue with is the bigot-to-enlightenment plot being fundamentally racist and offensive. Sounded like Becca Mills was making a case for it.


To me it sounded like she was trying to understand the objection to the book without knowing it's content and thus assumed it had a bigot-to-enlightenment plot considering that's what the people making the money claim. But it doesn't. She never gets enlightened, it just ends. In an actual bigot-to-enlightenment plot the character begins to suffer for their beliefs early on so it's not nearly as trigger what happens in the Black Witch, who never changes and is constantly rewarded for acting and thinking like a bigot.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Monie said:


> I think writers/creators need to explore this more deeply. I believe this helps people grow as writers. Not every story that pops onto your head is your story to tell.
> 
> This discussion made me think about on of my stories and the representation of a gay character. The character in my story dies and it never occurred to me that this might be a trope that the LGBT+ community is tried of seeing. I don't want to erase the character and want him in the story. He doesn't have to die and he won't now. This discussion made me realize that I was blindly following in the footsteps as other writers and killing off a gay character and using him as plot device.


To make another point... you can kill a gay character. The issue is that if that's the only gay character in your books... then it becomes that trope and you will probably get eye-rolls at the least and people just noping out and reading something else. Representation matters. The more we have of diverse types of characters, the less power we give to any one harmful trope being included.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> My apologies I'm not familiar with that book. Obviously, a book can be racist and offensive - what I take issue with is the bigot-to-enlightenment plot being fundamentally racist and offensive. Sounded like Becca Mills was making a case for it.


I didn't get that from Becca's post. I got get questioning a popular storyline in fantasy (bigotry to enlighten) and what made some more offensive than other.

Why is The Black Witch more offensive than any other bigotry-to-enlighten fantasy novel? Did the author just take the idea too far? Was she just not talented enough to handle the subject matter?

There are dozens of questions that can be asked and explored in this topic. I'm actually curious, about it myself. The good thing about the internet is that you can track down well written reviews that will explain the issues the reviewer had with a book. You can read the book and then judge for yourself.

Exercises like this could be an excellent way for one to expand their craft and learn more about a genre. There is no reason to only study what is selling or considered the gold standard of the genre. It's also good to find out what didn't work, what was controversial and why.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Annie B said:


> To make another point... you can kill a gay character. The issue is that if that's the only gay character in your books... then it becomes that trope and you will probably get eye-rolls at the least and people just noping out and reading something else. Representation matters. The more we have of diverse types of characters, the less power we give to any one harmful trope being included.


Oh and it's important to kill the gay character moments after resolving their romantic subplot because that's what makes it extra tragic. *shakes fist at show she won't name due to spoilers*


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh and it's important to kill the gay character moments after resolving their romantic subplot because that's what makes it extra tragic. *shakes fist at show she won't name due to spoilers*


Yeah. That show


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Annie B said:


> To make another point... you can kill a gay character. The issue is that if that's the only gay character in your books... then it becomes that trope and you will probably get eye-rolls at the least and people just noping out and reading something else. Representation matters. The more we have of diverse types of characters, the less power we give to any one harmful trope being included.


I did this and didn't even realize I was doing it. I know how I responded/feel about the typical sassy black chick character in the writing of others. And try to avoid making that same mistake when creating characters in my own stories. That's why these discussions are important.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> So writers can't use their imagination.


Okay, let's stop making terribly transparent strawman arguments. Unless you honestly can't tell the difference between lying about who you are and 'imagination'.



> I'm sure J K Rowling doesn't know what it's like to be a boy wizard.
> Any writer not writing a memoir is violating this ludicrous rule.


Okay so you can't.

Rowling is not telling a story about 'what it's like' to be a boy wizard, she's telling the story of a specific person's journey.

The difference is that her intention isn't to say 'THIS IS HOW TYPICAL LIFE FOR BOY WIZARDS IS'.

In fact, it's the furthest thing from it because she goes out of her way to say how special Harry (and probably Neville) are as individuals every chapter.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh and it's important to kill the gay character moments after resolving their romantic subplot because that's what makes it extra tragic. *shakes fist at show she won't name due to spoilers*


God I hate that trope.

It's not just gay characters. A lot of writers are so terrified of writing realized couples and so obsessed with manipulating the audience with lazy deaths, there's like a 60% chance any couple who gets together in non-Romance fiction will be torn asunder by terrible writing very, very soon and most of the time it's by death.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh and it's important to kill the gay character moments after resolving their romantic subplot because that's what makes it extra tragic. *shakes fist at show she won't name due to spoilers*


I'm going to have to pay closer attention, I've never notice this. I couldn't do this to gay or straight characters. I'm a sucker for romantic happily ever afters and could bring myself to build a relationship just to kill someone off.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Annie B said:


> To make another point... you can kill a gay character. The issue is that if that's the only gay character in your books... then it becomes that trope and you will probably get eye-rolls at the least and people just noping out and reading something else. Representation matters. The more we have of diverse types of characters, the less power we give to any one harmful trope being included.


Exactly. What people often don't grasp is that none of us are arguing that gay characters or black characters or other marginalized characters should be off limits, that you can never kill them or make them the villains or whatever. We're simply saying that none of us create fiction in a vacuum. Whatever we create becomes part of the over all patterns that make up entertainment in general. While of course we can only be responsible for our own books, for what we write ourselves, that doesn't change the fact that for readers, there will always be a context beyond our one individual book, that the book we wrote will never be the only book a reader reads, and thus it and all the ideas and events contained it will coexist with the ideas and events contained in everything else a reader reads. Like it or not, that's just reality.

So killing off a gay character in a book is never about just killing off one gay character, even if that's the way you wrote it (the generic you, since obviously I don't mean you Annie, lol, I'm just adding on here). It can't be, not when so many other mainstream books, shows and movies are filled with other gay characters being killed off as well. Now, is that entirely fair, that you can't write your story the way you feel it needs to be written, without it being compared to all these other books and shows and judged in part for what they did? Irrelevant. It's not about what's fair or not. It's about: this is the way it is, now what are you going to do about it?

To be clear, I'm bisexual and its not like I can't appreciate an emotionally compelling, well-written death arc for a gay character. Just like I'm white, and I can appreciate all that with a white character. But as a reader or a viewer, there's never anything getting in the way of me appreciating a white character being killed off for story reasons, because there are a million other white characters who don't get killed off in comparison. It's a drop in the bucket. No matter how much I loved that one particular white character who got killed off, it doesn't say anything to me other than 'this character died.' And I can't say the same with gay characters, because its not the same. Because in so much of the content I read and watch on TV, I see gay characters (often the only ones to appear) killed off, and its tiring. No matter how well-written an individual death scene is, my reaction to how well executed that scene is gets buried under my more immediate, primal reaction of 'why did it have to be yet another gay character, why can't I ever find gay characters getting a happy ending on these shows?' The part of me that looks for gay characters to relate to in whatever I'm watching or reading, that wants to see that part of me represented, will always override the part of me that can appreciate a well-written death regardless of who it is, because that first part of me is just a lot more....hungry, I suppose you could say, than the second part of me is.

Obviously, as writers, we can't do anything about the greater patterns that exist in media outside of our own work. But we can be aware of them. We can look at and acknowledge broader trends when it comes to how marginalized characters are depicted and utilized in most mainstream works of fiction. And we can take this into account when crafting our own fiction. As Annie said, killing off a gay character is a lot easier for readers to take when its not the only gay character. When its the only one, its just one more data point in a pattern of gay characters dying. When its one gay character in a book with several others who have totally different stories, happy endings, etc, that one data point is suddenly in a pattern of its own, a pattern of how you, the individual author, depicts and utilizes multiple gay characters in your works of fiction. And that changes everything, because suddenly, for your readers, that one dead gay character now coexists more immediately with other gay characters who live....instead of only coexisting with multiple dead gay characters from all sorts of other books and TV shows that reader is aware of.

Lastly, something else to consider is when killing off a marginalized character or making them the villain or something like that, you could also just make sure to stop and ask yourself: why? Why this character, in this role? How many people are aware of the black man dies first trope? The tendency in films for the one black character in an ensemble cast to be the first to be killed off. It's a pattern. It's definitely a thing people have noted time and again in mainstream media. But its not because anyone thinks that countless white screenwriters over the years have all sat down with the intention of killing their black characters specifically. It happens because every character we write fills a role, and as writers, we often default to giving the characters we relate to most, that feel most like us when writing, the 'juiciest' roles. And as such, most films written by straight white writers inevitably feature the straight white characters being the ones to save the day, get a happy ending, etc. And by extension, even writers who set out to make their casts more diverse fall into the trap of assigning the less desirable roles to the characters that are least like them. And so its their black characters, their gay characters, their disabled characters who often end up being the villain or his henchmen, the hero's sidekick, the rival love interest, the tragic death that motivates the hero to action.

So if you notice you've assigned the role of 'tragic death' to the one gay character in your ensemble, take a beat and just ask yourself....is there actually a reason I did that, that it HAS to be that character? No one else can fill that role, there's no other role I can see for them?

As writers, whether we're pantsers or plotters, how we tell a story, what we consider to be compelling and resonant, all that is largely driven by our instincts. We can't do anything about that, we can't write a story any other way than how we feel it should be written.

What we can do, however, is keep an eye out for whether our instincts are being driven by an urge to reflect the world around us, or by an urge to reflect the world we've seen in all the classic books and shows we were raised on....books and shows that almost universally prioritized straight white characters and ingrained in us patterns to do the same.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

*slow clap for Kalen*


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Annie B said:


> *slow clap for Kalen*


Seconded.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Becca Mills said:


> When I first read Forest's review, my reaction was pretty much, "Of course bad characters say and do bad things. How can you put bad/flawed people in your books if you can't have them say and do bad things, included bigoted things?" It just didn't make sense to me as a critique.
> 
> But now that I've thought about it for a bit, and in the context of this thread, her point has sunk in and makes more sense. I'm imagining slogging through page after page of an MC being a bigot.


This is the point I made early on in this thread. I abandoned Thornbirds because of the racism building up and the final straw was an Italian business owner being beaten up by I think Irish thugs. Redeeming a bigot is very hard to write well because the author has to find ways to make clear that the racism is not being supported by her. A friend of mine has a common line "prefer incompetence over malice when assessing a situation." American Heart appears to be an incompetent way of writing a bigot redemption and the incompetent editing should be no surprise as trade publishing is very light touch on editing all but the hoped for bestsellers nowadays. I have abandoned books after a few pages of racist internal dialogue by the main character. I guessed that a redemption would arrive, but I did not hang about to find out as the author was not using anything to balance the bigotry.

This is not just about colour: I abandoned a book by a British politician that was dealing in anti-Irish tropes. The author claims to have been raised in a similar community, but I still had no intention of continuing to read. I do not think it was a racist book, but the author made poor judgements in how she told the story.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Annie B said:


> *slow clap for Kalen*


*joins*


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, let's stop making terribly transparent strawman arguments. Unless you honestly can't tell the difference between lying about who you are and 'imagination'.
> Okay so you can't.
> 
> *Rowling is not telling a story about 'what it's like' to be a boy wizard, she's telling the story of a specific person's journey.
> ...


It seems like you just invalidated your entire argument.

None of the book examples given (including the book that sparked this debate) are from _'typical life of X stories'_. 
I'd argue the vast majority of books written aren't meant to be _'what it's like to be X'_, but are in fact, _'the telling of a story of a specific person's journey'_

The book in question isn't about 'the typical life of a Muslim woman' or even 'the typical life of a sheltered, White teen'. This book is about two characters meeting. The writer is (regardless of how hamfisted) _telling the story of a specific person's journey_ towards 'enlightenment'. (Enlightenment is in quotes because I understand it's a debatable point)

If your grievance is with writers who create stories about _'what it's like to be X'_ rather than writers who _'tell the story of a specific person's journey'_ then you'll have to save your outrage for a very small minority of books.  In fact, you shouldn't even have any grievances with this book according to your own definitions. 

ETA:
The more I think of it, the harder it is to fathom a book that insinuates that it is a story of what it's like to be a typical person X. No one has the authority to claim what it's like to be X and I don't think may writers are even making that claim or even attempting it in practice.

I can write a book about a Muslim woman. But what is it like to be a Muslim woman? What is the typical life of a Muslim woman? There's hundreds of ways to write that and each way is flavored by a hundred more reasons. It ultimately is going to be 'telling the story of a specific person's journey' no matter what I do because, 'this is how the typical life of a Muslim is' is impossible due to there being thousands of variations.

There are a thousand different ways to be a Muslim woman. Even a stereotypical way is a valid way. I can write a book about the stereotypical Muslim woman victim trope, but that's still a valid story. It's still a true and real experience for millions of Muslim women. The same as if I wrote a Muslim woman as empowered. That, too, is a valid story and the real experience of millions of Muslim women.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> Dances with Wolves and Dangerous Minds are white savior narratives. White person shows up, goes native, saves the minorities, everyone cheers.


If Dances with Wolves is being categorized as _"a white savior narrative"_, it's clear evidence of the concept being applied so reductionistically that the concept itself loses its value. There's nothing about the movie Dances With Wolves that suggests the Native Americans were being portrayed as inferior or incapable of helping themselves, or that they _needed_ his help, and absolutely nothing about Dunbar's characterization to suggest this was his posture in the story.

If anything, the movie could much more forcefully be described as a _"red savior narrative"_ in that it was the Native Americans that in fact saved Dunbar's personhood. 

For the record, I'm confident there *are *stories that epitomize the _actual_ definition of a white savior story. By the sounds of it, the book in question probably fits the bill. But extending that to any or every movie that involves a person from a different culture playing some role in assisting another is such an incredibly superficial application of the concept that it, in fact, does harm to identifying and combating the _actual_ white savior stories.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I've just read the Justina Ireland review which is the top-rated one on Goodreads. That review shows the danger of jumping on the this is racist bandwagon without doing your research. Justina dismisses the premise of internment camps in Nevada, a dismisal of American history deeply hurtful to Japanese Americans, who were plucked from West Coast rural lives just before the strawberry harvest was due and sent to camps in the desert. There were no internment camps in Nevada, but Manzanar Camp is at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Manzanar is now a National Historic Site designed to preserve the memory of the horrors visited by Americans on fellow Americans. It has a daughter site on Bainbridge Island (off Seattle) The Japanese American Exclusion Memorial, which marks the pier from which the first Japanese Americans were sent off to concentration camps.

If I am allowed to wander into politics at least two US politicians in recent years have made comments along the lines of "If it was okay to lock up the Japanese, why not the [insert hated group]." The two incidents I am thinking of was aimed at interning transsexuals (circa 2014) and Muslims (circa 2016). This is not a preposterous premise from a poor novelist, it is something that politicians still call for, despite the Federal government apologising for internment 30 years ago and saying that Americans would never do this to Americans again. The Japanese slogan for the Exclusion Memorial is a rendering of "may it never happen again" into the language of the victims: Nidoto Nai Yoni.

On the white saviour/ally front when the government came for Seattle's Japanese community (as depicted in Jamie Ford's YA-type novel Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet) the Japanese Baptist Church was pastored by a white American. Emery Andrews organised for internees to be able to store their possessions inside the church and then he moved to Idaho to be near the Minidoka Camp his congregation were imprisoned in.

However you feel about American Heart be careful how you express yourself as you are in danger of following Justina and treading on the suffering of the Japanese American community. Other reviewers mocked a scene where a Muslim with a cello did not want to be interned because his mother was ill. That could have been lifted directly from witness accounts of Japanese American internment in 1942. The top-rated Muslim review ridicules the notion that the protagonist might have been interned by mistake. This happened in 1942.

Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial
Manzanar National Historic Site
Emery Andrews
Strawberry Days: How Internment Destroyed a Japanese American Community


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Monie said:


> Your study didn't contradict what I said. I said that first generation immigrants are normally more educated than the population of the country they immigrate too. I also said that educated people "pass on" their value of education to their children. Your study proves that second generation children are more educated than their parents. The same thing can be said with wealth especially since wealth is generational and has a compounding effect (if handled properly).


Chapter 2 shows that first-generation immigrants, on average, are less educated than the white population and that second-generation immigrants, on average, are more educated. Yes, Asians come more educated than other immigrants and more than the general population. But their education levels still go up in the second generation. So it's not exclusively a matter of educated parents making educated kids because the total number increases in the second generation.

College enrollment figures showing the disproportionate numbers of Asians and the other groups I mentioned are well known and all of this is published online by the universities themselves. The fact that their proportions are increasing over whites is also well known and publicly available information.

But all this is losing the point. People were claiming that the U.S. is racist society that privileges whites. At the same time, however, American society has not held back people from the groups I mentioned, who are, on average, wealthier and more educated than whites and the gap between them and whites is growing. None of this shows that racism doesn't exist. It does show that racism has not prevented some groups--and not just members of groups, but whole groups--from becoming wealthier and better educated than white Americans.



HopelessFanatic said:


> Do you really think that white people are the only ones who have spoken up, either in this thread or elsewhere? That only white people are up in arms, one starring the book and calling it racist?
> 
> And I haven't seen a single person in this thread that said the Kirkus review should have been removed, nor dismissing it as invalid because obviously the reviewer was wrong.


Annie says she cited two Muslim reviewers. She probably did, but I could only find one. That reviewer's racism complaint was that the character did not, in her view, grow out of the racism in the end and the reviewer judged the book a failure. But she said nothing about white saviour narratives, appropriating the experiences or POV of Muslims, or that the author should not have written about the subject. All these complaints came from white reviewers and white contributors to this thread. These same people all ignored and thus dismissed, directly or indirectly, the Muslim reviewer from Kirkus who rated the book positively.

There's nothing wrong with agreeing with one review and not another. But you can't claim to be rallying behind Muslims against this book when you pick some Muslims--the ones you agree with--and ignore the ones you don't, and then tack onto the indictment all your own criticisms, as though they were part of the Muslim POV of the book. All you're doing is allying with a subset of POCs you agree with (or using them to add authority to the conclusion you already reached) and calling it "allying with POCs."

Look at the takeaway for the Kirkus reviewer reading this thread: The white people here are telling her that her positive, non-offended view doesn't matter because they, the white people, have found a Muslim who sees things the right way. That's hard to take as an individual. But it gets the worse. The white people also insist that they're allying with and behind the Muslim POV of the book. So they, the white people, have determined what the Muslim POV is, and you, Muslim lady, aren't part of it.



> And just looking at this thread, so many are anonymous, how do you even know who is white and who isn't?


I asked directly early on and indirectly in every post. Anyone could have volunteered that they represented the Muslim POV. No one did.



> I haven't seen anyone say that every single POC thinks this book is racist. Claiming that this whole thing is white people speaking over POC and telling them how to feel, rather than what POC actually feel, dismisses the words of every non-white person that has spoken, here or elsewhere.


You constructed a strawman that's actually accurate. People are offering an official "POC POV" on this book. But they have the inconvenient problem that at least one POC, the Kirkus reviewer, does not share it. So what did the white people do in the name of protecting POCs? They voted the non-conforming POC off POC island. Everything's nice and tidy now. Everything's as it should be.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> It's possible to care about more than one problem. When people are shot outside of mosques or beaten in the street for wearing a hijab, I doubt being a doctor or an engineer gives them much comfort.


People being shot outside of mosques or being beaten for wearing a hijab are examples where narrow-minded human beings have bought into the "difference" narrative hook, line and sinker and taken it to an extreme end. That's just as the plutocrats would have it.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Monique said:


> Do you really think racism isn't a problem? That everyone who feels it is and is pointing it out is part of some secret agenda to deny that there are also other problems like economic ones? The world has oodles of problems. Racism and economic despair or two of them.


Of course racism is a problem. An invented problem. Race has no scientific basis in reality. It's an invention meant to distract, divide and conquer - and the worst part is, it's working.

Racism is a problem because it's been so bought into. It's a problem whose flames are stoked by the economically privileged to ensure the economically disadvantaged continue to sub-divide and fight one another along those manufactured lines rather than tackle the larger problem that actually unites them all, that being economic disparity and market violence inflicted by the ruling class.

We are one race. **** sapiens sapiens. The idea of biological race is a cultural invention and one that has not served us well.


----------



## eleutheria (Mar 25, 2014)

I usually see political posts on this forum deleted or edited pretty quickly, but I see a lot of posts here that don't even discuss the book or writing - they are purely political. Is there a reason this thread is getting special treatment?


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> Oh and it's important to kill the gay character moments after resolving their romantic subplot because that's what makes it extra tragic. *shakes fist at show she won't name due to spoilers*


How could you spoil it when it's like dozens of shows?


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> I'm imagining slogging through page after page of an MC being a bigot. Say, hundreds of pages of that. I'm imagining someone who regularly experiences bigotry directed at themself reading all that. Maybe the book frequently reminds such readers of real-life experiences of discrimination they've had. Then, at the end, the MC sees the error of her ways. Maybe that change is skillfully handled and feels real and earned. Maybe it's poorly handled and feels tacked on and unconvincing. Either way, would the change at the end be enough to mitigate the impact of the hundreds of pages of bigotry that preceded it? Or would it feel more like a scale that had a ton of horrible stuff on one side and a couple teaspoons of better stuff on the other? The good stuff wouldn't _erase_ the experience of all the bad stuff. It has to outweigh it somehow, or alter the remembered experience of having read it. The MC's change has to make the reader feel it was worth it to slog through all that yucky material and whatever personal memories it raised. And maybe it just wouldn't. Maybe the reaction would be that seeing a repellent character become a little less of a heel really is not enough to make it worthwhile wading through their pre-change bigotry.


No. That is too little too late, even for adult readers with the emotional fortitude to sort through such ugliness. Literature for young adults carries a much bigger responsibility: it promises to educate without lying. Early in the story, if not from the outset, there *must* be another character from the "privileged" class to counterbalance the MC's ignorance/arrogance/blindness.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I've just read the Justina Ireland review which is the top-rated one on Goodreads. That review shows the danger of jumping on the this is racist bandwagon without doing your research. Justina dismisses the premise of internment camps in Nevada, a dismisal of American history deeply hurtful to Japanese Americans, who were plucked from West Coast rural lives just before the strawberry harvest was due and sent to camps in the desert. There were no internment camps in Nevada, but Manzanar Camp is at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Manzanar is now a National Historic Site designed to preserve the memory of the horrors visited by Americans on fellow Americans. It has a daughter site on Bainbridge Island (off Seattle) The Japanese American Exclusion Memorial, which marks the pier from which the first Japanese Americans were sent off to concentration camps.
> 
> If I am allowed to wander into politics at least two US politicians in recent years have made comments along the lines of "If it was okay to lock up the Japanese, why not the [insert hated group]." The two incidents I am thinking of was aimed at interning transsexuals (circa 2014) and Muslims (circa 2016). This is not a preposterous premise from a poor novelist, it is something that politicians still call for, despite the Federal government apologising for internment 30 years ago and saying that Americans would never do this to Americans again. The Japanese slogan for the Exclusion Memorial is a rendering of "may it never happen again" into the language of the victims: Nidoto Nai Yoni.
> 
> ...


Thank you, this has been my point exactly. This book could very well be pointing out the dangers of racism & be meant as a warning not to let history repeat itself. But b/c the narrator- who could be used as a device to show the racism rampant in America & why it's dangerous/harmful to certain groups- thinks/says some racist stuff, people are refusing to read it & warning others not to read it. They're acting like this type of thinking or treatment against certain groups doesn't happen, or if it does happen then it's so bad to even read about or think about.

I have no problem with critical reviews talking about whether this book did a good job of telling a story and/or expressing its points etc. I appreciate the reasoned critiques of Becca & others about their thoughts on this book. But what I have a problem with is the attitude that b/c someone thinks something doesn't happen any more or shouldn't happen then that's a good reason to say a book is racist/harmful. It may very well be that the book is trying to address this racism & xenophobia that still very much does happen & did happen to Japenese Americans & now the new group to view as dangerous is Muslim so it's really not that far of a stretch to see how it could happen again. I feel that the very people who should be applauding this book are attacking it, which is a strange paradox to me.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

eleutheria said:


> I usually see political posts on this forum deleted or edited pretty quickly, but I see a lot of posts here that don't even discuss the book or writing - they are purely political. Is there a reason this thread is getting special treatment?


Note that discussions of societal issues as they relate to writing are appropriate as long as they deal with generalities. I agree it's a fine line sometimes. If you see posts that are purely political or that you think are inappropriate to the thread, please report them so we can review them. If you would like to discuss our moderation policies further, please start a thread in the Suggestions and Comments forum so as to not derail this thread, thanks. (http://www.kboards.com/index.php/board,12.0.html)

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## The Wyoming Kid (Jun 18, 2017)

Monique said:


> This is quite a leap; I actually pulled something just reading it.
> 
> It's not censorship. You're implying the secret motive isn't personal criticism of a book (which you seem to want to censor, ironically) to some sort of police state.


Monique, it is definitely censorship. When someone says the central character in a particular book is not written correctly (i.e., along racial or gender lines), and when that someone further says the writer should not have written the book in the first place because he is not of that race or gender (and presumably cannot relate to his character at all), that is censorship.

I'm only trying to say any writer should be able to write anything he/she wants. Period. If someone is "offended" by it for racial or gender reasons -- or for any other reason, for that matter -- that's their right and they have the additional right not to read anything more by this writer. Furthermore, if the writer is really bad at what he/she does, then sales (or lack thereof) will soon reflect it.

Now, I don't want to censor anyone. If someone thinks my books should be burned, well, that just reflects their own twisted mindset, but they still have a right to think it. You can rant all you want about someone's writing -- loud and long -- just like that writer can write anything he/she wants without any collective effort to shut him/her up.

Let 'em write whatever they want and let the books fall where they may. We have no business telling anyone what to write or what not to write.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Monique, it is definitely censorship. When someone says the central character in a particular book is not written correctly (i.e., along racial or gender lines), and when that someone further says the writer should not have written the book in the first place because he is not of that race or gender (and presumably cannot relate to his character at all), that is censorship.
> 
> I'm only trying to say any writer should be able to write anything he/she wants. Period. If someone is "offended" by it for racial or gender reasons -- or for any other reason, for that matter -- that's their right and they have the additional right not to read anything more by this writer. Furthermore, if the writer is really bad at what he/she does, then sales (or lack thereof) will soon reflect it.
> 
> ...


All of that has already been said and dismissed.


----------



## The Wyoming Kid (Jun 18, 2017)

WHDean said:


> Why would anyone assume that an Iranian-born electrical engineer would the foggiest idea of how to hitchhike through the U.S., let alone count it as a mark against an author for not assuming it? Do Iranian engineering schools teach hitchhiking? Second, how would someone who's supposed to be in an internment camp get anywhere without help?


An Iranian EE would quite likely have no idea how to hitchhike across the US. But if some writer wants to put that idea into a book, or any other such lamebrained notions, he/she should be able to do so without anyone saying something "should be done" about it. Don't worry, if the book is that bad, no one will read it anyway.

But the writer should still be able to write it.


----------



## The Wyoming Kid (Jun 18, 2017)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Monique, it is definitely censorship. When someone says the central character in a particular book is not written correctly (i.e., along racial or gender lines), and when that someone further says the writer should not have written the book in the first place because he is not of that race or gender (and presumably cannot relate to his character at all), that is censorship.
> 
> I'm only trying to say any writer should be able to write anything he/she wants. Period. If someone is "offended" by it for racial or gender reasons -- or for any other reason, for that matter -- that's their right and they have the additional right not to read anything more by this writer. Furthermore, if the writer is really bad at what he/she does, then sales (or lack thereof) will soon reflect it.
> 
> ...





Laran Mithras said:


> All of that has already been said and dismissed.


Dismissed? *Dismissed*? Really? By what exalted committee? Which superior people among us have declared this "dismissed" and therefore not worthy of discussion? Please name them and name the authority they hold which entitles them to "dismiss" my thoughts on censorship.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Dismissed? *Dismissed*? Really? By what exalted committee? Which superior people among us have declared this "dismissed" and therefore not worthy of discussion? Please name them and name the authority they hold which entitles them to "dismiss" my thoughts on censorship.


Oh, they'll be along shortly, in all their righteous glory.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Monique, it is definitely censorship. When someone says the central character in a particular book is not written correctly (i.e., along racial or gender lines), and when that someone further says the writer should not have written the book in the first place because he is not of that race or gender (and presumably cannot relate to his character at all), that is censorship.


Someone saying she shouldn't have written the book or the character(s) does not equate to censorship. That is just that person's opinion. I wouldn't even take it to mean that the person wanted the book to be banned or anything. It's more like they thought it wasn't a good idea, was not executed well, and it would have been better for the author's career if she had not written it. I've seen movie reviews say a movie shouldn't have been made because it was such poor quality...is that also censorship?


----------



## The Wyoming Kid (Jun 18, 2017)

Laran Mithras said:


> Oh, they'll be along shortly, in all their righteous glory.


I take that to mean you can't name them, nor can you cite any authority they have to "dismiss" my rather insightful comments on censorship.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> I take that to mean you can't name them, nor can you cite any authority they have to "dismiss" my rather insightful comments on censorship.


I was already dismissed.  I could say a lot more, but if you want to hear it, you can PM me. Let's just say, only one side rules this debate no matter who comes in.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

jaehaerys said:


> Of course racism is a problem. An invented problem. Race has no scientific basis in reality. It's an invention meant to distract, divide and conquer - and the worst part is, it's working.
> 
> Racism is a problem because it's been so bought into. It's a problem whose flames are stoked by the economically privileged to ensure the economically disadvantaged continue to sub-divide and fight one another along those manufactured lines rather than tackle the larger problem that actually unites them all, that being economic disparity and market violence inflicted by the ruling class.
> 
> We are one race. **** sapiens sapiens. The idea of biological race is a cultural invention and one that has not served us well.


I don't know. I think evolutionarily [this probably isn't a word oopsie]/ biologically there is a tendency to group ourselves into different 'tribes,' 'clans,' cultures, groups, what have you. I think it's human nature/animal nature to trust those who are like us/ in our own communities & distrust those who are different from us or who we think could harm our group. However, like everything else, money is the great equalizer or more like inequalizer [also not a word but I'm just plowing through my different thoughts here] & race has been used by those in power [those w/ money] as a tool to divide & conquer.

So I honestly think it's a mix of both: some amount of 'xenophobia' or 'racism' or sexism etc. is going to be inherent in society & it's rather naive to think we can just eradicate it completely [I say this as a woman who of course wishes there was no sexism], but, it's also a good thing to talk about & address & see if we can overcome as much as possible, which I think literature can be a valuable tool in helping people do. I've already said I'm from a rather small, almost completely homogeneous, closed off town where the community is close knit & fearful of others who disagree etc... so my own awakenings & awareness initially happened by reading books. It was my exposure to different ideas & a different world. Even when I left for college & traveled extensively & had my eyes opened to different types of people & cultures than I had ever been exposed to, I still read books that shaped my philosophical beliefs, which have actually changed quite a bit over time & seem to me to be kind of reactionary. I reacted against the stifling forced 'sameness' of my parents & town & religion. But then I reacted against those very same traits that I saw displayed on the other end of the spectrum [or, as some have pointed out, the point at which the two extreme left & right sides seem to merge... w/ group think mob mentality & forced acceptance of any idea the group thinks as moral or right & the vehement suppression or demonizing or shunning of any ideas/people the group think mob mentality believes opposes their own).

Anyway, I shouldn't talk about myself so much but my point is that literature does have the capacity to affect us all differently & to help us think critically about these issues so I never see the point of getting upset about a book & trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't read. If someone 'warns' me against a book then that only means I'm more likely to read it. I'm not a big Hillary fan but those on the right demonized her book so much that I went & bought it to see what all the fuss was about. Likewise I bought Milo's book & Trump's Art of the Deal, because those on the far left equate these things/people with something like the devil incarnate just like those on the far right do about Hillary. My own personal conclusions have been that all three of these people & their ideas do not exemplify ideal characteristics I myself would like to strive for & some things about all of them are just plain despicable. But I don't get how reading what they have to say & forming my own opinions about it could be harmful... & that's w/ non-fiction even, let alone a novel that can & should be completely subjective & open to my own interpretation. If anything I think it helps me, & helps society, more to read anything & everything anyone wants to read or write, but that's just my own personal opinion.

I have strayed away from my original point which was actually supposed to be about your point, sorry. I do think that economic injustice is the one thing that divides us all the most & that almost all of us have nothing compared to the few in power who have everything. In that sense America is becoming like third world countries in terms of unequal distribution of wealth & huge economic disparities. And yes I do agree w/ you that people in power [& other countries/ our "enemies," etc.] use race & pit us against each other. There was just something in the news about how Russia bought Facebook ads in support & against Black Lives Matter... anything they can use to sow seeds of discord & chaos, they do [I personally believe Trump capitalizes on this & that's one reason he's despicable in my opinion]. I found it odd that those on the far left who decry Russian influence at every opportunity are also just as guilty as those on the right as making every little thing about race, & falling for attempts to divide & conquer instead of looking for things that can unite us as Americans. [I know other countries have similar issues so I'm probably being too Ameri-centric but it's just an example. Also I'm not saying it's wrong to point out racism or challenge people on what they say or think... in fact, I'm saying it's the right & good thing to do & that freedom of expression, speech and ideas is very important, but to try to silence those we don't agree with, or shout them down & dehumanize or villify them with cries of 'racist!' 'bigot!' etc. flies directly in the face of that goal & weakens those very same arguments we're trying to make.

So I do believe racism exists but I also believe it's exaggerated in order to divide us. I also really hate the games of 'Oppression Olympics' where people seem to compare who has it worse. In all honesty, human suffering & mistreatment is human suffering & mistreatment & I think it's wrong to dismiss or even patronize one person/group's experiences in favor of another's just b/c someone thinks that person/group is more, or less, 'privileged' than another. There is definitely room to focus on more than one issue but I think economic inequality and lack of economic opportunity are truly things that affect many people equally. It seems nowadays if you say that, people accuse you of being racist b/c you're not caring enough about the plight of a marginalized group by saying 'all who are poor have it bad.' I do care about the plights of marginalized groups but I don't see what I personally am supposed to do about it except accept all people equally. In fact the tone of some in this thread suggests that if I do anything to help then I'm guilty of having a white savior complex... so it's damned if I do, damned if I don't. [I thought someone's comparison to this book's theme & the Underground Railroad in this thread was appropriate. Often it IS those in power who have to help/'save' those not in power b/c... ta da... they are the ones w/ the power & resources to do it. People find it racist that a 15 year old white girl would know how to help a Muslim professor of engineering but that's ignoring the very reality of what those same people are claiming about privilege-- the person with power has the privilege/ability [even if just being one of the ones allowed to be free & not one of the ones being rounded up] to help the person who does not have the power/privilege.]

Note-- Although I treat all people equally-- even someone with the most vile offensive views I could ever think of, to me, they're still a person-- I don't think I have to treat all ideas equally... I personally find Islam to be a distasteful religion but I think the same thing about Christianity & pretty much any organized religion as in my personal opinion religion is also used to divide & conquer & allow those in power to rule over those not in power. If anyone thinks I'm Islamophobic or xenophobic or whatever b/c of that, oh well, sorry for the micro or macro aggression or whatever it is but it's honestly how I think & I'm entitled to my own opinion about religions. I am not trying to suppress their right to believe in it [I'm not going around 1 starring books I disagree w/ or calling for their starred review to be pulled etc.!] but I do disagree w/ their belief & think I have the equal right to say that as they do to practice their religion. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be mean to Christians or mean to Muslims or treat them any way differently than I treat my fellow atheists, or whomever. It just means I disagree w/ their thinking.

I have no issue with anyone's race, ethnicity, etc... to me, I will treat them equally. I will NOT, however, say 'I have a duty to treat this one minority group better than the rest b/c people tell me they are the least privileged ones,' or 'I will demonize/villify the majority group b/c people tell me they are so bad or have more privilege than this other group.' Although I understand the concept of privilege, & get it/agree w/ it to a certain extent, I start down a rabbit hole of absurd non-logic if I start wondering which group is supposed to be more oppressed or have more privilege than the other etc. & I don't think it's a good use of my time or thoughts. I agree w/ you that economic equality is something much more tangible that affects us all & that by going overboard w/ race baiting or taking the bait etc., we can get too easily distracted about things that we can't do much personally to change, other than being decent human beings who treat all people the way we would like to be treated. Often the very ideas of who is more oppressed does really come down to who has more money or resources. Systemic racism/oppression is tied very heavily to economic inequality & economic oppression. So basically I agree w/ most of your post although I do think that racism is a real thing that actually exists.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Monique, it is definitely censorship.


Merriam-Webster called. They want their word back.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

paranormal_kitty said:


> Someone saying she shouldn't have written the book or the character(s) does not equate to censorship. That is just that person's opinion. I wouldn't even take it to mean that the person wanted the book to be banned or anything. It's more like they thought it wasn't a good idea, was not executed well, and it would have been better for the author's career if she had not written it. I've seen movie reviews say a movie shouldn't have been made because it was such poor quality...is that also censorship?


That is an apples & oranges comparison. To say something is bad quality & likely a waste of time/money to create or read or watch etc. is one thing [& completely subjective]. In this case, people have said that this author should not have written this book b/c she is white &/or b/c the main character is white & another character is a member of an oppressed minority group. That is a different thing entirely. That is trying to be the thought police & dictating by mob rule/ 1 stars & complaints to organizations that have the power to recommend the book or not, who can write what or why.

Surely you are able to see the difference in reviews that say 'this author did a crappy job of telling this story & the book is not good quality' & reviews or 'critiques'/comments that say 'this book never should have been written by this author or told in this way b/c RACISM'? That is still a subjective opinion but it's going out of its way to hurt a book solely b/c of its content & quite ironically b/c of the color of the skin of the author/narrator. If that's fair game then no one should complain if white supremacists go one star all the books that a member of a minority group wrote simply b/c they don't think a minority should have told that story or that the character should have been a minority... they think only members of the white race should tell stories from white peoples' perspective only. It is really ludicrous to read defenses of the exact same situation flipped on its head. I know people try to justify it by using words like privilege & oppression but IMO it is wrong to leave a 1 star review just b/c you don't agree with the content/premise of the book, & that principle should be applied unilaterally no matter what the person's objections to the premise are.

Even if someone reads the book just b/c they're intending to disagree w/ it or critique it-- sure, that's relevant, & even interesting, please do. But I have honestly never thought I would see authors justifying 1-star reviews of books by people who simply deem the premise to be against their own beliefs. I am not sure how that is supposed to foster dialogue, respectable behavior, or anything that I would assume authors as a community would want to have as governing tenants for an author community. Apparently, if a book was written by a white woman &/or about a white character, & is about minorities being oppressed, or the character is helping a minority escape persecution, then it's okay to 1 star it w/out reading it just b/c that's supposedly racist. That is on par with a review that says 'I didn't like this book, it wasn't well written, it was bad quality' now. Good to know! Seriously, it is really good to know the values of fellow writers who would undoubtedly hate for the reverse to happen to them.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Who here is saying it's okay to one-star a book they haven't read? People have said that the reviewer has the right to (which they do) but they don't approve nor would they do the same. Is someone here encouraging one-starring of book they haven't read?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Also censorship often butts heads with freedom of speech.

"This book stinks on ice and should never have been written."
"You can't say that; it's censorship!"
"Telling me I can't say that is censorship, too!
Etc.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> My apologies I'm not familiar with that book. Obviously, a book can be racist and offensive - what I take issue with is the bigot-to-enlightenment plot being fundamentally racist and offensive. Sounded like Becca Mills was making a case for it.


Shane, I didn't mean to make that assertion, exactly. My line of thought was more: Some reviewers feel very strongly that _The Black Witch_ is racist. --> Why? Is it because of all the laying out of bigotry involved in developing the redemption-of-a-bigot storyline? --> I can see how reading all that material could be problematic. --> So, if the redemption-of-a-bigot device is the problem, would _all_ redemption-of-a-bigot plots/subplots be deemed offensive? Just some? --> If it's just some, what distinguishes the more problematic from the less so? --> And are more fantasy stories going to prompt this reaction, since various kinds of bigotry are common in the genre?

Sorry, I know that post could've been clearer. I was sort of working out my thoughts as I wrote. And I should've been in bed by then. Not a good recipe for clarity.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Monique said:


> Who here is saying it's okay to one-star a book they haven't read? People have said that the reviewer has the right to (which they do) but they don't approve nor would they do the same. Is someone here encouraging one-starring of book they haven't read?


I have seen it throughout this thread. People have been specifically asked if they think these kind of reviews are okay & they either say yes or they hedge & certainly don't condemn it. Or they've said/implied that in this example it's justified/okay. 1 such example:
QUESTION:


jaehaerys said:


> You don't see a problem with reviewing a book based on its blurb? Seriously? Do you not see the slippery slope here?
> ANSWER:
> 
> 
> ...


I saw other, even more blatant examples & am not meaning to single anyone out as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it's comments like this & others that I don't have time to go back & find & quote, especially b/c I just realized I really suck at being able to figure out how to do multi quote, that give me the impression if not outright confirmation that some authors here think it's okay to 1-star a book they haven't read based on premise alone.


----------



## horst5 (Aug 9, 2013)

No end in sight.
Don't you guys have a book to write, or something?


----------



## AmpersandBookInteriors (Feb 10, 2012)

Wow, all 21 pages of this thread.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Once again, political correctness raises its smeary fist.
> 
> My first instinct on this whole brouhaha is, YA books are read by _*young adults*_. Not exclusively, of course, but young adults are just that: young. This is the very age when uninformed people with not-fully-developed intellects get all snitty about things they perceive as "offensive" and "insensitive". These are the people who are driving the craziness on our college campuses, downgrading the value of a college degree. And this kind of criticism of _American Heart_ -- which I have not read -- will, if it goes unchecked, downgrade the value of literature. I'm sure they would eventually like to see some kind of larger version of the "culture cops" overseeing all writing, ferreting out every "offense", every last word which they see as violating their sanctified standards of "diversity" and "inclusion".
> 
> This is censorship, pure and simple, and it has no place in the arts.


It's not censorship. Trust me, I have a linguistics degree.

Kirkus retracting its review is a case of self-censorship. If the publisher had refused to publish her book, or had insisted that she make significant changes, that would be censorship. What you mention are all examples of criticism. Censorship takes away the opportunity to critique and criticize because the work is no longer available, or no longer available in its intended state.



> Today, it's _American Heart._
> 
> Tomorrow, maybe your books, or mine.


That would be very flattering, but highly unlikely for any books of mine.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I've just read the Justina Ireland review which is the top-rated one on Goodreads. That review shows the danger of jumping on the this is racist bandwagon without doing your research. Justina dismisses the premise of internment camps in Nevada, a dismisal of American history deeply hurtful to Japanese Americans, who were plucked from West Coast rural lives just before the strawberry harvest was due and sent to camps in the desert. There were no internment camps in Nevada, but Manzanar Camp is at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Manzanar is now a National Historic Site designed to preserve the memory of the horrors visited by Americans on fellow Americans. It has a daughter site on Bainbridge Island (off Seattle) The Japanese American Exclusion Memorial, which marks the pier from which the first Japanese Americans were sent off to concentration camps.


I think this is a perfect example of people reading something from a different perspective, because I didn't get that at all from her review. I read it as her pointing out that the world building was lacking. How did it happen? What is the backstory? Is it all Muslims? There are many different races who or Muslim, so how does the government go about rounding them up? I believe this is the part of the review you are referring to:

"As I'm not a Muslim I cannot even get into the book's tired, wrongheaded assumptions about Islam and the terrible worldbuilding of there being a detainment camp out in Nevada where we're going to send all of the Muslims, but let me touch upon what an amazingly, terrible plot hole this entire thing is. Seriously, there is no mention of whether these are only Arab Muslims or Black Muslims as well and how exactly this undertaking was supposed to happen. Do people get sent to the camp if they convert to Islam? How does one identify a Muslim if they don't have a quasi-Arabic sounding name? What about Christian and Jewish Arabs? What about Muslims who have left the faith? What about Christian Africans with Arabic names? How could this round up have been peaceful?"

She then goes on to say:

"And this idea of Muslim interment camps is actually THE MOST COMPELLING PART OF THE BOOK. And yet, we don't get a Muslim narrator living through this experience (which would've made this book 100000% better). Instead we have Sarah-Mary narrating for us. Honestly, it's a bit like having a male character narrate The Handmaid's Tale."

Reading this thread, it really seems like some are incredibly invested in being offended by people who are offended.

As to the other reviewer, she has a quote from the book that says, "I showed up with dark hair and dark eyes, and [my mom] worried people would think I was foreign. For all I know, I might have ended up on the registry, sent off to Nevada by mistake." So, apparently, the government just rounds up dark eyed, dark haired people. That deserves to be mocked.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

horst5 said:


> No end in sight.
> Don't you guys have a book to write, or something?


People are free to discuss what interests them. I really don't understand the point of being judgmental about it. Maybe you would enjoy other threads instead.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Lilpenguin1972 said:


> I think this is a perfect example of people reading something from a different perspective, because I didn't get that at all from her review. I read it as her pointing out that the world building was lacking. How did it happen? What is the backstory? Is it all Muslims? There are many different races who or Muslim, so how does the government go about rounding them up? I believe this is the part of the review you are referring to:
> 
> "As I'm not a Muslim I cannot even get into the book's tired, wrongheaded assumptions about Islam and the terrible worldbuilding of there being a detainment camp out in Nevada where we're going to send all of the Muslims, but let me touch upon what an amazingly, terrible plot hole this entire thing is. Seriously, there is no mention of whether these are only Arab Muslims or Black Muslims as well and how exactly this undertaking was supposed to happen. Do people get sent to the camp if they convert to Islam? How does one identify a Muslim if they don't have a quasi-Arabic sounding name? What about Christian and Jewish Arabs? What about Muslims who have left the faith? What about Christian Africans with Arabic names? How could this round up have been peaceful?"
> 
> ...


You have merely repeated those reviewers' mistakes. Few Americans aware of their own 20th century history could read a story about Muslim internment camps in the desert without linking it to the Japanese American experience. People were interned as being of Japanese heritage because they looked a bit Japanese (which includes having dark hair). The Muslim reviewer is Irish and here in Europe very few know about Japanese American internment. I was fortunate to befriend a Seattle-born Londoner.


----------



## Spinneyhead (Nov 4, 2010)

horst5 said:


> No end in sight.
> Don't you guys have a book to write, or something?


This thread isn't doing my productivity any good. And so far, I've only been reading it.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

I haven't read all the posts but I'll take this over another dog-killing thread...


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You have merely repeated those reviewers' mistakes. Few Americans aware of their own 20th century history could read a story about Muslim internment camps in the desert without linking it to the Japanese American experience. People were interned as being of Japanese heritage because they looked a bit Japanese (which includes having dark hair). The Muslim reviewer is Irish and here in Europe very few know about Japanese American internment. I was fortunate to befriend a Seattle-born Londoner, whose grandparents were unfortunate enough to be sent to the Manzanar concentration camp.


You said originally:

"Justina dismisses the premise of internment camps in Nevada, a dismisal of American history deeply hurtful to Japanese Americans, who were plucked from West Coast rural lives just before the strawberry harvest was due and sent to camps in the desert. There were no internment camps in Nevada, but Manzanar Camp is at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada Mountains."

So, is your problem that she found an interment camp in Nevada unbelievable the offensive part? I'm honestly trying to understand what you are saying, because she never dismissed the idea, only that it wasn't explained how it happened. Muslims aren't a race, they are religious followers of Islam, just like being a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ isn't a race. So, why would being born with brown hair and dark eyes make someone Muslim? It's a religion, so the author didn't even get that part right. That, from her review, seemed to be the most relevant point. Not that there was a camp in Nevada.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Travelian said:


> I haven't read all the posts but I'll take this over another dog-killing thread...


Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this thread.


----------



## anikad (Sep 19, 2017)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You have merely repeated those reviewers' mistakes. Few Americans aware of their own 20th century history could read a story about Muslim internment camps in the desert without linking it to the Japanese American experience. People were interned as being of Japanese heritage because they looked a bit Japanese (which includes having dark hair). The Muslim reviewer is Irish and here in Europe very few know about Japanese American internment. I was fortunate to befriend a Seattle-born Londoner, whose grandparents were unfortunate enough to be sent to the Manzanar concentration camp.


And you appear to be missing the point. You can look Japanese, it is fairly distinctive ethnically, especially in comparison to white americans. You appear to think that all muslims are dark skinned folk who were hijabs or thobes and therefore easy to spot. However you cannot look muslim, it is not a race nor is it an ethnicity. You've got white muslims, you've got black muslims, you've got asian muslims, you've got arab muslims etc. So how exactly would a country go about rounding up muslims? Especially if they avoided wearing traditional islamic dress? From the sounds of the review the author hasn't done anywhere near enough world building to make her premise credible for some readers.


----------



## Tara KH (Aug 31, 2017)

anikad said:


> And you appear to be missing the point. You can look Japanese, it is fairly distinctive ethnically, especially in comparison to white americans. You appear to think that all muslims are dark skinned folk who were hijabs or thobes and therefore easy to spot. However you cannot look muslim, it is not a race nor is it an ethnicity. You've got white muslims, you've got black muslims, you've got asian muslims, you've got arab muslims etc. So how exactly would a country go about rounding up muslims? Especially if they avoided wearing traditional islamic dress? From the sounds of the review the author hasn't done anywhere near enough world building to make her premise credible for some readers.


The more I hear about this book, the more I wonder how it ever got published. Surely there were people involved who knew better even if the author didn't.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

Colin said:


> Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this thread.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Lilpenguin1972 said:


> You said originally:
> 
> "Justina dismisses the premise of internment camps in Nevada, a dismisal of American history deeply hurtful to Japanese Americans, who were plucked from West Coast rural lives just before the strawberry harvest was due and sent to camps in the desert. There were no internment camps in Nevada, but Manzanar Camp is at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada Mountains."
> 
> So, is your problem that she found an interment camp in Nevada unbelievable the offensive part? I'm honestly trying to understand what you are saying, because she never dismissed the idea, only that it wasn't explained how it happened. Muslims aren't a race, they are religious followers of Islam, just like being a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ isn't a race. So, why would being born with brown hair and dark eyes make someone Muslim? It's a religion, so the author didn't even get that part right. That, from her review, seemed to be the most relevant point. Not that there was a camp in Nevada.


To get all technical on you it's known as a literary allusion. Laura Moriarty uses the history of the round-up of Japanese American (cello players with sick mothers and non-members of the community rounded up by mistake) in the knowledge that many American readers would get the allusion. Justina's lack of research into internment centres in US history is not offensive, but the apparent denial of the Japanese American experience would be hurtful to survivors like George Takei. To single out Nevada without doing something so simple as an internet search on "internment centre Nevada" is poor work for someone advertising her MFA. To state the sanguineous obvious Nevada is a literary allusion to Manzanar concentration camp which is located in the Sierra Nevada range. Justina cites The Handmaid's Tale, which is apposite as many Americans will get the link to New England witch-hunters, even if they are unaware that Margaret Atwood's ancestor was one of their victims.

You failed to quote the start of my earlier post were I noted the danger of jumping on the bandwagon without doing research, which pretty much sums up this thread.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You have merely repeated those reviewers' mistakes. Few Americans aware of their own 20th century history could read a story about Muslim internment camps in the desert without linking it to the Japanese American experience. People were interned as being of Japanese heritage because they looked a bit Japanese (which includes having dark hair). The Muslim reviewer is Irish and here in Europe very few know about Japanese American internment. I was fortunate to befriend a Seattle-born Londoner, whose grandparents were unfortunate enough to be sent to the Manzanar concentration camp.


I guess it's possible that reviewer (Justina) isn't aware of the Japanese imprisonment during WWII, though I suspect well educated Americans know about that part of our history. It's certainly known in the circles I run in. But the reviewer's criticisms of that part of the novel have to do with the process/feasibility of interning all U.S. Muslims in Nevada not having been explained in the novel. She calls the lack of explanation a "plot hole." That's a craft critique levied by one writer against another and isn't really related to the points the reviewer also makes about the way the book, in her view, "aims to undermine white supremacy and yet ironically ends up clumsily reinforcing it at every page turn." Those points about "reinforcing" "white supremacy" are what the big controversy is about, and the reviewer's evidence for those points has to do with the way the teenage MC and the Muslim woman character are portrayed and interact with one another. If the book had just been accused (fairly or unfairly) of having plot holes, I don't think we'd be hearing about it.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I guess it's possible that reviewer (Justina) isn't aware of the Japanese imprisonment during WWII, though I suspect well educated Americans know about that part of our history. It's certainly known in the circles I run in. But the reviewer's criticisms of that part of the novel have to do with the process/feasibility of interning all U.S. Muslims in Nevada not having been explained in the novel. She calls the lack of explanation a "plot hole." That's a craft critique levied by one writer against another and isn't really related to the points the reviewer also makes about the way the book, in her view, "aims to undermine white supremacy and yet ironically ends up clumsily reinforcing it at every page turn." Those points about "reinforcing" "white supremacy" are what the big controversy is about, and the reviewer's evidence for those points has to do with the way the teenage MC and the Muslim woman character are portrayed and interact with one another. If the book had just been accused (fairly or unfairly) of having plot holes, I don't think we'd be hearing about it.


I had several responses, but this summed it up nicely. So, yup, what she said...


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

The Wyoming Kid said:


> Monique, it is definitely censorship. When someone says the central character in a particular book is not written correctly (i.e., along racial or gender lines), and when that someone further says the writer should not have written the book in the first place because he is not of that race or gender (and presumably cannot relate to his character at all), that is censorship.
> 
> I'm only trying to say any writer should be able to write anything he/she wants. Period. If someone is "offended" by it for racial or gender reasons -- or for any other reason, for that matter -- that's their right and they have the additional right not to read anything more by this writer. Furthermore, if the writer is really bad at what he/she does, then sales (or lack thereof) will soon reflect it.
> 
> ...


My head hurts. You've completely contradicted yourself in the space of four short paragraphs. Paragraph 1: Two people writing that the book is not 'correctly' written and should never have been written is censorship. Paragraph 2: Any writer should be able to write anything he or she wants and also if people feel offended by it that's their right. Paragraph 3: If someone feels your books should be burned that just reflects their opinion. And they have the right to express their opinion as loudly as they want. Paragraph 4: We have no business telling anyone what to write or not to write.

As Monique says, this gets into an endless circle as you claim that I'm censoring you by saying you shouldn't have written something and I claim you're censoring me by telling me I can't tell you you shouldn't have written it.

Shane has a point in saying, many pages ago in this thread, that censorship _can_ occur without actually having a work forbidden by a government or court system- We had censorship in the US during the '50's Red scare when theaters started getting bomb threats if they tried to show films by people who refused to 'name names' before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee- or were otherwise suspected Communists. I remember my mother being absolutely overjoyed to find, when we moved back to North in the early '60's, that Charlie Chaplin's films were being shown again. And how upset she was that I, at the age of 10, had no idea who he was. And one well known -um- well, let's just call it an 'organization' - managed to keep from having its financial shenanigans investigated for decades by bringing costly and repeated lawsuits against any publication that so much as mentioned them.

So I would agree that there ARE ways to censor without actually doing it legally. And if there were anything REMOTELY like the mobs with pitchforks that have been repeatedly invoked here, I would agree that the work is being censored- de facto if not de jure. But in this case? Seriously?? A few reviews, mostly on personal blogs, and a bunch of readers on their personal goodreads pages marking something 'to read' or 'definitely to avoid' using the star system and maybe a few words to remind themselves of why they made the decision? Oh, come on. (And they call US 'snowflakes' for being supposedly unable to 'take' a little thing like being offended by things we find racist or sexist...)


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> Snip...
> I do think that racism is a real thing that actually exists.


No, it isn't. It's genetic variance that's been reduced to a child-like game of pointing at different colored sports jerseys and cheering/jeering for "teams". It's gross and archaic.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh and it's important to kill the gay character moments after resolving their romantic subplot because that's what makes it extra tragic. *shakes fist at show she won't name due to spoilers*


Is it bad that I can think of multiple shows that do this and am not sure which one you're referring to?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Valerie A. said:


> It's not censorship. Trust me, I have a linguistics degree.
> 
> Kirkus retracting its review is a case of self-censorship. If the publisher had refused to publish her book, or had insisted that she make significant changes, that would be censorship. What you mention are all examples of criticism. Censorship takes away the opportunity to critique and criticize because the work is no longer available, or no longer available in its intended state.
> That would be very flattering, but highly unlikely for any books of mine.


If the publisher had refused to publish her book or asked her to make changes, that would still NOT be censorship. We are entitled to have our opinions. We are NOT entitled to have a platform for them. Just as the mods here can delete posts they don't feel benefit or fit the community, so can a publisher refuse to publish literally anything they feel like. They are a private company. Now, if the Government said to the publisher "you can't print that"... that would be censorship.

None of us are entitled to have a platform. No publisher is required to publish anything they don't want to. Review sites (including Goodreads and Amazon) can choose to leave or remove whatever reviews they like. That's not censorship.


----------



## UK1783 (Aug 5, 2017)

Annie, that is very true but when the platform has the monopoly it kind of shifts the idea around a bit.

Amazon is a private company and they have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want. But they also have the absolute lion's share of ebook publishing. So...


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Jutina Ireland made a snide remark about the author not knowing about the internet. I have to wonder the same thing about her and her defenders here who think identifying Muslims is difficult and a plot hole. Have none of you heard of census records, tax records, marriage records, birth records, mosque member rolls, school records and the hundred other public records containing religious affiliation? The Nazis were able to round up Jews, who were mostly indistinguishable from Germans, using 1940s technology, but this same feat in the age of big data needs an explanation? Seriously? This is exactly the sort of blind spot you get when assume bad faith and that everyone's a racist.  

Another bad faith blind spot is the dark hair and eyes business. The premise of the book is that Americans are so racist, xenophobic, and ignorant that they'd round up Muslims and intern them. Yet Ireland and her supporters here find it implausible that the average American in the book isn't culturally sensitive enough to know that Muslims come in all racial varieties? That's a ridiculous criticism. But, again, that's the kind nonsense you get into when your wear ideological blinders.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

crow.bar.beer said:


> If Dances with Wolves is being categorized as _"a white savior narrative"_, it's clear evidence of the concept being applied so reductionistically that the concept itself loses its value.


The very use of cliches like "white saviour" (sorry, I'm Canadian) and "racist" stops any worthwhile discussion in its tracks. These are dead-end terms that have come to mean everything and nothing in particular. Even the words "controversial" and "problematic" are redundant, since the only non-controversial and non-problematic reading is a blank page.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

UK1783 said:


> Annie, that is very true but when the platform has the monopoly it kind of shifts the idea around a bit.
> 
> Amazon is a private company and they have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want. But they also have the absolute lion's share of ebook publishing. So...


No. It doesn't. No one is guaranteed a platform or a publishing deal. Nobody. A private company, no matter how large, is a private company and has the freedom to choose what content it allows.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Annie B said:


> Now, if the Government said to the publisher "you can't print that"... that would be censorship.


The part of me that was born behind the Iron Curtain and spent the first twenty-six years of my life there, agrees with you. But this lovely phenomenon has spread to spheres not regulated by governments. "Private censorship" and "corporate censorship" are accepted terms now.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

WHDean said:


> Annie says she cited two Muslim reviewers. She probably did, but I could only find one. That reviewer's racism complaint was that the character did not, in her view, grow out of the racism in the end and the reviewer judged the book a failure. But she said nothing about white saviour narratives, appropriating the experiences or POV of Muslims, or that the author should not have written about the subject. All these complaints came from white reviewers and white contributors to this thread. These same people all ignored and thus dismissed, directly or indirectly, the Muslim reviewer from Kirkus who rated the book positively.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with agreeing with one review and not another. But you can't claim to be rallying behind Muslims against this book when you pick some Muslims--the ones you agree with--and ignore the ones you don't, and then tack onto the indictment all your own criticisms, as though they were part of the Muslim POV of the book. All you're doing is allying with a subset of POCs you agree with (or using them to add authority to the conclusion you already reached) and calling it "allying with POCs."
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if the you is directed at me specifically, or more general (or to all white people who have commented). I need a little clarification on something. When you say white people, do you mean all non-Muslims, or do you mean just white people. Because that's two different arguments. No one volunteered that they represented the Muslim POV, but that doesn't mean they are white, either. So is your argument about white people, or everyone who isn't Muslim?

I'm only going to refer to this thread specifically, but where has anyone said they speak for Muslims or POC? Or that the original review isn't valid? Or any of the things you are claiming in your post? Who is saying that the "POC POV" of this book is that it's racist? All I'm seeing are people explaining or answering or saying why some people are offended by this book, or why it might be harmful or racist. And then further arguing those points in more general ways.

Isn't the whole point that just because someone is Muslim (which isn't a single race, however, based on the review of the woman who read it, only one race of Muslims is described in this book), doesn't mean they are like every other person who is Muslim? That just because two people share a race, or religion, or gender, doesn't mean they are going to agree on what is or isn't offensive?

I'm honestly curious. Do you believe that only those who identify as Muslim should be able to speak about this? And by speak, I mean both for and against the book. Because if non-Muslims shouldn't be calling the book racist, then non-Muslims shouldn't be saying the book isn't. Everyone else should shut up equally. Does that extend beyond this particular book? Do you also believe only POC should be able to speak about racism?

And if that is true, why aren't you pointing that out to the white people in this thread defending the book? Because it cuts both ways. Think about it this way. No one has identified themselves as Muslim in this thread. Taking out every voice that you believe are speaking for the Muslim point of view, we'd be left with a bunch of non-Muslims agreeing with each other because who wants to be the lone person against an army?

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

WHDean said:


> I asked directly early on and indirectly in every post. Anyone could have volunteered that they represented the Muslim POV. No one did.


And what does that tell you/us? That there are no Muslims participating in or reading this thread, or that "the Muslim POV" is like an intellectual internment camp? There are individuals of Muslim persuasion who disagree with each other.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Annie B said:


> No. It doesn't. No one is guaranteed a platform or a publishing deal. Nobody. A private company, no matter how large, is a private company and has the freedom to choose what content it allows.


This is true. A person can deny or limit what's published on his or her blog. Is this censorship? Some might call it that, but it's only in an informal, private sense. It's actually a matter of personal judgement or preference. Similarly, a publisher can refuse to publish any story they deem unfit or unworthy. (As many of us writers who have submitted to traditional publishers learned.  ) That ain't censorship; it's a business decision.

I think a lot of people are confusing or conflating _censorship_ with the _First Amendment._ The government can't prevent someone from expressing himself under most circumstances, but a private entity can decline to print or publicize those expressions.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Puddleduck said:


> We do have a right to those things in America. That's what freedom of speech and freedom of the press are. Freedom of speech does not mean "Have any opinion you want, but keep it to yourself." What we don't have is the right to platforms other people own, which may by the point you were actually trying to make.
> 
> Someone could write the most overtly racist and inflammatory book imaginable. They wouldn't have the right to make a publisher publish it or even to make a distributor like Amazon sell it. They would, however, have the right to have copies printed and sell them from the street corner or something like that.
> 
> Government censorship is not the only meaning of censorship. If the racist author in my example was selling copies of their horribly racist book in a venue that they'd been allowed to sell them from and a mob came by and stopped anyone from walking up to buy a copy by forming a wall around the table, strike-line style, that would be censorship and it would be an infringement on that author's freedom of speech.


No, I said what I meant to say. Even your street example might be off, because in many places there are ordinances against busquing and you can't sell stuff on the street or in public parks without a proper license or permission. Again... nobody is entitled to a space to express their opinions unless they own that space.

The strike-line thing would likely depend on the exact laws in the place it was happening and if that falls under protections for right to protest etc. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say.

But we are not entitled to a platform.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Becca Mills said:


> I guess it's possible that reviewer (Justina) isn't aware of the Japanese imprisonment during WWII, though I suspect well educated Americans know about that part of our history. It's certainly known in the circles I run in. But the reviewer's criticisms of that part of the novel have to do with the process/feasibility of interning all U.S. Muslims in Nevada not having been explained in the novel. She calls the lack of explanation a "plot hole." That's a craft critique levied by one writer against another and isn't really related to the points the reviewer also makes about the way the book, in her view, "aims to undermine white supremacy and yet ironically ends up clumsily reinforcing it at every page turn." Those points about "reinforcing" "white supremacy" are what the big controversy is about, and the reviewer's evidence for those points has to do with the way the teenage MC and the Muslim woman character are portrayed and interact with one another. If the book had just been accused (fairly or unfairly) of having plot holes, I don't think we'd be hearing about it.


To return to The Handmaid's Tale not everything needs to be explained in a book and explainy novels can be a right turn-off, especially in the alternative history and near future genres. The novel does not even relate how much of America became part of Gilead. Novels don't need to explain everything, but reviewers hanging out their MFA credentials should know a bit about research. An MFA should also know about different ways of writing novels, especially one who cites The Handmaid's Tale. Did Justina skip the classes on literary devices and literary allusions?


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> I have to wonder the same thing about her and her defenders here who think identifying Muslims is difficult and a plot hole. Have none of you heard of census records, tax records, marriage records, birth records, mosque member rolls, school records and the hundred other public records containing religious affiliation?


Of those, the only records that would indicate religious affiliation are mosque membership rolls, which are private, not public records. I actually agree with you. I don't think the government would have a difficult time finding lots of people to round up. But the US does not keep public records on peoples' religion. (The sole exemption to this I can think of would be the military where it's primarily about last rights/treatment of remains.)

From reading a review that commented on the issue of how it went down, I believe the issue was that the implementation was vague to the point of being a weakness in the book because it left questions that might have had interesting answers and added to the book, not so much whether it would be possible at all.


----------



## UK1783 (Aug 5, 2017)

Annie B said:


> No. It doesn't. No one is guaranteed a platform or a publishing deal. Nobody. A private company, no matter how large, is a private company and has the freedom to choose what content it allows.


I entirely agree with you. But the lines are still somewhat blurred when the company has the monopoly. There is no real clear distinction here. It's the same with YouTube having the monopoly on video content online.

It's not clear cut. There is a massive grey area with these platforms that have the monopoly.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

UK1783 said:


> I entirely agree with you. But the lines are still somewhat blurred when the company has the monopoly. There is no real clear distinction here. It's the same with YouTube having the monopoly on video content online.
> 
> It's not clear cut. There is a massive grey area with these platforms that have the monopoly.


In your head, maybe. Not legally.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> To return to The Handmaid's Tale not everything needs to be explained in a book and explainy novels can be a right turn-off, especially in the alternative history and near future genres. The novel does not even relate how much of America became part of Gilead. Novels don't need to explain everything, but reviewers hanging out their MFA credentials should know a bit about research. An MFA should also know about different ways of writing novels, especially one who cites The Handmaid's Tale. Did Justina skip the classes on literary devices and literary allusions?


Yeah, I agree that leaving out the mechanics of interning millions of U.S. Muslims doesn't strike me as a plot hole. Or not _necessarily _a plot hole, anyway ... I guess it could seem like one, depending on how it's handled. But the lack of explanation in _The Handmaid's Tale_ is actually very effective. I think the only explanation is brief and buried in an epilogue? Maybe? (Haven't read that since college.) The lack of info makes that novel more disturbing and immediate, IMO, and if it is/had been done well in _American Heart_, it could have a similar effect.

I just don't see why the reviewer's feeling that there's a plot hole surrounding internment mechanisms has much to do with her racial criticisms of the novel. One could disagree with her about the former and agree with her about the latter. They seem like different issues.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Puddleduck said:


> Then what exactly does freedom of speech and freedom of the press mean to you? If not the right to actually express an opinion, which sort of requires some method of doing so (a platform), then what is it? Because as I said, the right to have your own opinions kept inside your own head is not freedom of speech/press. But according to you, we Americans have no right to do anything other than that, unless it's shouting from our own owned property (which I suppose would eliminate anyone who wasn't a property owner from participating in that freedom at all, which would mean that constitutionally-guaranteed rights would by default simply not apply to a whole lot of Americans due to their lower income status). But wait, even shouting would probably not count under your interpretation, since it would infringe on other people's airspace, so maybe talking quietly inside their own house that they own? To themselves? Is that freedom of speech?


Puddle, they're not going to agree with you, no matter what you reason.


----------



## Travelian (Jun 1, 2017)

UK1783 said:


> I entirely agree with you. But the lines are still somewhat blurred when the company has the monopoly. There is no real clear distinction here. It's the same with YouTube having the monopoly on video content online.
> 
> It's not clear cut. There is a massive grey area with these platforms that have the monopoly.


This board's talked about paid review sites before. They're not a monopoly. Besides them and Publishers Weekly you have a lot of options if you want to add a quote from a paid review onto your Amazon book page. There are few smaller cheaper sites not mentioned you can also use.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/pw-select/article/64718-the-indie-author-s-guide-to-paid-reviews.html


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Puddleduck said:


> Then what exactly does freedom of speech and freedom of the press mean to you? If not the right to actually express an opinion, which sort of requires some method of doing so (a platform), then what is it? Because as I said, the right to have your own opinions kept inside your own head is not freedom of speech/press. But according to you, we Americans have no right to do anything other than that, unless it's shouting from our own owned property (which I suppose would eliminate anyone who wasn't a property owner from participating in that freedom at all, which would mean that constitutionally-guaranteed rights would by default simply not apply to a whole lot of Americans due to their lower income status). But wait, even shouting would probably not count under your interpretation, since it would infringe on other people's airspace, so maybe talking quietly inside their own house that they own? To themselves? Is that freedom of speech?


Maybe look at what our First Amendment covers and what it doesn't, handily written up by someone way smarter than I am  http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Though in reality, we aren't discussing what's legal. We could look that up. At the heart of this debate is what's morally right. Some seem to believe it's wrong to even mention you object to a book's premise in fear of possibly hurting the author's feelings. And on the other end you have people tired of authors using the plights of others to make themselves feel like heroes when really they are just exploiting the people they claim to be helping.

Which is why I think in 22 pages not a single person has changed their mind on anything. People tend to be pretty set in their morals.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Puddleduck said:


> Then what exactly does freedom of speech and freedom of the press mean to you? If not the right to actually express an opinion, which sort of requires some method of doing so (a platform), then what is it? Because as I said, the right to have your own opinions kept inside your own head is not freedom of speech/press. But according to you, we Americans have no right to do anything other than that, unless it's shouting from our own owned property (which I suppose would eliminate anyone who wasn't a property owner from participating in that freedom at all, which would mean that constitutionally-guaranteed rights would by default simply not apply to a whole lot of Americans due to their lower income status). But wait, even shouting would probably not count under your interpretation, since it would infringe on other people's airspace, so maybe talking quietly inside their own house that they own? To themselves? Is that freedom of speech?


Let's put freedom of the press aside for a moment and just focus on freedom of speech. It's complicated because I have rights but so do you and so companies.

Let me ask this. What platform do you feel you are entitled to?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

kcmorgan said:


> Though in reality, we aren't discussing what's legal. We could look that up. At the heart of this debate is what's morally right. Some seem to believe it's wrong to even mention you object to a book's premise in fear of possibly hurting the author's feelings. And on the other end you have people tired of authors using the plights of others to make themselves feel like heroes when really they are just exploiting the people they claim to be helping.
> 
> Which is why I think in 22 pages not a single person has changed their mind on anything. People tend to be pretty set in their morals.


As it usually the case with things like this... it's my hope that the people reading this and not commenting are maybe thinking more deeply about the issue. If even one writer reading this decided from points made that maybe they should do more work and more research to be respectful to the characters they are writing and the readership they hope to have, it's worth all the headache and heartache, to me.

A forum post *might* change nothing. But silence *always* changes nothing.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Annie B said:


> As it usually the case with things like this... it's my hope that the people reading this and not commenting are maybe thinking more deeply about the issue. If even one writer reading this decided from points made that maybe they should do more work and more research to be respectful to the characters they are writing and the readership they hope to have, it's worth all the headache and heartache, to me.
> 
> A forum post *might* change nothing. But silence *always* changes nothing.


Some of us are just here to write the stories in our heart as best we can, without worrying about how it's going to affect perceived racial justice in the world.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Annie B said:


> As it usually the case with things like this... it's my hope that the people reading this and not commenting are maybe thinking more deeply about the issue. If even one writer reading this decided from points made that maybe they should do more work and more research to be respectful to the characters they are writing and the readership they hope to have, it's worth all the headache and heartache, to me.
> 
> A forum post *might* change nothing. But silence *always* changes nothing.


Yes, and instant conversion to another opinion is seldom. It's more like water against stone. Bit by bit, things change.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Puddleduck said:


> Then what exactly does freedom of speech and freedom of the press mean to you? If not the right to actually express an opinion, which sort of requires some method of doing so (a platform), then what is it? Because as I said, the right to have your own opinions kept inside your own head is not freedom of speech/press. But according to you, we Americans have no right to do anything other than that, unless it's shouting from our own owned property (which I suppose would eliminate anyone who wasn't a property owner from participating in that freedom at all, which would mean that constitutionally-guaranteed rights would by default simply not apply to a whole lot of Americans due to their lower income status). But wait, even shouting would probably not count under your interpretation, since it would infringe on other people's airspace, so maybe talking quietly inside their own house that they own? To themselves? Is that freedom of speech?


Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to also profit or make use of a platform built by someone else. No one is stopping anyone from writing, printing and disseminating whatever they please. You can do it on the internet. You can hand it out on the street. Have you never seen those newspaper boxes with free religious books in it? You can go yell about it in the town square or the street as long as you don't impede traffic or incite violence where the cops would have to step in.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Puddleduck said:


> Then what exactly does freedom of speech and freedom of the press mean to you? If not the right to actually express an opinion, which sort of requires some method of doing so (a platform), then what is it? Because as I said, the right to have your own opinions kept inside your own head is not freedom of speech/press. But according to you, we Americans have no right to do anything other than that, unless it's shouting from our own owned property (which I suppose would eliminate anyone who wasn't a property owner from participating in that freedom at all, which would mean that constitutionally-guaranteed rights would by default simply not apply to a whole lot of Americans due to their lower income status). But wait, even shouting would probably not count under your interpretation, since it would infringe on other people's airspace, so maybe talking quietly inside their own house that they own? To themselves? Is that freedom of speech?


Freedom of speech means that you can write whatever you like. But just because you write it doesn't mean that Amazon or B&N or Simon & Schuster has to publish or distribute it. To the example earlier, you can also go to Kinko's and print out your writings. You're free to hand out the writing to passersby... up until you run against some legal barrier, like being on private property or disturbing the peace or something.

You can also stand in your yard and shout out your opinions all you like. Doing that anywhere else (someone else's yard, or on government premises) can be problematic. Especially with the "disturbing the peace thing."

So, see, you're free to write or say whatever you want. But others, whether private citizens, private companies, or government agencies, don't have to help you distribute your work. You're not "entitled" to have that done for you.

Again, the example of submitting books to publishers is an excellent example: they CAN publish, or they can DECLINE to do it. Their choice. Their decision, for whatever reason they choose to name.

If you're REALLY interested in this topic, try this, which is primarily geared toward protesters, but talks all about expressing opinions, and where and how it is legal to do so.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_protests.pdf


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> Though in reality, we aren't discussing what's legal. We could look that up. At the heart of this debate is what's morally right. Some seem to believe it's wrong to even mention you object to a book's premise in fear of possibly hurting the author's feelings.


I'm absolutely on this side and this isn't the argument at all.

Speaking for myself, I don't care about hurt feelings of the author. I care about others using their perceived slights or more accurately their moral outrage on behalf of a minority group to start some crusade against someone for the smallest offense. I worry because these crusaders' reactions are not in scale of what offense was taken.

Think I wrote something offensive? Fine. At the most, the reaction should be requesting an open dialogue or refusing to read my work. Those are absolutely acceptable in my opinion. However, this isn't the usual outcome in many moral outrage cases. The truth is when a group views themselves as morally superior, they're capable of more atrocities.

I can write the wrong thing about the wrong group and be receiving rape and death threats hours within putting up a book or article.



kcmorgan said:


> And on the other end you have people tired of authors using the plights of others to make themselves feel like heroes when really they are just exploiting the people they claim to be helping.
> 
> *Which is why I think in 22 pages not a single person has changed their mind on anything. People tend to be pretty set in their morals.*


I absolutely agree with this.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

WHDean said:


> The premise of the book is that Americans are so racist, xenophobic, and ignorant that they'd round up Muslims and intern them. Yet *Ireland and her supporters here find it implausible that the average American in the book isn't culturally sensitive enough to know that Muslims come in all racial varieties? That's a ridiculous criticism.*


I'm not sure I'm parsing the bolded bit correctly. Are you saying:

--Most actual Americans know that Muslims come in all racial varieties. 
--In the book, the average American does *not* recognize this. 
--Ireland finds this portrayal of ignorance hard to believe and criticizes it. 
--This criticism is ridiculous because ??

That's where I start realizing that I'm not sure I'm following you. Can you clarify?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Charmaine said:


> I'm absolutely on this side and this isn't the argument at all.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I don't care about hurt feelings of the author. I care about others using their perceived slights or more accurately their moral outrage on behalf of a minority group to start some crusade against someone for the smallest offense. I worry because these crusaders' reactions are not in scale of what offense was taken.
> 
> ...


We don't get to say what is and isn't the "right" reaction to what we write. That's kind of the point. You can feel the reaction was overblown, but that is your opinion and it is good to recognize that this is all it is... an opinion.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Annie B said:


> We don't get to say what is and isn't the "right" reaction to what we write. That's kind of the point. You can feel the reaction was overblown, but that is your opinion and it is good to recognize that this is all it is... an opinion.


No. I can absolutely say that rape and death threats aimed at a writer because someone found their work offensive is absolutely the wrong reaction.

I'm pretty sure rape and death threats are always a wrong reaction. 

We're just going to have to disagree in that. Some reactions are never right or okay. Threats/ harassment, for example, are illegal and are outside the scope of merely my opinion.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Charmaine said:


> No. I can absolutely say that rape and death threats aimed at a writer because someone found their work offensive is absolutely the wrong reaction.
> 
> I'm pretty sure rape and death threats are always a wrong reaction.
> 
> We're just going to have to disagree in that. Some reactions are never right or okay. Threats/ harassment, for example, are illegal and are outside the scope of merely my opinion.


Threats are a different matter, yes. Nobody is saying those are okay. We're talking about one star reviews without reading the book, and negative reviews from people who did read the book. I don't think anyone has said "death threats are fine"... So please don't try to twist my words into that. Death threats are not what are being discussed.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> I'm absolutely on this side and this isn't the argument at all.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I don't care about hurt feelings of the author. I care about others using their perceived slights or more accurately their moral outrage on behalf of a minority group to start some crusade against someone for the smallest offense. I worry because these crusaders' reactions are not in scale of what offense was taken.
> 
> ...


First, I don't think anyone here has said it's acceptable to send rape and death threats to anyone. I probably hold the most extreme view which was it's acceptable to give a book a one star review without reading it based on it's premise. I haven't seen anyone state anything further than that in this thread.

Now, about the size of the offense. In my mind, what she did perpetuates a worldview that not only gets people killed, causes a dismissal of those deaths. I've seen people who posed with assault rifles in their wedding photos blame Trayvon Martin's mom for letting him have a toy gun. What can possibly cause that level of dissociation? It's the narratives that plainly show that minorities aren't people in the same way white people are people.

As a little girl, I was harassed by the police, stopped and questioned and searched like I was some sort of drug dealing thug. It amazed me they could look at me and not see me. I was a big nerd that cried when she missed the latest episode of TNG, but here I am against a cop car being patted down when the only thing indicating my criminality was the color of my skin. So I have a first hand understanding of what it's like to not be seen that I think people who dismiss this stuff just don't get. Because I can't imagine them knowing, understanding and still being okay with perpetuating this crap. Like the same people who are perfectly okay with things like Stop and Frisk were outraged over what happened to that nurse in Utah. That killed me, cause in my world, that's normal. In my world she would have walked away grateful to be alive and most of society would have blamed her for not having the right attitude or not being obedient enough.

So yeah, I find the book morally reprehensible. I think it teaches white children that Muslims aren't people in the same way they are, they are more like pets, that need to be cared for and protected. And yes, I find that demeaning, degrading, insulting and so harmful and couldn't begrudge a single person for speaking out against perpetuating those ideas. Because those are the ideas that lead to death and indifference.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Annie B said:


> Threats are a different matter, yes. Nobody is saying those are okay. We're talking about one star reviews without reading the book, and negative reviews from people who did read the book. I don't think anyone has said "death threats are fine"... So please don't try to twist my words into that. Death threats are not what are being discussed.


Then re-read my comment. I made no mention of one star reviews or people not reading a book. I was clearly giving examples of what I considered to be acceptable and unacceptable reactions to an offensive book and your response was "but you don't get to decide what's unacceptable". And my response to you was, "there are unacceptable reactions" Also, mob justice or the fear of mob justice has absolutely been thrown around this thread quite a bit and comment was about my personal concern of where it leads.

One side keeps arguing about fairly benign things and the other is saying this has the ability to spread and become an oppressive force while the other side continues to try and keep the effects of these behaviors as benign so they can win the argument.

My entire comment was showing while some aspects/ reactions to this issue by people are benign, others aren't and my personal fear is that we're paving a road to excuse the inexcusable. Moral outrage trends to quickly stoke the fire of mob justice and my biggest issues aren't the fairly benign effects such as 1 star reviews, etc.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

WHDean said:


> Jutina Ireland made a snide remark about the author not knowing about the internet. I have to wonder the same thing about her and her defenders here who think identifying Muslims is difficult and a plot hole. Have none of you heard of census records, tax records, marriage records, birth records, mosque member rolls, school records and the hundred other public records containing religious affiliation? The Nazis were able to round up Jews, who were mostly indistinguishable from Germans, using 1940s technology, but this same feat in the age of big data needs an explanation? Seriously? This is exactly the sort of blind spot you get when assume bad faith and that everyone's a racist.
> 
> Another bad faith blind spot is the dark hair and eyes business. The premise of the book is that Americans are so racist, xenophobic, and ignorant that they'd round up Muslims and intern them. Yet Ireland and her supporters here find it implausible that the average American in the book isn't culturally sensitive enough to know that Muslims come in all racial varieties? That's a ridiculous criticism. But, again, that's the kind nonsense you get into when your wear ideological blinders.


I don't have any documents indicating my religion. In fact, I can't remember the last time I filled out a form that asked about religion. And I'm sure there are plenty of Americans that don't.

I hink you are missing the point that Ireland is doing what most reviewers do, reviewing based on information that the writer provided. So, if the write states that the main character fears veering mistaken for a Muslim because of dark hair and dark eyes then that's on the writer. Again, poor world building which is the writers faults.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Annie B said:


> As it usually the case with things like this... it's my hope that the people reading this and not commenting are maybe thinking more deeply about the issue. If even one writer reading this decided from points made that maybe they should do more work and more research to be respectful to the characters they are writing and the readership they hope to have, it's worth all the headache and heartache, to me.
> 
> A forum post *might* change nothing. But silence *always* changes nothing.


Very true, IMO.

Personally, I find these kinds of conversations enlightening, so long as they don't turn into screaming matches, an exchange of sarcastic jibes and glib memes, or ad hominem attacks. Being pushed to articulate my own positions in a convincing way makes me think about them more fully and carefully. Is there really evidence to support them? Is my reasoning sound? Are the counterarguments someone else raised more convincing than I realized? Hearing other smart, passionate people argue for their positions has definitely changed my mind, from time to time. I'm still mulling over WHDean's point from upthread about access to complexity and difficulty being diminished by an effort to limit the kinds of narratives in circulation. And it's not infrequent that someone tells me something I didn't know. It's good. Talking to other human beings is good.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Charmaine said:


> Then re-read my comment. I made no mention of one star reviews or people not reading a book. I was clearly giving examples of what I considered to be acceptable and unacceptable reactions to an offensive book and your response was "but you don't get to decide what's unacceptable". And my response to you was, "there are unacceptable reactions" Also, mob justice or the fear of mob justice has absolutely been thrown around this thread quite a bit and my personal concern of where it leads.


I realize Annie didn't explicitly disavow threats of rape and death in her response, but I think we should assume by default that everyone here is against such threats unless they actually say they're in favor of them. Assuming one another's basic decency is sort of necessary to having a community.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

HopelessFanatic said:


> I'm not sure if the you is directed at me specifically, or more general (or to all white people who have commented). I need a little clarification on something. When you say white people, do you mean all non-Muslims, or do you mean just white people. Because that's two different arguments. No one volunteered that they represented the Muslim POV, but that doesn't mean they are white, either. So is your argument about white people, or everyone who isn't Muslim?
> 
> I'm only going to refer to this thread specifically, but where has anyone said they speak for Muslims or POC? Or that the original review isn't valid? Or any of the things you are claiming in your post? Who is saying that the "POC POV" of this book is that it's racist? All I'm seeing are people explaining or answering or saying why some people are offended by this book, or why it might be harmful or racist. And then further arguing those points in more general ways.
> 
> ...


You've probably had some success with this rhetorical gambit in the past. If you ask sincere and earnest people the same questions in different ways, ask for clarification on finer and finer distinctions, and ask for specific references on 22-page thread, all the while professing genuine curiosity, they'll eventually contradict themselves or get tired and give up. I could see this from your first reply to me--it was too telegraphed to miss. Unfortunately for you, however, I was raised by wolves, so I'm neither sincere nor in earnest, vices that keep me from getting sucked in to this one.

I answered most of your questions multiple times already. And there are 22 pages of people explaining why x, y, and z are offensive to POCs and Muslims. I can't make you see what's in plain sight, and I'm wise enough to know that I'd be wasting time collecting it. The answers to the rest of your questions are immaterial. My beliefs about who should speak on behalf of whom never came up and doesn't matter. I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf but my own, and I'm not telling anyone how they should go about representing people.

All I did was point to inconsistencies in others' claims. You can't tell people not to generalize about a group of people because they're diverse, then turn around and anoint one member's views representative of that group, especially when you have another member of the same group saying the opposite. That's not letting people speak for themselves; that's just picking a voice and calling it theirs. And once you add your own two cents to that voice, it becomes you talking, not them.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I realize Annie didn't explicitly disavow threats of rape and death in her response, but I think we should assume by default that everyone here is against such threats unless they actually say they're in favor of them. Assuming one another's basic decency is sort of necessary to having a community.


I can delete it if that's what's best.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Charmaine said:


> Think I wrote something offensive? Fine. At the most, the reaction should be requesting an open dialogue or refusing to read my work. Those are absolutely acceptable in my opinion. However, this isn't the usual outcome in many moral outrage cases. The truth is when a group views themselves as morally superior, they're capable of more atrocities.


I responded to this part. Because your opinion is that these are the only two reactions that you consider okay. My point is that these two reactions don't even begin to cover the range of reactions people can have that are NOT threats or harassment, and we don't get to control other people's reactions.

Nowhere has anyone said threats of violence are okay. Nowhere. But there are a lot of reactions to poorly written, stereotype-promoting, harmful works of writing than just "ignore" or "talk to author directly" that are perfectly valid reactions and don't involve threats. 1 star reviews criticizing the book, for example. Which is what we are discussing.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

SerenityEditing said:


> I'm not sure I'm parsing the bolded bit correctly. Are you saying:
> 
> --Most actual Americans know that Muslims come in all racial varieties.
> --In the book, the average American does *not* recognize this.
> ...


I misattributed the reference to Ireland. It came from the other reviewer cited here, though the point stands and it's been amplified by others on the thread. Here's the whole bit:



> First of all this story is told in retrospect, which means that while Sarah-Mary starts telling us this story, everything has already happened. And that tells us a lot about the absolute lack of growth and learning that this character goes through despite everything. She starts off the book by telling us: "I showed up with dark hair and dark eyes, and [my mom] worried people would think I was foreign. For all I know, I might have ended up on the registry, sent off to Nevada by mistake." Which is a ridiculous enough thing to say when you haven't just helped an Iranian Muslim woman travel to safety because she feared her life because of the Muslim registry.


The reviewer claims the character is dumb and she's living in a racist ignorant world. How can it be surprising that she would think her dark features would get her arrested?


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> ... Now, about the size of the offense. In my mind, what she did perpetuates a worldview that not only gets people killed, causes a dismissal of those deaths. I've seen people who posed with assault rifles in their wedding photos blame Trayvon Martin's mom for letting him have a toy gun. What can possibly cause that level of dissociation? It's the narratives that plainly show that minorities aren't people in the same way white people are people.
> 
> As a little girl, I was harassed by the police, stopped and questioned and searched like I was some sort of drug dealing thug. It amazed me they could look at me and not see me. I was a big nerd that cried when she missed the latest episode of TNG, but here I am against a cop car being patted down when the only thing indicating my criminality was the color of my skin. So I have a first hand understanding of what it's like to not be seen that I think people who dismiss this stuff just don't get. Because I can't imagine them knowing, understanding and still being okay with perpetuating this crap. Like the same people who are perfectly okay with things like Stop and Frisk were outraged over what happened to that nurse in Utah. That killed me, cause in my world, that's normal. In my world she would have walked away grateful to be alive and most of society would have blamed her for not having the right attitude or not being obedient enough.
> 
> So yeah, I find the book morally reprehensible. I think it teaches white children that Muslims aren't people in the same way they are, they are more like pets, that need to be cared for and protected. And yes, I find that demeaning, degrading, insulting and so harmful and couldn't begrudge a single person for speaking out against perpetuating those ideas. Because those are the ideas that lead to death and indifference.


Maybe this is why I'm so steadfast in my opinions on this issue. I just don't think none of this has the power to effect any change that people are hungry for. If people are hungry for social change they're going about it in the wrong way, IMHO. I feel like people are using it as an outlet for frustration and targeting the wrong things.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

If you discuss to persuade you'll be disappointed. Look to clarifying your own thoughts and you won't be.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Charmaine said:


> I can delete it if that's what's best.


Naw, it's already woven into the discussion, and Annie has clarified. I'm just sure we're all on the same page about that particular issue. KB is not one of the corners of the internet where death- and rape-threateners like to yak it up. Thank goodness.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Charmaine said:


> Maybe this is why I'm so steadfast in my opinions on this issue. I just don't think none of this has the power to effect any change that people are hungry for. If people are hungry for social change they're going about it in the wrong way, IMHO. I feel like people are using it as an outlet for frustration and targeting the wrong things.


So...question. What exactly is the _right_ way? Because it seems like no matter what anyone does, it's always the "wrong" way. Can't leave bad reviews on a book...that's censorship. Can't peacefully protest...that's disrespecting the flag. Etc., etc.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

kcmorgan said:


> Though in reality, we aren't discussing what's legal. We could look that up. At the heart of this debate is what's morally right. Some seem to believe it's wrong to even mention you object to a book's premise in fear of possibly hurting the author's feelings. And on the other end you have people tired of authors using the plights of others to make themselves feel like heroes when really they are just exploiting the people they claim to be helping.
> 
> Which is why I think in 22 pages not a single person has changed their mind on anything. People tend to be pretty set in their morals.


I completely disagree that people are set in their morals & I disagree w/ the implication that it's pointless to discuss these things or have open dialog. I used to be the most left wing person out there. This was after being raised & believing in a very conservative right wing point of view [I was raised religious, pro life, socially & fiscally conservative, 'compassionate conservative' Focus on the Family type 'indoctrination' [what I would call indoctrination, anyway- I know others would disagree], etc. Not only was I raised that way but I believed in it all until I was a teenager & started exploring what other people were saying & writing etc.

It was in reading other peoples' POVs that I got out of that mindset & became liberal & left leaning. I still consider myself liberal & left leaning; I am pro choice & believe in a social safety net etc. But for quite a while my views were pretty reactionary to having been raised so conservative. So, in actually listening to the experiences & opinions & arguments of those who disagreed with me I came back around to understanding how some people could have those views, which is rather ironic since I myself did for about 17 years of my life- although, my defense was always that I was just a brainwashed child. It was also in reading & hearing extremely left wing positions that I began to think, this is just as much brainwashing & group thing as I was angry at being raised in. So these days I am much more centrist- still liberal & left of center but not to the point of saying that one group's interests should be placed above another's or that things we disagree with should not be given platforms etc. I think all speech, all ideas, all thoughts are valid & worth discussing & we shouldn't turn ourselves into an echo chamber group where only people with our same opinions are allowed to exist or speak.

My point is that it might not be this thread or one person's post etc. that can change someone's mind but over time things can build up & start to resonate so it is absolutely worth discussing & sharing opinions & trying to persuade people. Or perhaps I'm the only person on the planet who has ever changed my political or religious or philosophical beliefs [several times now] based on something I've heard or read, but I doubt it!


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Annie B said:


> I responded to this part. Because your opinion is that these are the only two reactions that you consider okay. My point is that these two reactions don't even begin to cover the range of reactions people can have that are NOT threats or harassment, and we don't get to control other people's reactions.


I didn't say only two. As you quoted, I said "at the most" and gave two examples because those examples represented the farthest I believe people should push their grievances (at the most).



Annie B said:


> Nowhere has anyone said threats of violence are okay. Nowhere. But there are a lot of reactions to poorly written, stereotype-promoting, harmful works of writing than just "ignore" or "talk to author directly" that are perfectly valid reactions and don't involve threats. 1 star reviews criticizing the book, for example. Which is what we are discussing.


I do apologize for jumping to conclusions, though. You wouldn't believe some of the things I've run into on the internet all in the name correcting an offensive thing.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Am I the only one who saw the dog avatar fighting the cat avatar and wondered whether there was dog-people cat-people element underlying it? Maybe I need another drink.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

paranormal_kitty said:


> So...question. What exactly is the _right_ way? Because it seems like no matter what anyone does, it's always the "wrong" way. Can't leave bad reviews on a book...that's censorship. Can't peacefully protest...that's disrespecting the flag. Etc., etc.


Leaving a bad review on a book is fine. What I personally am against is leaving a 1 star review or hounding a publication to take away a starred review etc. just b/c you [general 'you'] disagree w/ what you think the premise is or you find it racist etc. While that's perfectly legal I do not think it's a nice or 'moral' thing to do... nor do I think it is constructive or useful.

For the record I have nothing against protesting the flag. I try to be consistent in my positions & as a staunch defender of First Amendment & free speech rights [which I honestly think every author should be, since we have the potential to be harmed by anti-free speech crusaders], I think every person has the right to decide whether to stand for the National Anthem, whether to kneel respectfully, or whether to do the friggin' hokey pokey on the sidelines, although I would think that last one would be just as crazy & counter-productive as leaving 1 star reviews without having read a book. I also believe in the free speech rights of people to leave a review saying anything they want based on whatever reason but my point is that as authors we should not be advocating for this or next it might be us.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> So...question. What exactly is the _right_ way? Because it seems like no matter what anyone does, it's always the "wrong" way. Can't leave bad reviews on a book...that's censorship. Can't peacefully protest...that's disrespecting the flag. Etc., etc.


I don't think leaving bad reviews is censorship. I think censorship would be closer to actively crusading against a book, creating a campaign, and encouraging others on one person's beliefs rather than individual assessment of the work.

Peaceful protest works amazingly, as long as the protest is peaceful or at the very least when violence erupts, its condemned by the leaders of the protest.

All I can do is to give you an example of what I believe is right.

Suppose that the issue is misrepresentation of Muslims in literature, it's pretty close to what we're talking about here. A non-Muslim has created a work that is offensive towards Muslims.

I would argue that the right course of action, rather than damning ignorant (but not malicious) attempts, would be to encourage literary interest in Muslim lives in all their variances and complexities. The interest would make publishers and readers gravitate, initially, to those authentic pictures of Muslim life, think memoirs. Eventually the interest creates education. Education creates believable Muslim characters popping up across all genres.

Genuine interest leads to education leads to diversity in novels.

Initially, anger can be the thing that zaps you out your chair and take notice, but anger will never be the thing that creates the change. The change will always come from sincerity, understanding, genuine interest, and education.

As far as creating social change?
My opinions on that issue mimic my opinions on diversity in literature. I really do think it comes down to genuine interest and education.

The problem is that no one seems to be creating that genuine interest, it's admittedly difficult and fleeting in nature. Instead, people are more than likely to be angry, to be reactionary. As I said, anger is a great initial push, but it has nowhere to go. Many social movements seem to me to be lost and disorganized once that initial anger is gone. There needs to be interest, education, planning, etc not just brute force.

Imagine any social activistism initiative right now. They're great for a show of force. Now imagine if those groups instead spent half their energy to create petitions to lawmakers and representatives. Or if they created fundraisers and used the money to address even a small issue within their groups demands. Or if they worked with the media to create positive images of their group. Groups need to create a sympathetic image. That image will create interest. That interest will create more education. The education creates change.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> Maybe this is why I'm so steadfast in my opinions on this issue. I just don't think none of this has the power to effect any change that people are hungry for. If people are hungry for social change they're going about it in the wrong way, IMHO. I feel like people are using it as an outlet for frustration and targeting the wrong things.


I think it matters because I used to buy into white supremacy. And when I look back and ask, well what made me think that? Well, everything.

I'd go to school and be taught that from Rome to America, every civilization of note was created by white people. I'd open beauty magazines and see the height of beauty is blonde hair and blue eyes. Note that even when I made the game character in my icon that's supposed to be me, I gave her blue eyes, so she'd be more beautiful. White people were in charge of everything. They were the hero of every story. They were the center of every universe. Even science proved that white people were smarter than everyone else with books like the Bell Curve. I saw the world as I was taught to and didn't really question it. And I think that's true for most people.

But what's different for me is I was bipolar and because of that I had to learn to separate what was actually happening from my perceptions of what was happening because many times those two things did not align. And it's a hard skill to learn, and not necessary for most people. The average person isn't going to buy dinner for an emergency room full of people because they feel an overwhelming sense of togetherness, like I did during one of my manic phases. Being able to evaluate myself in that way allowed me to notice that I was pretty racist and I was racist in a way that favored white people. And once I was conscious of this, I could look back through every bit of information I absorbed that led me to the belief that white people were the best kind of people. After all, race as we understand it was invented to prove exactly that. And now I can pick out when people are working off that premise and building on it.

The author was heavily influenced by Huck Finn and Huck Finn does argue against racism, but the book was written in the 1800s and back then whites wanting to protect blacks saw it as their duty in a sort of paternalistic way. And that viewpoint gets parroted over and over through the generations. But we need to grow in the way we view race relations. People shouldn't be patting themselves on the back for writing white man's burden stories in 2017. The fact the author didn't realize this shows how powerfully literature affects viewpoint.


----------



## Yayoi (Apr 26, 2016)

horst5 said:


> No end in sight.
> Don't you guys have a book to write, or something?


I just came here to say I laughed. No way will I read all pages of this ever-growing thread in favor of something else.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

WHDean said:


> You've probably had some success with this rhetorical gambit in the past. If you ask sincere and earnest people the same questions in different ways, ask for clarification on finer and finer distinctions, and ask for specific references on 22-page thread, all the while professing genuine curiosity, they'll eventually contradict themselves or get tired and give up. I could see this from your first reply to me--it was too telegraphed to miss. Unfortunately for you, however, I was raised by wolves, so I'm neither sincere nor in earnest, vices that keep me from getting sucked in to this one.
> 
> I answered most of your questions multiple times already. And there are 22 pages of people explaining why x, y, and z are offensive to POCs and Muslims. I can't make you see what's in plain sight, and I'm wise enough to know that I'd be wasting time collecting it. The answers to the rest of your questions are immaterial. My beliefs about who should speak on behalf of whom never came up and doesn't matter. I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf but my own, and I'm not telling anyone how they should go about representing people.
> 
> All I did was point to inconsistencies in others' claims. You can't tell people not to generalize about a group of people because they're diverse, then turn around and anoint one member's views representative of that group, especially when you have another member of the same group saying the opposite. That's not letting people speak for themselves; that's just picking a voice and calling it theirs. And once you add your own two cents to that voice, it becomes you talking, not them.


I guess I wasn't clear in my first reply to your comment. First, I, personally, me, am not dismissing anyone's review. Not the original review that praised the book, nor the review that panned the book. I'm not calling the book racist. I'm definitely not calling the author racist. I don't speak for anyone but myself. I'm not picking anything as a voice or cause to trumpet.

I'm not being rhetorical here. This isn't a rhetorical argument. You made an observation and shared your opinion:

_As for this thread, we started with two Muslim reviews, one from the spiked Kirkus review and one from Goodreads. The spiked review has been dismissed by white people and the Goodreads review has been eclipsed by all the accretions from white reviewers cited in the OP and by white commentators here. Looks to me like white people picked the view they liked, added what they thought the POC should've have said, and then trumpeted it as the POC view. _

I reacted to it, specifically. You made statements such as white commentators here dismissing the Kirkus review. Not only have I not seen that said by anyone(but with 23 pages of thread, I may have missed it), I didn't know how you could jump to the conclusion that only white people in this thread said it when many are anonymous. You didn't say non-Muslims. Which was why I asked specifically if that's what you meant. You never answered or clarified which you meant.

You made a claim, one that I found troublesome. I asked for clarification on some points as well as something to back it up. You didn't have to respond. I'm not entitled to it, nor are you required to answer.

Instead you responded to me and put words in my mouth. And now you've made assumptions about my character and again made claims about what I said when I didn't say it. I never dismissed the original review, nor have I ever said or do I place more value on one review over another.

I don't agree with you that in this specific situation and book that all the hoopla is because white people decided to make it a cause. I don't agree white people should never speak up or against something that that they feel marginalizes a minority because in doing so they steal the voice of the minorities.

But I agree with you that shouting over POC, or in this specific case, Muslims, who hold a different point of view is wrong. I agree that not letting POC speak for themselves is wrong. And I agree that claiming to speak for all POC, or claiming that this one point of view is the only acceptable point of view is wrong.

There is a difference between speaking out when someone isn't there to speak for themselves and speaking over them when they try to speak. I haven't seen anyone in this thread speak over a Muslim (and no I don't mean Muslims in this thread, but those involved with this situation) or POC. So I questioned your rhetoric of changing the issue of racism in this book (if there is any) into this is just a bunch of white people shoving their political correctness down everyone's throats. If this isn't the case, then I read what you said wrong. Which is why I asked all those questions.

My guess is that we don't actually think all that differently about things, but that's also an assumption on my part. There's an assumption on your part that I prey on sincere, earnest people with my disingenuous curiosity just so I can gloat when they give up or contradict themselves.

And I guess I'm the naive one here. Because yes, I did get sucked into this. For the record, the only reason I responded specifically to your comment when I've ignored plenty of others is because I do agree with things you've said before in this thread and a few of your points made me think.

And no. I'm not looking for you to respond, or prove your points, or anything. Nothing I'm saying is going to change your opinion and that isn't my intention. But the jabs at my character and assumptions of my intentions are hurtful. And I guess I just don't know when to shut up.


----------



## Yayoi (Apr 26, 2016)

Annie B said:


> Threats are a different matter, yes. Nobody is saying those are okay. We're talking about one star reviews without reading the book, and negative reviews from people who did read the book. I don't think anyone has said "death threats are fine"... So please don't try to twist my words into that. Death threats are not what are being discussed.


Speaking of one-star reviews, I visited the book's page on Goodreads and read some of the reviews. The 5-star reviews are just as bad, because the people writing them only did so because they just wanted to go against the PC culture or something.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

kcmorgan, Monie, Annie, Shane, Kalen, Vaal, Mercia, and others, thanks for your responses to my post from last night about the redemption-of-a-bigot plot, and the resulting discussion. Here's a rundown of the advice I gathered from your posts, with some added thoughts.

If you're going to build your book around the redemption of a bigot:

- Don't have her assert unconvincing equivalencies (unless it's part of her early display of bigotry?). Most highly privileged people _probably _have not had experiences that allow them to completely understand the experiences and/or suffering of someone much less privileged. I know I haven't. Boy oh boy how I haven't.

- Don't make suffering into background noise while putting something that seems comparatively frivolous in the foreground.

- Develop minority characters richly and uniquely instead of relying on stereotypes.

- Don't use minority characters as object lessons or bare devices to advance the plot.

- Don't fall automatically into overused tropes when you think about these characters' trajectories within the book. I remember raving to a gay friend about how great _Brokeback Mountain_ was, and he rolled his eyes and said something like, "Yeah, another movie where being gay means you end up destroyed or dead." And I was like ... _Oh_. I'd never noticed that trope. I was free not to notice, so I hadn't. As with other such patterns, once someone opened my eyes to it, I saw it all over.

- If your MC is a bigot on the way to redemption, do actually redeem her. If she never really gets there convincingly, you've just written a book about a bigot, period, and are asking your reader to sympathize with her. Probably won't work out well.

- Consider having the redemption happen earlier rather than later, so that there's time to explore what she does *after* her redemption. What follows her change of heart may be the most interesting part. Plus, how much bigotry do you really have to show to get the problem across to the reader? Probably not hundreds of pages' worth.

- Explore her new feelings about what she used to be. It shouldn't be, _Phew, glad I saw the light! Pass the pizza._ If the plot's built around it, it's important. It should be important to the character, not just an easy source of conflict that's wrapped up in a sentence or two once conflict is no longer needed.

- Don't do the thing where someone sweeps in and does a better job at belonging to or leading the minority culture he's joined than the real members of that culture.

- Understand that your book is one little stream of water molecules in a vast cultural river, such that whatever you write will be read in the context of all the other culture material your readers encounter, as well as all the experiences they personally have had. Think about how your work might interact with that other material and with different people's bodies of experience.

These are all pretty common sense suggestions, IMO. They fall under the basic umbrellas of "don't rely on craft shortcuts" and "think carefully about how your work will read to people who aren't you." That's reassuring to me. It gives me the sense that the two novels we've been discussing have attracted so much criticism not because bigot-redemption stories are inherently problematic but because certain elements of the stories weren't handled as effectively as they could've been.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> These are all pretty common sense suggestions, IMO. They fall under the basic umbrellas of "don't rely on craft shortcuts" and "think carefully about how your work will read to people who aren't you."


Exactly. That's what I was trying to point out at the beginning. If these stories weren't so ego-stroking and good at reinforcing biases, they'd be torn apart for the weak arcs and terrible characterizations.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

To boil it down even further: Hard Work and Empathy.

But than someone mentioned the 'kill the dog' thread and I had an epiphany:

Some authors really just don't like that their art or their means of wealth accumulation has consequences.

They feel like they should be able to write whatever they want and no one gets to say 'boo' about it because 'free speech'. But that's not how it works.

When you put your ideas out there, people are going to respond to that whether it's 'let me tell you about how white people feel about brown people's issues' or 'sometimes dogs die for no reason and I feel you as a grown-ass adult need to know that'. There is a social contract you enter into when you put your book, your blurb, your concept out there. People get to respond to it. They get to tell their friends about it from their point of view. They get to group together to complain about it and use any open forum to voice it.

You don't get to tell them they can't do that. I mean, sure you can say it, but you can also tell the wind it can't blow. You are just as subject to that social contract as your Amazon contract. People get to call you out, right or wrong (in this case right. So right.)

So whether your terrible writing choice is to use an already terrible trope, or steal someone else's life experience and portray it poorly, you need to educate and prepare yourself for the consequences and accept that they're a thing in stead of thrashing against them to the point where you're actively saying on a public forum that profiting on the suffering of others is acceptable.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> So whether your terrible writing choice is to use an already terrible trope, or steal someone else's life experience and portray it poorly, you need to educate and prepare yourself for the consequences and accept that they're a thing in stead of *thrashing against them to the point where you're actively saying on a public forum that profiting on the suffering of others is acceptable.*


I don't think anyone here believes they're profiting off of the suffering of others. I also don't think people using terrible tropes or poorly informed experiences are profiting off of people suffering or even have any intent of doing that.

If I can call it ignorance, I don't think the ignorance is malicious. That alone blows much of the argument out of the water as there is no intent to exploit suffering.

The biggest issue in the suffering argument is that both sides haven't agreed on what constitutes suffering. For people to openly admit to be profiting off of suffering, the definition of suffering or causing suffering needs to be clearly defined by both sides.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Some authors really just don't like that their art or their means of wealth accumulation has consequences.
> 
> They feel like they should be able to write whatever they want and no one gets to say 'boo' about it because 'free speech'. But that's not how it works.


I see a lot of this in this thread and in WC when discussing -isms and their presence in entertainment and art it happens frequently.

It seems people are afraid that they might fall soon the wrong side of the "PC" line and people with complain. They write reviews and discuss the issues with the book and actively encourage others not to read it. And somehow that always turns into a violation of free speech and a threat to an authors lively hood. Free speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence.

You can say what you want and you can also suffer the consequences if exercising your right to free speech.

For example, you can call someone a racial slur. Your exercising your rights to freedom of speech. You don't then get to claim censorship or that someone is violating your rights when they then refuse to buy your music or books or eat at your restaurant or shop at your store. You can't claim you've been violated when I tell my family and friends what you did.

The same thing goes when you have problematic themes or ideas on your book. I wrote a short story with a dog that eventually dies a violent death. I can't say I'm being censored if a reader post on Goodreads that she'll never read another one of my books because that one short story depicted animal cruelty. And if she then goes to her FB animal rights group and tells them not to read my books, that's her right. She is exercising her right to free speech. It doesn't matter if she interfering with my ability to make money off my work.

What some writers here seem to want is the freedom to say whatever they want and suffer no consequences unless they are positive and preferably profitable. That's not how this works. Just like I can't curse my boss out and not expected to be fired, you (general you) can't expect to write what you want and it not to effect your income source.

Quinton Tarantino will never get a dinner from me. I'll tell anyone that ask and even those that don't why. That's my right.

If you don't want anyone to in object to your writing. Keep it to yourself (like me).


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> I don't think anyone here believes they're profiting off of the suffering of others. I also don't think people using terrible tropes or poorly informed experiences are profiting off of people suffering or even have any intent of doing that.
> 
> If I can call it ignorance, I don't think the ignorance is malicious. That alone blows much of the argument out of the water as there is no intent to exploit suffering.
> 
> The biggest issue in the suffering argument is that both sides haven't agreed on what constitutes suffering. For people to openly admit to be profiting off of suffering, the definition of suffering or causing suffering needs to be clearly defined by both sides.


Oh, I believe she thought she was helping. And I believe she got a warm gushy feeling from that. But you know what happens when a person who is trying to help does when they find out they are doing harm instead? They apologize. They stop. Know what happens to people doing it for the warm gushy feeling? They get mad. Being told what they did wasn't helpful robs them of that feeling and they start attacking the very people they were trying to help. Guess which one this author did? She called on her fans to fight the people objecting to her book. She didn't write this book for Muslims, she wrote it for herself.

So what gave her the notion that this was how she should get her warm gushy feelings? All the previous books and media that showed her that good white people rescue minorities from bad white people. And now she's added one more to the pile so more white people can learn that's how you feel good about yourself and get mad when those same minorities don't show an attitude of gratitude because after all, you were just trying to help. (general you, not specifically you) And that way of seeing the world is what keeps people's eyes from bulging when people on the evening news suggest that if rich minorities protest racism then they are being ungrateful. I remembered one went so far to even point out a certain professional sports player's white parents. Where's his attitude of gratitude? Our stories teach us that we earned gratitude if he's not dodging death camps and lynchings.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh, I believe she thought she was helping. And I believe she got a warm gushy feeling from that. But you know what happens when a person who is trying to help does when they find out they are doing harm instead? They apologize. They stop. Know what happens to people doing it for the warm gushy feeling? They get mad. Being told what they did wasn't helpful robs them of that feeling and they start attacking the very people they were trying to help. Guess which one this author did? She called on her fans to fight the people objecting to her book. She didn't write this book for Muslims, she wrote it for herself.
> 
> So what gave her the notion that this was how she should get her warm gushy feelings? All the previous books and media that showed her that good white people rescue minorities from bad white people. And now she's added one more to the pile so more white people can learn that's how you feel good about yourself and get mad when those same minorities don't show an attitude of gratitude because after all, you were just trying to help. (general you, not specifically you) And that way of seeing the world is what keeps people's eyes from bulging when people on the evening news suggest that if rich minorities protest racism then they are being ungrateful. I remembered one went so far to even point out a certain professional sports player's white parents. Where's his attitude of gratitude? Our stories teach us that we earned if he's not dodging death camps and lynchings.


You know, going back to the story, I can't help but feel like something is amiss there. 
How does one write a novel about as delicate as a bull running through a China shop and get it approved by people reading it specifically looking for offensive material?
I only get slightly annoyed by the white savior trope and would've mentioned it in passing, but how does an offense committee overlook that?
How did they overlook the dynamic? 
You know many times the ball had to drop for this book to get published?
My sneaky suspicion is that she meant her book as a scathing remark about racism and ignorance (perhaps that's why the main character never truly grows which was a bad idea in this tropeand wanted accolades for that, but she made the supporting character such a badly written 'pet' that it deeply angered the people it was supposed to impress.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> You know, going back to the story, I can't help but feel like something is amiss there.
> How does one write a novel about as delicate as a bull running through a China shop and get it approved by people reading it specifically looking for offensive material?
> I only get slightly annoyed by the white savior trope and would've mentioned it in passing, but how does an offense committee overlook that?
> How did they overlook the dynamic?
> ...


Keep in mind, this is the same publisher that just had a controversy over this a month back. Harper Teen and Harlequin Teen are owned by the same people. Controversy is free publicity. You have people buying the book to stick it to the SJWs and for freedom and America. And you have people buying the book so they can write 10 page Tumblr articles highlighting every ignorant line. And you have people actually interested in the book buying it, who would have bought it anyway, though now with all the controversy even more of them are probably aware the book exists than they would have been otherwise.

As for the claim they ran the book past sensitivity readers. They give no other information about that. We don't know if those readers had a similar background to the characters in the book. We don't know what questions they asked. For all we know they could have pulled in 10 Muslims and asked them to fact check the "more you know" moments in the book. Like, hey, did we spell the funny Muslim words right? "Uh...yeah." Sweet! We got the the go ahead!

I have no doubt they knew, but it's their job to sell books, and books that cause controversy sell like hotcakes. I suspect this book was chosen for publication _because_ they knew this would happen. And when it did they batted their eyes, played innocent and were like, but we had sensitivity readers.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

kcmorgan said:


> Keep in mind, this is the same publisher that just had a controversy over this a month back. Harper Teen and Harlequin Teen are owned by the same people. Controversy is free publicity. You have people buying the book to stick it to the SJWs and for freedom and America. And you have people buying the book so they can write 10 page Tumblr articles highlighting every ignorant line. And you have people actually interested in the book buying it, who would have bought it anyway, though now with all the controversy even more of them are probably aware the book exists than they would have been otherwise.
> 
> As for the claim they ran the book past sensitivity readers. They give no other information about that. We don't know if those readers had a similar background to the characters in the book. We don't know what questions they asked. For all we know they could have pulled in 10 Muslims and asked them to fact check the "more you know" moments in the book. Like, hey, did we spell the funny Muslim words right? "Uh...yeah." Sweet! We got the the go ahead!
> 
> I have no doubt they knew, but it's their job to sell books, and books that cause controversy sell like hotcakes. I suspect this book was chosen for publication _because_ they knew this would happen. And when it did they batted their eyes, played innocent and were like, but we had sensitivity readers.


Also, I've seen some people point out that the sensitivity readers might have been reluctant to say "this premise is not great, this whole book needs to be rewritten" because by the time they get a book, it's basically done. Same with editors not wanting to screw up the publication schedule. Who knows what happened that this got approved and to ARC stage, but it did, and that it did is another issue in publishing that we need to take a hard look at and many of the people critiquing the book and asking those questions are taking that look. This controversy is part of a longer-running and larger dialog within the book world, especially the YA world.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

Annie B said:


> Also, I've seen some people point out that the sensitivity readers might have been reluctant to say "this premise is not great, this whole book needs to be rewritten" because by the time they get a book, it's basically done. Same with editors not wanting to screw up the publication schedule. Who knows what happened that this got approved and to ARC stage, but it did, and that it did is another issue in publishing that we need to take a hard look at and many of the people critiquing the book and asking those questions are taking that look. This controversy is part of a longer-running and larger dialog within the book world, especially the YA world.


I've wondered this. Because I've seen several sensitivity readers that won't read the book until after it's been edited. Which in my opinion is too late, especially if the book needs major structural changes.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

kcmorgan said:


> I think it matters because I used to buy into white supremacy. And when I look back and ask, well what made me think that? Well, everything.
> 
> I'd go to school and be taught that from Rome to America, every civilization of note was created by white people. I'd open beauty magazines and see the height of beauty is blonde hair and blue eyes. Note that even when I made the game character in my icon that's supposed to be me, I gave her blue eyes, so she'd be more beautiful. White people were in charge of everything. They were the hero of every story. They were the center of every universe. Even science proved that white people were smarter than everyone else with books like the Bell Curve. I saw the world as I was taught to and didn't really question it. And I think that's true for most people.
> 
> ...


KC, can I just say how much I appreciate your contributions to this thread? You really have a great gift for not only clarifying the issues but making your points in a way that's both emotionally powerful and kind. I'd love to read any fiction you've written.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Sarah Shaw said:


> KC, can I just say how much I appreciate your contributions to this thread? You really have a great gift for not only clarifying the issues but making your points in a way that's both emotionally powerful and kind. I'd love to read any fiction you've written.


Whenever someone says this, I imagine them imagining me penning some sort of Eat Pray Love with an urban twist and then I have to tell them what I really write. Those that know are probably already chuckling.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> I don't think anyone here believes they're profiting off of the suffering of others. I also don't think people using terrible tropes or poorly informed experiences are profiting off of people suffering or even have any intent of doing that.
> 
> If I can call it ignorance, I don't think the ignorance is malicious. That alone blows much of the argument out of the water as there is no intent to exploit suffering.
> 
> The biggest issue in the suffering argument is that both sides haven't agreed on what constitutes suffering. For people to openly admit to be profiting off of suffering, the definition of suffering or causing suffering needs to be clearly defined by both sides.


Someone upthread literally objected tot he idea that it was unacceptable.

Whether they believe it or not, they took the stance that writing should be consequence free that they worked themselves into a corner where they had to say it or admit that a writer can do wrong by writing whatever they want.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

HopelessFanatic said:


> I guess I wasn't clear in my first reply to your comment. ...


We all learn rhetoric by imitation; thus, any particular strategy or gambit can be consciously or unconsciously used. Identifying one says nothing about the user's character; it speaks to the prospects of the debate. If two perfectly sincere people disagree on the evidence, all the questions and answers in the world aren't going to change the conclusion. One or the other person, but usually the answerer, will tire before that ever happens. So it looks like you get somewhere, but you really didn't because the gambit doesn't get to the root of the problem, the different perspectives on the evidence. Instead, we have to look at it differently:

All the criticism posted here is second hand because no one here read the book. This second-hand criticism is a mix of craft criticism and ethical criticism from three reviewers: the Kirkus reviewer, Justina Ireland, and the Goodreads reviewer cited by Annie B (Annie's other "Muslim reviewer" on Goodreads, who may or may not be a Muslim, only re-posted Justina Ireland's review--so there are only three reviews). The rest is flotsam and jetsam from the internet.

All we know about the Kirkus review is that it was positive, so we can assume she did not find the book badly written or that it dehumanized her or her co-religionists. The negative Goodreads reviewer offered mostly craft criticism (e.g., shallow, self-absorbed character who didn't develop out of her racism, etc.). Ireland offered both craft and ethical criticism, but it was clear from the fact that she invoked "white supremacy" in the title of her review that the upshot is that the book is racist. All the rest of the claims about the book, which are all ethical criticisms, came from posters here or were repeated from unknown sources from the article cited in the OP. That means the bulk of the claims that the book dehumanizes Muslims, that POC POVs were suppressed, ignored, or whatever (= there are all manner of circuitous variations on this), and that it's a racist white saviour narrative came from Ireland and from posters here, and not, so far as we can tell, from Muslim reviewers of the book.

Here's my position. I object, first, to people here supporting the ethical criticisms of the book when they haven't read the book and thus have no evidence. I object, second, to the defence for asserting these criticisms, which says "We're defending / supporting / allying with POCs who are being / will be harmed by this book because of [insert ethical criticism]." My objection here is twofold: No one here read the book and, more importantly, no POC reviewer who did read the book made these ethical criticisms of this book. This is why I said (provocatively, yes) that all we have are white people on white horses riding to battle on behalf of POCs on evidence that white people themselves ginned up.

Now, your objections seem to be three: (1) posters didn't dismiss the Kirkus review, (2) I don't know that the alleged dismissers are white, and (3) people should be able to condemn racism against others. To (1), no one has to explicitly reject a positive review to dismiss it. All one has to do is hold up the negative review as the right one. That is what people did. I already answered (2): no one pretended to be anything but white. I'll add that talking about POCs in the third person, about one's obligations toward them, and claiming to be supporting or allying with POCs all mean identifying with the group with the obligation, namely, whites. It does not even matter whether anyone is white or not (however that might be determined); what matters is that people are self-identifying with the white perspective when they talk this way.

As for (3), this is where the inconsistency I pointed to comes in. I have no problem with people of any stripe complaining about racist books, plots, tropes, stereotypes, etc., if they actually are. A lot of people here claimed that this books was racist and accepted all the ethical criticism about white saviour narratives, dehumanization, etc., and condemned the book. When challenged with the fact--the fact--that no one here read the book, the condemners pointed to one--one!--negative review of the book by a Muslim reviewer on Goodreads as evidence of the POC view. The problem with that defence is twofold: the original Kirkus reviewer was also Muslim and (apparently) saw no problem with the book and, second, the Goodreads reviewer made none of the ethical criticisms directed at the book by white people here who hadn't read it.

My only belief here is that it is wrong to condemn people and their books without any evidence of wrongdoing. People are not just whacking a strawman. They're attacking a real person for crimes they have attributed to her. This is harm with no good to show for it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I'm seeing several posts that have ventured into political discussions beyond the scope of the original post.  Let's rein it in, okay?  Posts may be edited after I fully catch up with the thread.  PM me if you have any questions so as to not derail the thread.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

boba1823 said:


> Resident proponent-of-profiting-off-of-the-suffering-of-others here, reporting for duty
> 
> As long as we're still talking about pretending to be a member of an oppressed group (i.e. making up a pen name and writerly persona) in the hope of getting better sales for a book that is, in some way or another, about the experience of a member or members of that group - then I'm still down with it. (I wouldn't necessary endorse every activity that might be described in this way.)
> 
> ...


I agree with this completely. It really is a nuanced issue that can change from case to case. For example, pretending to be someone you're not and writing a memior about socially charged issues, to me, is completely unethical. Writing genre fiction under a pen name regardless of choices just isn't ethically wrong in my opinion, because you're not using that identity and presenting it as an authority on a social issue.

Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue, I think most people can admit it is interesting (and in need of further thorough investigation) that if this book was written by a Muslim woman it would've sidestepped most, if not all, of the ethical criticisms. We can't forget that the initial review was done by a Muslim who didn't have a deep, ethical issue with the portrayal(s) or the plot. Half my family is Muslim and I can guarantee you that their reaction to this would be a chuckle and a shrug. It seems to me, to be mostly an issue of people getting offended on behalf of another group where the group in question hasn't even really weighed in yet.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Minority groups are not monoliths. Also... I highly doubt a Muslim woman would have written this book the same way, so yes, that likely would have side-stepped a lot of the problems.

As for the Kirkus review being removed, here's Justina Ireland's take on it: https://twitter.com/justinaireland/status/921426033756262400 It was about money, from what she points out (as in, they've left reviews of other highly problematic books up in the past, no problem).


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Annie B said:


> Minority groups are not monoliths.


Does anyone actually really believe that? As a Black woman, I am very aware that minority groups are not monoliths. Heck, I think there's possibly only 4-5 minorities in this entire 25-page thread and I'm on the opposite side of the fence to them. Non-minority people understand this statement to be false as well. It's honestly not something anyone actually believes.

I'm also aware that majority groups are not monoliths, either. No social group is a monolith. Even in this debate, within the yay and nay groups, everyone is still coming from completely different places. We can't even present a united front to each other in a simple debate, let alone assuming there is some united front among millions whose possible only thing in common is their minority status.



Annie B said:


> Also... I highly doubt a Muslim woman would have written this book the same way, so yes, that likely would have side-stepped a lot of the problems.


Or she could've written it the exact same way. In general, there seems to be a bit of a subconcious bias in what people believe to be an authentic/ honest minority story or a story they believe a minority would write. I absolutely can imagine a Muslim woman writing this and there could be a thousand different reasons why.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> All the criticism posted here is second hand because no one here read the book. This second-hand criticism is a mix of craft criticism and ethical criticism from three reviewers: the Kirkus reviewer, Justina Ireland, and the Goodreads reviewer cited by Annie B (Annie's other "Muslim reviewer" on Goodreads, who may or may not be a Muslim, only re-posted Justina Ireland's review--so there are only three reviews). The rest is flotsam and jetsam from the internet.


There's a movement out there for more diverse YA and children's books. Since I don't write in either category, it's not something I follow closely, but my impression is that it operates primarily through blogs and Twitter, so there's probably more out there than the Goodreads reviews. I mean, HarperCollins didn't distribute only three ARCs, right? I'm not up for a major search for blog reviews, but this one came up on the first page of a Google search.

That said, some folks out there are making the same point you are about the role of white voices in the conversation and the importance of listening to the full range of voices from people of color and other minority groups, which would of course include the Kirkus's reviewer's voice. Here's a thought-provoking piece that approaches the controversy from that angle.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Speaking of reviews, I want to ask YA authors whether young adults themselves are part of the advance review process, or whether this is deemed "unsafe" until actual adults have read the book.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

WHDean said:


> We all learn rhetoric by imitation; thus, any particular strategy or gambit can be consciously or unconsciously used. Identifying one says nothing about the user's character; it speaks to the prospects of the debate. If two perfectly sincere people disagree on the evidence, all the questions and answers in the world aren't going to change the conclusion. One or the other person, but usually the answerer, will tire before that ever happens. So it looks like you get somewhere, but you really didn't because the gambit doesn't get to the root of the problem, the different perspectives on the evidence. Instead, we have to look at it differently:
> 
> All the criticism posted here is second hand because no one here read the book. This second-hand criticism is a mix of craft criticism and ethical criticism from three reviewers: the Kirkus reviewer, Justina Ireland, and the Goodreads reviewer cited by Annie B (Annie's other "Muslim reviewer" on Goodreads, who may or may not be a Muslim, only re-posted Justina Ireland's review--so there are only three reviews). The rest is flotsam and jetsam from the internet.
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply. I misunderstood your original comment.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. While I think the conversation that can arise from talking about books is important and shouldn't be silenced, I don't think condemning the author or attacking her is okay. I believe strongly that the focus should be on the book itself, as well as where it fits with other recent YA books. Which is hard to do when few people have read and reviewed this book in detail. I just don't know where the line is between informed criticism and reactionary criticism. The easy answer is those who have read the book versus those who haven't and are only repeating what others have said. For me, the premise alone didn't ring any alarms or anything. It was the review with direct quotes that changed my mind that maybe this book is troublesome in the ways it expresses its themes. I say change my mind because my original reaction to the article in the OP was how can anyone know what's in the book if it isn't even released yet?

I can't say one way or another about this book without hearing more from other people who have read it and why they believe it is one way or another. Even reading the book myself isn't going to be enough for me to make a decision because I don't trust my own bias and experiences over those who are more affected by the themes.

I think the danger lies in both extremes, condemning and attacking the author/book based on only a little evidence or from the fact that she's white, as well as dismissing any criticism of the book or books like it, because the criticism violates free speech, or of people being oversensitive, or this would have happened no matter what the author did because she's white. I, personally, haven't seen many people in this thread that are for either extreme. But it is easy to feel like you're (general) being lumped in with the extreme and becoming defensive. I'm guilty of this.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> There's a movement out there for more diverse YA and children's books. Since I don't write in either category, it's not something I follow closely, but my impression is that it operates primarily through blogs and Twitter, so there's probably more out there than the Goodreads reviews. I mean, HarperCollins didn't distribute only three ARCs, right? I'm not up for a major search for blog reviews, but this one came up on the first page of a Google search.
> 
> That said, some folks out there are making the same point you are about the role of white voices in the conversation and the importance of listening to the full range of voices from people of color and other minority groups, which would of course include the Kirkus's reviewer's voice. Here's a thought-provoking piece that approaches the controversy from that angle.


Thank you for sharing the article. It is a thought-provoking read. Listening to different perspectives, especially coming from different angles, is important and he makes a very good point.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> Or she could've written it the exact same way. In general, there seems to be a bit of a bias in what people believe to be an authentic/ honest minority story or a story they believe a minority would write. I absolutely can imagine a Muslim woman writing this and there could be a thousand different reasons why.


I have a hard time imagining a Muslim sitting down to pen a book about a highly educated Muslim woman who needs a jaw droppingly dumb white girl to save her. I'm trying to think of real life examples of any minority doing this, and the closest I can come up with is a black man writing a show about the black british civil rights movement cast an Indian woman as the female lead because his wife is Indian. Believe me, he got criticism. He got _a lot_ of criticism. So in the unlikely event a Muslim woman did write this book, I'd still be sitting here like "it's problematic" because for one, these portrayals affect more than just one minority group.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> I have a hard time imagining a Muslim sitting down to pen a book about a highly educated Muslim woman who needs a jaw droppingly dumb white girl to save her. I'm trying to think of real life examples of any minority doing this, and the closest I can come up with is a black man writing a show about the black british civil rights movement cast an Indian woman as the female lead because his wife is Indian. Believe me, he got criticism. He got _a lot_ of criticism. So in the unlikely event a Muslim woman did write this book, I'd still be sitting here like "it's problematic" because for one, these portrayals affect more than just one minority group.


KCMorgan, I also want to thank you for your candid and insightful posts in this thread. You have opened my eyes to much I hadn't ever thought about before. I will not ask what you write, however.  My old heart probably couldn't handle it!


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> _I have a hard time imagining a Muslim sitting down to pen a book about a highly educated Muslim woman who needs a jaw droppingly dumb white girl to save her._ I'm trying to think of real life examples of any minority doing this, and the closest I can come up with is a black man writing a show about the black british civil rights movement cast an Indian woman as the female lead because his wife is Indian. Believe me, he got criticism. He got _a lot_ of criticism. So in the unlikely event a Muslim woman did write this book, I'd still be sitting here like "it's problematic" because for one, these portrayals affect more than just one minority group.


I can imagine it.

The biggest issue facing Muslims in regards to discrimination isn't that they're seen as helpless. The biggest threat to them is that they're seen as threats who are full of irrational hatred and violence.

I can imagine the stream of thought that decides to combat that dangerous misconception by creating a book where the Muslim character is infantilized and forces readers to examine the Muslim woman with extreme sympathy rather than suspicion and ire. It's a bonus that the "jaw droppingly dumb white girl" saves her because even in with her lack of intellect she starts to question her own preconceived notions about Muslims. It could say, "If she gets it (eventually) then everyone reading this book can too. No one reading this book is without redemption. "

Regardless of my opinion on her methods or her reasoning, A Muslim woman writing this book isn't out of the realm of possibility to me.

I'm not saying that people wouldn't find her work "problematic", everybody has a problem with something. But I don't think this scenario, the whole situation surrounding this book, would've happened. For one, I don't think people would have the gall to demand a retraction of a review written by a Muslim in regards to a book written by a Muslim due to the two people in question not understanding when or when not to be offended by depictions of themselves in books. It's glaringly patronizing to a level that I'm fairly sure people wouldn't have done it. As I said, this seems to be a case of people being offended _for_ a group rather than a vocal outcry _from_ that group. So the catalyst that sparked this whole debate wouldn't have happened.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> As I said, this seems to be a case of people being offended _for_ a group rather than a vocal outcry _from_ that group. So the catalyst that sparked this whole debate wouldn't have happened.


Come on. The second negative review on Goodreads is a woman in a hijab. How are you using the religious makeup of a writing group to decide the Muslims are probably fine with it? Scrolling down the reviews looking at headwear only I can see at least two who weren't. And since religion isn't something visible, there is no way of knowing how many of those one star reviews are from Muslims. So can we please not use them one way or the other? We can reason if something is good, benign or harmful to society without a Muslim poll.

The idea that you have to be part of a minority to say if something is wrong or not really bothers me because if they only make up 3% of the population that's like declaring open season on them. So few people speaking on any issue are easily dismissed. Allies matter. Without allies I'd probably be a mammy right now. Not to mention, if we all agree that no one but a Muslim has the right to speak on issues that affect Muslims, then the author had no right to write the book, so the argument you're using negates itself.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> *The idea that you have to be part of a minority to say if something is wrong or not really bothers me* because if they only make up 3% of the population that's like declaring open season on them. So few people speaking on any issue are easily dismissed. Allies matter. Without allies I'd probably be a mammy right now. Not to mention, if we all agree that no one but a Muslim has the right to speak on issues that affect Muslims, then the author had no right to write the book, so the argument you're using negates itself.


As opposed to the majority speaking up for the minority if they happen to be white? 

And what if that second poster wearing the hijab as you claim is a woman who had suffered from chemotherapy and wasn't muslim? That's a bit of bigotry there, isn't it? At the very least, stereotyping.


----------



## Spinneyhead (Nov 4, 2010)

Annie B said:


> As it usually the case with things like this... it's my hope that the people reading this and not commenting are maybe thinking more deeply about the issue. If even one writer reading this decided from points made that maybe they should do more work and more research to be respectful to the characters they are writing and the readership they hope to have, it's worth all the headache and heartache, to me.
> 
> A forum post *might* change nothing. But silence *always* changes nothing.


Not this thread specifically, but all the talk about diversity and inclusion there has been, particularly since the puppies and the Hugos, has made me think harder about representation in what I write. It hasn't scared me away from doing it, but, rather, made me question my default of minimal physical descriptions of characters- which readers are prone to fill in with default white people.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I have a hard time imagining a Muslim sitting down to pen a book about a highly educated Muslim woman who needs a jaw droppingly dumb white girl to save her. I'm trying to think of real life examples of any minority doing this, and the closest I can come up with is a black man writing a show about the black british civil rights movement cast an Indian woman as the female lead because his wife is Indian. Believe me, he got criticism. He got _a lot_ of criticism. So in the unlikely event a Muslim woman did write this book, I'd still be sitting here like "it's problematic" because for one, these portrayals affect more than just one minority group.


This is another example of the inconsistencies in this thread. I take it from what you've said here that you'd be against what sophisticated English faculty like to call "essentializing the other," meaning treating people like a homogeneous group with same set of properties. Every person of group is a token of a type, not an individual in their own right.

Yet here you are doubting what "an educated Muslim woman" would write about, and then going on to look at what other "minorities" would do (!), as if everyone who isn't white thinks the same way and follows some sort of Minority Plot Code. I'll start this sentence, "I have a hard time imaging an American woman sitting down with a pen to write..." and you finish it. Yeah, I know, you can't because it's ridiculous to pretend there's an answer. And anyone would find it downright offensive if you did answer it--even worse if I presumed to answer it.

Now, I'm definitely *not* saying you're a racist or anything of the sort. But that's because I'm avoiding making the kind of assumptions about you that you're making about this book and this author.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

WHDean said:


> This is another example of the inconsistencies in this thread. I take it from what you've said here that you'd be against what sophisticated English faculty like to call "essentializing the other," meaning treating people like a homogeneous group with same set of properties. Every person of group is a token of a type, not an individual in their own right.
> 
> Yet here you are doubting what "an educated Muslim woman" would write about, and then going on to look at what other "minorities" would do (!), as if everyone who isn't white thinks the same way and follows some sort of Minority Plot Code. I'll start this sentence, "I have a hard time imaging an American woman sitting down with a pen to write..." and you finish it. Yeah, I know, you can't because it's ridiculous to pretend there's an answer. And anyone would find it downright offensive if you did answer it--even worse if I presumed to answer it.
> 
> Now, I'm definitely *not* saying you're a racist or anything of the sort. But that's because I'm avoiding making the kind of assumptions about you that you're making about this book and this author.


That's only if I'm basing it on my understanding of Muslims, which I'm not. I'm basing it on my understanding of people. People in general don't usually craft stories where they need to be rescued by their intellectual inferiors. Can you think of any examples of books like that? I can't. And I swear, I'm honestly trying.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Laran Mithras said:


> As opposed to the majority speaking up for the minority if they happen to be white?
> 
> And what if that second poster wearing the hijab as you claim is a woman who had suffered from chemotherapy and wasn't muslim? That's a bit of bigotry there, isn't it? At the very least, stereotyping.


Assuming a woman in a hijab is Muslim is bigotry? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OMG! You win the thread.

I guess assuming someone wearing a cross is Christian is prejudice. For all I know they just need that to fend off the vampires, amirite?


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> Come on. The second negative review on Goodreads is a woman in a hijab. How are you using the religious makeup of a writing group to decide the Muslims are probably fine with it? Scrolling down the reviews looking at headwear only I can see at least two who weren't. And since religion isn't something visible, there is no way of knowing how many of those one star reviews are from Muslims. So can we please not use them one way or the other? We can reason if something is good, benign or harmful to society without a Muslim poll.


This isn't my argument at all? I haven't said or implied any of this.



kcmorgan said:


> The idea that you have to be part of a minority to say if something is wrong or not really bothers me because if they only make up 3% of the population that's like declaring open season on them. So few people speaking on any issue are easily dismissed. Allies matter. Without allies I'd probably be a mammy right now. Not to mention, if we all agree that no one but a Muslim has the right to speak on issues that affect Muslims, then the author had no right to write the book, so the argument you're using negates itself.


Once again, I haven't made any of these claims.

I stand by this statement:



> As I said, this seems to be a case of people being offended for a group rather than a vocal outcry from that group.


However, you seem to have made a lot of conclusions that I didn't intend from that statement.

I made no claims that the group affected is the only voice that _should_ be heard or that other voices are invalid. My point (although the statement was admittedly vague) is that this seems to be a very one-sided argument where most of the grievances are dominated by one group of people with one position. I'm not even invalidating their position, but rather I'm saying that the people affected have a place at that table of discussion. And I will assign the group actively affected a higher value, but by no means _all_ the value. And that the discussion hasn't happened yet, all the positions haven't been assessed, but we're pushing judgment based on only one view.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> This isn't my argument at all? I haven't said or implied any of this.
> 
> Once again, I haven't made any of these claims.
> 
> ...


Again, how are you determining the backgrounds of people who object to the book?
And secondly, is that the ideal way to determine things? Say we could specifically ask Muslims how they felt about the book and 74% of them were fine with it, does that really not make the book problematic anymore? I'd argue that the book is intrinsically problematic.
And yes, I think I just repeated myself, because while you're saying that you aren't saying what I think you're saying, it still sounds to me like that's what you're saying. So if I'm still misunderstanding you, can you explain how I'm misinterpreting your point?


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> Again, how are you determining the backgrounds of people who object to the book?


I can't determine their religious or cultural backgrounds. I only know that the group objecting (overwhelmingly) has not read the material to which they're objecting. Therefore, in my opinion, the group is mostly uninformed and mostly reactionary. Their background is of no consequence. I just view them as a reactionary group. Even Muslims within this group have no specific added knowledge. If they haven't read the book they're as uninformed as everyone else and their experiences or opinions are as inconsequential as everyone else's.

I said,



> I'm saying that the people affected have a place at that table of discussion. And I will assign the group actively affected a higher value, but by no means all the value


And now I understand that you mean: How do I know the people objecting right now aren't being affected?

I should've said, "people affected who were informed, who have read the novel". I consider anyone uninformed, regardless of their background to be of that one group. I don't think their background is relevant until they're informed and have read the book.



kcmorgan said:


> And secondly, is that the ideal way to determine things? Say we could specifically ask Muslims how they felt about the book and 74% of them were fine with it, does that really not make the book problematic anymore? I'd argue that the book is intrinsically problematic.


It possibly could be intrinsically problematic.

But when does a book's intrinsic problematic-ness change? What if the percentages were 83% or 92% or 98% that thought it was fine? Is something that offends 17% or 8% or 2% of a demographic still intrinsically problematic? Does any specific percentage actually mean a book is not intrinsically problematic anymore? It can't be 0%, because that's impossible. It's certainly a discussion worth having and one that's far-reaching implications certainly put me out of my depth.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Charmaine, as an aside, the image in your sig hosted with photobucket doesn't show anymore because you need to upgrade your plan.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

I seems like one part of this multifaceted problem is too many imprecise overstatements.

Making things out to be simple and not complex, and all one way, masks the real problems that need to be discussed. Using shorthand such as "white supremacy" or "bleeding-heart liberal" or "treehugger" any other loaded term obscures rather than reveals the truth, and generates resentment from anyone so smeared.

In other words, criticism of the book and/or author ought to be specific, informed (actually read the book) and limited to the evidence. The opposite of "ought to be" is not "prohibited," but it may well be "irresponsible and just as bad as the insensitivity cited in the book." In other other words, the cure becomes worse than the disease, just like calling everyone who wants clean water and likes national parks a "treehugger," calling anyone who desires human rights and fair treatment a "bleeding-heart liberal," and a system that generally favors whites "white supremacy" rather than something more accurate like "white bias". 

All those things are "esentializing the other," as mentioned above: creating a stereotype and then trying to make decisions as if the stereotype were the whole truth.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> I can't determine their religious or cultural backgrounds. I only know that the group objecting (_overwhelmingly_) has not read the material to which they're objecting. Therefore, in my opinion, the group is mostly uninformed and mostly reactionary. Their background is of no consequence. I just view them as a reactionary group. Even Muslims within this group have no specific added knowledge. If they haven't read the book they're as uninformed as everyone else and their experiences or opinions are as inconsequential as everyone else's.
> 
> I said,
> 
> ...


Oh! I see where we're missing each other. Because of my past, I've had to realize that things are what they are regardless of how I perceive them. I can think of far too many examples of my perception being wrong to use that as a basis on which I'm drawing my conclusion. So for me, even if you could get every single Muslim in the world to sign off on this book, it could still be problematic because the problems I see have nothing to do with how Muslims feel about the book.

Let me break down my argument:
The media and literature that we consume can influence our worldview (especially if we're a teen with less real world experience to counterbalance what the media is telling us)
The worldview encouraged by this book is one of white supremacy and a paternalistic white man's burden ideology
That worldview has real world consequences from the way minority success isn't attributed to their actions to the way we justify police brutality
Therefore, this is not a worldview we should be teaching our children, and warning people who might not see it isn't cruelty to the author but a kindness to society

Throughout the thread people have agreed and disagreed with different parts of that, but none of it has anything to do with whether Muslims approve of the book or not. After all, the book this one is modeled after is about a white boy protecting a runaway slave. The book isn't really about Muslims, it's about white people.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Laran Mithras said:


> And what if that second poster wearing the hijab as you claim is a woman who had suffered from chemotherapy and wasn't muslim? That's a bit of bigotry there, isn't it? At the very least, stereotyping.


If you're reduced to a statement that outrageous to counter her points, you've already lost the argument.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> That's only if I'm basing it on my understanding of Muslims, which I'm not. I'm basing it on my understanding of people. People in general don't usually craft stories where they need to be rescued by their intellectual inferiors. Can you think of any examples of books like that? I can't. And I swear, I'm honestly trying.


You're missing the point. I have no problem allowing that you misspoke and that you meant people when you said minorities and that you didn't mean to essentialize. I'll even overlook the fact that you didn't take a stab at completing the sentence I offered using people as a guide. And I'm letting you off the hook for the same reason I give the author of _American Heart_ the benefit of the doubt.

But Justina Ireland would not give you any more benefit of the doubt than she gave Moriarty. Your words essentialize just like Moriarty's book did. And your intention would no more count than the author's intention. Here's Ireland's takeaway at the end of the piece on the book:



> TL; DR: American Heart is a book that aims to undermine white supremacy and yet ironically ends up clumsily reinforcing it at every page turn.


She would say exactly the same about your words here. Maybe you were trying to defend minorities, but you're guilty of essentializing them and therefore perpetuating white supremacy.

Again, I'm definitely* not* saying you're furthering white supremacy. I'm merely trying to impress on you how destructive this way of thinking is. As I said to Annie earlier, no one is immune to this line of attack because your intentions don't matter. You are as vulnerable to Justina Ireland as Moriarty is to her--and to you at the moment.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> Throughout the thread people have agreed and disagreed with different parts of that, but none of it has anything to do with whether Muslims approve of the book or not. After all, the book this one is modeled after is about a white boy protecting a runaway slave. The book isn't really about Muslims, it's about white people.


And here is where things run off the track. A huge majority of Muslims are "white people".

I didn't cite the original story to start an argument about "white people", which it seems this has turned into. Anything that offends anybody, or any ideas that someone doesn't like can become a target. If you write anything that anyone objects to, whether it's religion, race, ethnicity, political bias, or anything else someone can stick an "ism" on the end of can create controversy.

Before the book is even published, people want to censor it. Even, it seems, authors. Sad.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

brkingsolver said:


> And here is where things run off the track. A huge majority of Muslims are "white people".
> 
> I didn't cite the original story to start an argument about "white people", which it seems this has turned into. Anything that offends anybody, or any ideas that someone doesn't like can become a target. If you write anything that anyone objects to, whether it's religion, race, ethnicity, political bias, or anything else someone can stick an "ism" on the end of can create controversy.
> 
> Before the book is even published, people want to censor it. Even, it seems, authors. Sad.


I am well aware that Muslim isn't a race, but it's being used in that way for the purpose of the book, else the character wouldn't worry about her "Muslim features" and the side character that needs to get to Canada could have removed her hijab long enough to reach safety and there would be no book.

And yes, releasing a book out into the world means that book and possibly the writer will be judged. Every review is a judgement. The only books that don't get judged are those that aren't read.

And I've never once said the book should be censored. I said I believe it's harmful and people have every right to state why they think it's harmful in the form of reviews. Then people can look at the reviews and decide for themselves if that's something they want to be exposed to or more importantly, something they want to expose their children too.

People not liking the premise of a book is not censorship.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Monique said:


> Charmaine, as an aside, the image in your sig hosted with photobucket doesn't show anymore because you need to upgrade your plan.


Thanks for reminding me  It was one of the kboards' badges. I've been meaning to take it out but ended up ignoring it for so long that I keep forgetting it's there. I'll take care of it now while it's fresh on my mind.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

I can't speak for everyone, but the thing for me is not even this particular book or this particular author. I really don't care because it's just one of hundreds of examples of this same narrative where minorities are not allowed to be the protagonists of their own story -- and in some cases that even involves altering history. This has been happening for a long, long time. I don't need to personally read this book to know it's one of these narratives because other people already read it and reviewed it. I don't want to give my money to someone who is perpetuating this problem, and I would encourage others to do the same. That's not censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to profit. No one is saying to ban the book. The only way people will stop writing this shit is if they stop making buckets of money and winning awards for it.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> I am well aware that Muslim isn't a race, but it's being used in that way for the purpose of the book, else the character wouldn't worry about her "Muslim features" and the side character that needs to get to Canada could have removed her hijab long enough to reach safety and there would be no book.


This. Most of the reviews of the book have pointed out that being Muslim isn't a race, yet the author seems to think it is. The mother of the MC is worried that her daughter could end up in a camp because she has dark hair and dark eyes. Why? Is this a world where people are rounded up because the fit the stereotypical idea of being Muslim? If having dark hair, skin and eyes is the test, then the camps would be filled to capacity. This is a point where world building would have helped a lot.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

And, while I'm against censorship, I would love to censor the words "censor" and "bully". Both words are used too often. Good grief, if I lived my life as the perpetual victim, I would constantly claim to be a censored victim of bullying. 

The book is published by a top 5 publisher.  She probably got a healthy advance. She isn't being censored. It will be released for sale at all major retailers.

Marginalized people are voicing their objection to a book they find to be offensive. They aren't bullies. In fact, the author has decided to rally her fans to go after the critics. I still wouldn't call her a bully.  She is just another example of an author behaving badly. Which, most authors here would agree is a bad idea.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

brkingsolver said:


> And here is where things run off the track. A huge majority of Muslims are "white people".
> 
> I didn't cite the original story to start an argument about "white people", which it seems this has turned into. Anything that offends anybody, or any ideas that someone doesn't like can become a target. If you write anything that anyone objects to, whether it's religion, race, ethnicity, political bias, or anything else someone can stick an "ism" on the end of can create controversy.
> 
> Before the book is even published, people want to censor it. Even, it seems, authors. Sad.


I agree w/ you. It's very sad indeed & it's exactly why I was saying I'm disheartened that fellow authors think it's okay.

People should write whatever they feel like & no one should applaud or condone people who go around 1-starring books based on a premise w/ which they disagree. Sure, they too have that right & that freedom of expression but the fact that they would do so makes them jerks just like if someone writes a book w/ the intention to be racist would be a jerk even though they have that right & that freedom of expression. I'm not sure when it became 'two wrongs DO make a right' but I was taught differently.

Also, I have no idea what these 1 star reviews are trying to accomplish other than warning the others in their mob that they won't like this book b/c it doesn't fit into their own set way of thinking. I don't see how it would convince anyone neutral who stumbles upon the book & in fact it will probably make them want to read it a lot more. As a woman I really hate when people try to 'protect' me from things. Let me read what I want, write what I want, make up my own damn mind, think what I want, etc.

I would be annoyed beyond belief if people left 1 star reviews that essentially said I shouldn't read a book b/c its premise is sexist, misogynistic or demeaning to women, etc. I would want to respond, what are you, my father?! [General 'you' - aimed at anyone up on their high horse leaving a 1 star review about why people shouldn't read a book, especially without even having read it.] Or are you someone trying to play God & bestow upon me your eternal wisdom about what kind of books should be deemed acceptable in your eyes & which I should & shouldn't read or let teenage kids read or something?

Heck, when I was a teenager I purposefully sought out controversial books that people warned me not to read, just to find out what was so 'prohibited' so I don't see how these kinds of things are supposed to do anything except probably make the book more popular. But anyway, to the 1 star reviews sanctimoniously preaching about why a book is bad for society or a certain group, even & probably -especially- if I'm included in that group, then my response would be, let me make up my own mind about that or you are being just as demeaning to me as you say this book is. This ridiculous notion that we have to 'protect people' from reading something we don't agree w/ or that we think is immoral is white knighting of the highest degree. Plus, advocating that only certain people be allowed to write certain books or given platforms to do so, & that it's okay to try to suppress ideas we disagree w/ is everything I hate: paternalistic, judgmental, authoritative, & anti- critical thought & exchange of ideas.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

writerlygal said:


> I agree w/ you. It's very sad indeed & it's exactly why I was saying I'm disheartened that fellow authors think it's okay.
> 
> People should write whatever they feel like & no one should applaud or condone people who go around 1-starring books based on a premhttps://www.kboards.com/index.php?action=post;quote=3579877;topic=256823.625#ise w/ which they disagree. Sure, they too have that right & that freedom of expression but the fact that they would do so makes them jerks just like if someone writes a book w/ the intention to be racist would be a jerk even though they have that right & that freedom of expression. I'm not sure when it became 'two wrongs DO make a right' but I was taught differently.
> 
> ...


You might be missing the point of why people are saying don't read this particular book. It's not about protecting you from anything. We're saying stop rewarding this stuff. While this author is making bank off this controversy on a poorly-written book that has nothing going for it besides said controversy, there are actual Muslim authors out there not getting read and not getting trad pub deals with advances like she did.


----------



## Monie (Oct 4, 2014)

writerlygal said:


> I agree w/ you. It's very sad indeed & it's exactly why I was saying I'm disheartened that fellow authors think it's okay.
> 
> People should write whatever they feel like & no one should applaud or condone people who go around 1-starring books based on a premise w/ which they disagree. Sure, they too have that right & that freedom of expression but the fact that they would do so makes them jerks just like if someone writes a book w/ the intention to be racist would be a jerk even though they have that right & that freedom of expression. I'm not sure when it became 'two wrongs DO make a right' but I was taught differently.
> 
> I would be annoyed beyond belief if people left 1 star reviews that essentially said I shouldn't read a book b/c its premise is sexist, misogynistic or demeaning to women, etc. I would want to respond, what are you, my father?! [General 'you' - aimed at anyone up on their high horse leaving a 1 star review about why people shouldn't read a book, especially without even having read it.] Or are you someone trying to play God & bestow upon me your eternal wisdom about what kind of books should be deemed acceptable in your eyes & which I should & shouldn't read or let teenage kids read or something?


I actually would have no problem with a 1 star review warning me sexism, misogyny, homophobia, islamophobia, and racism in a book. In fact, those are the sort of issues I read book reviews for. Even if the review is "this book contains a large amount of homophobic scenes", I'll take that on consideration when deciding to read and/or buy. As a shopper and reader I know what I like and I know how to judge is if a review is quality or note. Goodreads stars mean little too me, reviews mean more.

I keep seeing post where authors are discarding readers abilities to think critically when it comes to reading reviews. Stop doing that, if a book had a bunch of reviews that say this book is racist, that's a warning flag. I then look n for reviews that tell me why readers would view the book as racist.

I wonder if people that have a problem with 1 star book reviews also have a problem with the movies are rated. Like an R rating is very vague, why not leave movies unrated and let viewers decided after they start watching if it to mature/violent for them? What about the explicit lyric warning, why put that on music, after people listen they should be able to judge for themselves if the language is too vulgar?


----------



## UK1783 (Aug 5, 2017)

brkingsolver said:


> And here is where things run off the track. A huge majority of Muslims are "white people".
> 
> I didn't cite the original story to start an argument about "white people", which it seems this has turned into. Anything that offends anybody, or any ideas that someone doesn't like can become a target. If you write anything that anyone objects to, whether it's religion, race, ethnicity, political bias, or anything else someone can stick an "ism" on the end of can create controversy.
> 
> Before the book is even published, people want to censor it. Even, it seems, authors. Sad.


When you said 'a huge majority', did you mean to say 'a large number'?

Because without doubt, beyond all argument, the large majority of muslims are not white, they are brown or black.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

There this weird thing in recent years to claim Egyptians, Jordanians and other light-skinned middle easterners as 'white' even though they're certainly not treated like it.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

writerlygal said:


> People should write whatever they feel like & no one should applaud or condone people who go around 1-starring books based on a premise w/ which they disagree.


*Sigh* This again. First of all, nobody has said that 1-starring books you haven't read is something to be 'applauded'. What we _have_ said is that this is a problem specific to Goodreads which people have been complaining about for _years_. They've complained on this board and others. They've complained on Goodreads. They've complained on their own blogs and other people's blogs. Each time someone starts a thread complaining about it yet again, other people jump in to explain that many people on Goodreads do this as a way to keep track _for themselves_ of books they do or don't want to read.

Kboards' search function is not very useful, so I found this thread, among many, many others, on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1288116-why-is-it-possible-to-rate-a-book-never-read-that-s-not-released
If you look at the 4th reply you'll see it lists no fewer than 10 threads on the subject, one of them with nearly 500 comments.

So why, all of a sudden, does this well-known issue cause people to start invoking the specter of censorship and mobs with pitchforks? And why, all of a sudden, is the personal opinion of a bunch of anonymous readers on Goodreads about what they do and don't want to read and what they recommend their friends try or not try being treated as such a dark and dangerous matter, capable of silencing a trad-pubbed author with a large company behind her and destroying her career? As this thread itself proves, there are plenty of people who will now want to read _because_ of the controversy. And anyone who thinks that the publisher isn't rubbing their hands with glee over this situation is very, very naive about modern marketing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2017)

Sarah Shaw said:


> *Sigh* This again. First of all, nobody has said that 1-starring books you haven't read is something to be 'applauded'. What we _have_ said is that this is a problem specific to Goodreads which people have been complaining about for _years_. They've complained on this board and others. They've complained on Goodreads. They've complained on their own blogs and other people's blogs. Each time someone starts a thread complaining about it yet again, other people jump in to explain that many people on Goodreads do this as a way to keep track _for themselves_ of books they do or don't want to read.
> 
> Kboards' search function is not very useful, so I found this thread, among many, many others, on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1288116-why-is-it-possible-to-rate-a-book-never-read-that-s-not-released
> If you look at the 4th reply you'll see it lists no fewer than 10 threads on the subject, one of them with nearly 500 comments.
> ...


Condoned or applauded. Let's stick to condoned. You quoted one line of writerlygal's post and it's strange because that post has a lot of ignored arguments against what you're saying here. A random browser of this thread wouldn't know that unless they went and looked at that post at its source.

Anyway.. A whole bunch of people complained because people are leaving reviews for books they haven't read? Okay?? And I'm not reading the Goodreads threads. I couldn't care less. If you didn't read the book you shouldn't be writing a review for it. If you want to turn a Goodreads page or a Product Page on Amazon in essentially what is a comment section akin to a facebook post or youtube vid then why pretend to be more than what it is. Legitimate reviewers are reading books and leaving reviews alongside hate-posters and trashers who haven't read the book. This is a moral argument. Forget the authors, I'd really like to know how many reviewers who actually write reviews for books want their reviews sitting alongside blatant lies and belligerent slander masquerading as reviews. Is that what Goodreads was made for?

It's not a well known issue, not to a lot of people, and if it is, then it is for a reason. It might not destroy a career in this instance but it is of the same seed that destroys careers. And people don't like it. People don't like book reviews from people who haven't read the books they're reviewing. Surprise surprise!

I don't care how much dog poop you haven't eaten but are such an expert on the taste and delicacies of its consumptions, if you want to step onto the review plate you have to eat it first.

And unless the book actually sells like crazy I don't think any rubbing hands or glee will happen prematurely from the publisher. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Condoned or applauded. Let's stick to condoned. You quoted one line of writerlygal's post and it's strange because that post has a lot of ignored arguments against what you're saying here. A random browser of this thread wouldn't know that unless they went and looked at that post at its source.


So if I explain that something is a known problem and is caused by X that means I'm condoning it? If I have to spell that out- no, I'm not condoning it. I'm saying that this is a problem that has been flagged many times with Goodreads here and elsewhere. It is not something unique to this book and, with the exception of a few particularly reprehensible authors who were inciting their followers to one-star 'rival' authors it's done by individual readers for their own information and there is no intent to have any kind of wider public effect.

As for responding to a single point in a post, I'm not about to apologize for that. I have no obligation to try and respond to every point everyone makes on this thread. I responded in this case because I've pointed out this problem with Goodreads several times on this thread already without any of the people warning of mobs with pitchforks and censorship taking a blind bit of notice.

And if people are popping in here, reading a post or two and getting the wrong impression about the arguments being made? I don't _approve_- I think people should respond based on reading the whole thread, just as they should base their reviews on having read the book. But it's also not my problem. People are free to shoot off their mouths without giving it much thought. And they're free to mark upcoming books as 'to be read' with 5 stars and 'to be ignored' with 1 stars, whether I or anyone else condones it.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> There this weird thing in recent years to claim Egyptians, Jordanians and other light-skinned middle easterners as 'white' even though they're certainly not treated like it.


That reminds me of the "weird thing" (to historians) a while back where Budweiser and others tried to portray ancient Egyptian Pharaohs as sub-Saharan Africans rather than Semitic Africans (in colloquial terms, "Black-looking" instead of "Middle-Eastern-looking") or the common practice of depicting icons like Jesus as of one's own racial group (white Jesus, black Jesus, etc.).

People tend to bias the narrative to fit their own preconceptions, consciously or unconsciously. The author apparently has done so, and then the meta-narrative about the book gets biased as well, all according to our own values.

It takes effort and clear thinking to minimize this bias, which is often the best we can do. I thank everyone here who has presented fascinating arguments cogently and respectfully.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2017)

Sarah Shaw said:


> So if I explain that something is a known problem and is caused by X that means I'm condoning it? If I have to spell that out- no, I'm not condoning it. I'm saying that this is a problem that has been flagged many times with Goodreads here and elsewhere. It is not something unique to this book and, with the exception of a few particularly reprehensible authors who were inciting their followers to one-star 'rival' authors it's done by individual readers for their own information and there is no intent to have any kind of wider public effect.
> 
> As for responding to a single point in a post, I'm not about to apologize for that. I have no obligation to try and respond to every point everyone makes on this thread. I responded in this case because I've pointed out this problem with Goodreads several times on this thread already without any of the people warning of mobs with pitchforks and censorship taking a blind bit of notice.
> 
> And if people are popping in here, reading a post or two and getting the wrong impression about the arguments being made? I don't _approve_- I think people should respond based on reading the whole thread, just as they should base their reviews on having read the book. But it's also not my problem. People are free to shoot off their mouths without giving it much thought. And they're free to mark upcoming books as 'to be read' with 5 stars and 'to be ignored' with 1 stars, whether I or anyone else condones it.


This thread isn't about one book. What's happened with this book pushes us into seeing what can happen with other books, and what has already happened with other books.

The thread is 26 pages long. Not everyone has time to read that much. That's why quoting in full is important for context and accuracy.

Currently, readers can review books on whatever platform without impunity. Not only do they not have to read the actual book, they can explicitly state they haven't read the book in the review and it won't be taken down. Currently they're able to do that and it's within the rules. Does not make it right. Doesn't mean that hundreds or thousands of individuals in the book reading community wish that "rule" was changed.

No one is disputing what the rules are. But if you want to come out and say you don't have a problem with it on the face of things, then don't hide behind "it's allowed" and "everyone knows about it". Just admit that you don't differentiate between genuine and fake reviews.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> People tend to bias the narrative to fit their own preconceptions, consciously or unconsciously. The author apparently has done so, and then the meta-narrative about the book gets biased as well, all according to our own values.
> 
> It takes effort and clear thinking to minimize this bias, which is often the best we can do. I thank everyone here who has presented fascinating arguments cogently and respectfully.


I agree very much with this. Most bias is not conscious. HR people, for the most part, do not pass over resumes with 'black' names and real estate agents don't stear white people to certain neighborhoods because they are deliberately racist. They do it because of their unconscious associations and assumptions. And we all have them, regardless of our color or culture. It comes out of the news we see, the shows we watch, the games we play, the people we meet and yes, the books we read. Like most people I was shocked and disturbed to find I could not 'pass' the test on unconscious bias. But I was heartened to see that it's not that difficult to 'reprogram' these assumptions. Since I took it I've made it a practice to surround myself with images and reading that work counter to these subconscious impressions. It's been an enlightening and rewarding journey.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> While this author is making bank off this controversy on a poorly-written book that has nothing going for it besides said controversy, there are actual Muslim authors out there not getting read and not getting trad pub deals with advances like she did.


I call shenanigans. You didn't read the book. You don't know how much the author was advanced or how much she's making. And you have absolutely no evidence that Muslim authors aren't getting read or getting trad deals. You invented facts that your ideology says must exist.



paranormal_kitty said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but the thing for me is not even this particular book or this particular author. I really don't care because it's just one of hundreds of examples of this same narrative where minorities are not allowed to be the protagonists of their own story -- and in some cases that even involves altering history.


Please explain how a fictional story about the future can belong to anyone but the author? And how broad and how far into the future does minority ownership extend? I ask because my WIP is set 2155. It's about a bounty hunter who tracks down androids that have converted to Islam. I call the book _Do Androids Dream of Electric Paradise?_, but the film script is called _Crusade Runner_. I'm wondering whether this story still belongs to Muslims or whether androids should be considered more oppressed than humans, meaning this story belongs to androids, if and when they're created?


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> This thread isn't about one book. What's happened with this book pushes us into seeing what can happen with other books, and what has already happened with other books.


I haven't seen any discussion of other books, however, and in the other cases of one stars by people who haven't read the book I have not seen people citing this as evidence that the one starred book is being 'censored' and invoking the specter of mob action.



ShaneJeffery said:


> The thread is 26 pages long. Not everyone has time to read that much. That's why quoting in full is important for context and accuracy.
> 
> Currently, readers can review books on whatever platform without impunity. Not only do they not have to read the actual book, they can explicitly state they haven't read the book in the review and it won't be taken down. Currently they're able to do that and it's within the rules. Does not make it right. Doesn't mean that hundreds or thousands of individuals in the book reading community wish that "rule" was changed.
> 
> No one is disputing what the rules are. But if you want to come out and say you don't have a problem with it on the face of things, then don't hide behind "it's allowed" and "everyone knows about it". Just admit that you don't differentiate between genuine and fake reviews.


Whether I think people have, or should have, the right to do something has nothing to do with whether I personally have a 'problem' with it. I have a problem with a lot of things people do in the sense that I think it's the wrong thing to do and I wouldn't do it myself. The fact is, far from being 'mobs' censoring others, people on all sides of this discussion are exercising their freedom of speech. I would defend both the right of this author to write what she wants and the right of people to criticize it, disagree with it, one star it or whatever they want. And the platforms where all these things are published have the right to make and enforce their own rules- to allow people to write reviews of books they haven't read, to remove reviews that violate whatever standards they set however arbitrary, or to publish or refuse to publish books for any reason. My personal morality requires me to defend both the truth as I understand and the right of others to do the same- however much I may disagree with them- with equal vigor.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> That reminds me of the "weird thing" (to historians) a while back where Budweiser and others tried to portray ancient Egyptian Pharaohs as sub-Saharan Africans rather than Semitic Africans (in colloquial terms, "Black-looking" instead of "Middle-Eastern-looking") or the common practice of depicting icons like Jesus as of one's own racial group (white Jesus, black Jesus, etc.).
> 
> People tend to bias the narrative to fit their own preconceptions, consciously or unconsciously. The author apparently has done so, and then the meta-narrative about the book gets biased as well, all according to our own values.
> 
> It takes effort and clear thinking to minimize this bias, which is often the best we can do. I thank everyone here who has presented fascinating arguments cogently and respectfully.


The reason why they are doing that is because they believe the Ancient Egyptians and Jesus were black and that they're being lied to by historians that want to make every great civilization seem white. You'll see all kinds of commentary on artwork and descriptions trying to show that they were really black and that the Middle East became lighter later on. They believe they are being fed yet another false narrative, which isn't surprising when you have the news emphasizing that Santa is white.

My default person is a white male until context tells me differently because that's what the default person is in the society I grew up in and I have the greatest chance of being correct. I don't default to black people because I'm black. Race isn't really a team sport. I know the term supremacy bothers you, but it's more accurate than bias. When black people in the US are tested for racial bias, they tend to have an equally positive bias towards white people as white people.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

ShaneJeffery said:


> The thread is 26 pages long. Not everyone has time to read that much. That's why quoting in full is important for context and accuracy.


Slightly off-topic: 
This thread is 26 pages long (14 for me, actually, but anyway). Not everyone has time to read that much or wants to scroll endlessly through full quotes of lengthy comments when a reply is being made to only one part of the comment*. That's why I appreciate it when users snippet out the relevant information to focus on what they're specifically replying to. After all, I can always click on the link showing the quoted post and be taken directly to it in its entirety.

Using snippets also minimizes repetition and maximizes clarity: 
Instead of saying "Where you say 'quoting in full is important,' I'd like to point out that xyz" I can just go straight to my point. Or consider a reply stating only "I disagree, but I suppose there's no point in trying to discuss it" to (for example) your post. Who would know whether I was disagreeing with your observations on quoting in full, on whether the thread was about one book or books in general, or with your claim of "you don't differentiate between fake and genuine reviews"?

*And as Sarah pointed out, no one is obligated to reply to ALL points if choosing to reply to a single point.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

kcmorgan said:


> The reason why they are doing that is because they believe the Ancient Egyptians and Jesus were black and that they're being lied to by historians that want to make every great civilization seem white. You'll see all kinds of commentary on artwork and descriptions trying to show that they were really black and that the Middle East became lighter later on.


This is where a pursuit of political correctness activism without active correct research ends up building up prejudice. By making Ancient Egyptians black you erase the need to speak of the power Nubian culture and perpetuate those who falsely claim that great civilisations were all developed by people of European lineage. Instead of turning the Egyptians into Nubians it would be much better to promote Nubian history.

PS, a hijab is not a head covering, but an attitude to veiling female modesty in the presence of men and in the Quran only referred to the practices of the wives of Muhammed. The head covering you are calling a hijab is a cultural garment also worn by those of other religions in the areas it originates from. It and other forms of covering have been adopted relatively recently as a badge of identity by more conservative European-based Muslims (the woman in question is Irish).


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But I think because of its overwhelming powerful influence on American society, and especially, when it was written, he gets a pass. However, to be fair, the book is 213k words. The plagiarism was minimal relative to the whole and didn't really affect the themes explored. And it was a phenomenon, offering hope through a common experience, a common tragedy and for a common future.


I think, because of its overwhelming powerful influence, the book should be given a pass on the subject of plagiarism. The author? No. He knew what he was doing instead in using another's words instead of his own.


----------



## The Wyoming Kid (Jun 18, 2017)

writerlygal said:


> *People should write whatever they feel like* & no one should applaud or condone people who go around 1-starring books based on a premise w/ which they disagree ...
> 
> Also, I have no idea what these 1 star reviews are trying to accomplish other than warning the others in their mob that they won't like this book b/c it doesn't fit into their own set way of thinking ... As a woman I really hate when people try to 'protect' me from things ...
> 
> This ridiculous notion that we have to 'protect people' from reading something we don't agree w/ or that we think is immoral is white knighting of the highest degree. Plus, *advocating that only certain people be allowed to write certain books ... is everything I hate:* paternalistic, judgmental, authoritative, & anti- critical thought & exchange of ideas.


Everyone who is terrified of being "offended" by something in literature should read the above quote (boldface mine).


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Sapphire said:


> I think, because of its overwhelming powerful influence, the book should be given a pass on the subject of plagiarism.


Sounds like the literary equivalent of a plea bargain, a luxury available to an influential thief but not to a no-name pickpocket.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Mercia McMahon said:


> This is where a pursuit of political correctness activism without active correct research ends up building up prejudice. By making Ancient Egyptians black you erase the need to speak of the power Nubian culture and perpetuate those who falsely claim that great civilisations were all developed by people of European lineage. Instead of turning the Egyptians into Nubians it would be much better to promote Nubian history.
> 
> PS, a hijab is not a head covering, but an attitude to veiling female modesty in the presence of men and in the Quran only referred to the practices of the wives of Muhammed. The head covering you are calling a hijab is a cultural garment also worn by those of other religions in the areas it originates from. It and other forms of covering have been adopted relatively recently as a badge of identity by more conservative European-based Muslims (the woman in question is Irish).


But they aren't faking it. They truly believe the Ancient Egyptians were black. I've seen arguments for both and I'm not even sure who's right.


----------



## AmpersandBookInteriors (Feb 10, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> But they aren't faking it. They truly believe the Ancient Egyptians were black. I've seen arguments for both and I'm not even sure who's right.


What if the population was simply a solid mix of skintones? It's always possible, especially with northern Egypt having so much coastline, travel, and trade.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Write.Dream.Repeat. said:


> What if the population was simply a solid mix of skintones? It's always possible, especially with northern Egypt having so much coastline, travel, and trade.


That would make sense. And in their artwork, they don't draw themselves all the same shade, so actually that seems likely.


----------



## DesertRatRose (Nov 4, 2015)

I read the description of American Heart and the book sounds TIMELY to me. This girl could be no other race but white (I say this because it seems the author is depicting a certain archetype--but for sure racists come in all colors.) AND it sounds like the main character is one who has believed "the other" which had been constructed for her. I think the author wants to show that being a racists is not natural; and the fastest ways to abolish racism is certainly PRACTICE treating others as you wanted to be treated but also learning people who are not like ourselves for ourselves. It's sounds as if that's the theme of the story. I think this book is going to be religious experience! I'll order it!


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Condoned or applauded. Let's stick to condoned. You quoted one line of writerlygal's post and it's strange because that post has a lot of ignored arguments against what you're saying here. A random browser of this thread wouldn't know that unless they went and looked at that post at its source.


Thank you, ShaneJeffery.

I honestly think that this very thread is a great example of the groupthink mentality that I & others find worrying about the 'American Heart' book controversy. People in line with the groupthink ignore the vast substance of arguments made by anyone who disagrees w/ the groupthink b/c they want to stick to their own emotional pleas & invented systems of hierarchies of oppression/levels of privilege that we're all supposed to just get in line w/ and agree w/ just because they made it up. To me it almost seems like a religion or cult & if you disagree w/ part of it then you are evil & must be shamed & embarrassed into apologizing for & never ever again writing a book about a white teenager coming to terms with racism & justice in our country by helping a member of a minority group escape persecution. [Oh, the horror & shame of ever writing such a book - what an evil racist writer & book! It deserves to lose its Kirkus review star. It deserves to have people warned against reading it, by people who haven't even read it. LOL JUST KIDDING but that is really how they think & act.]

Sometimes people roll their eyes & sigh at comments w/ which they disagree & say they're oh so wrong, w/out actually addressing the substance of those arguments or providing counter arguments. That's fine - but they will never win over anyone not already on their side that way because they aren't saying anything of substance that brings value to the conversation or convinces anyone who is neutral or unsure or has questions etc. They just preach to the choir & get 'slow clap' applause from everyone who already agrees w/ them while further alienating anyone who has any rational questions or thoughts that might possibly go against the groupthink. I say this as someone who was raised in a very conservative repressive environment where anyone who spoke out against that certain kind of groupthink was ostracized & shamed & shunned into submission & to getting back in line with the rest of the group. Now that I'm liberal I find it very sad that those on the far left do this just as much as those on the far right & both groups fail to recognize it or they excuse it w/ a 'well my side is right so that's fine' mentality.

I stand by what I said - everyone should write whatever the bleep they want to write & fellow writers should support freedom of expression even if they disagree w/ it. That is the foundation of a free society & creative, artistic endeavors. If you think someone shouldn't write or publish something containing something you personally find objectionable [like these people seriously arguing that a white person shouldn't get to traditionally publish a book about a white main character that also has a minority character in it, b/c then the minorities will be edged out of the publication spot... or that it's okay to shame an author via mob mentality 1 star reviews & complaints to Kirkus for giving the book a star], just be forewarned that it will happen to you b/c, as the OP pointed out as her original intent in posting this article, it can be anything or everything or nothing at all that people get upset about & come after.

PS I have no clue about the Goodreads rating system & Goodreads must affect trad pub books or YA books differently than my indie books b/c I have never found Goodreads to have an effect on my books one way or the other, good or bad. [As a reader I do use Goodreads to keep track of what I read & want to read but I have never heard of 1 starring a book just as a way to remind myself not to read it or something]. I probably shouldn't really speak to something I know nothing about but, gathering from what everyone else keeps saying about Goodreads, if Goodreads has a rating system where a 1 star is a way to tell yourself not to read a book, well, that's a new definition of something that is not a 'review' but more like a predisposition against something. I can't imagine telling myself not to read a book based on what some other people tell me to think [or for any reason at all]. I would read any book & if someone says 'don't read this' then I'll be more inclined to read it... or, I guess, put it on my 5 star 'to read' shelf on Goodreads? [I don't know if it works in reverse, or what.]

Anyway, I don't know how Goodreads works in that regard but I do think it's rather ludicrous & funny that people seriously have a shelf or 1 star rating system of books not to read based on what other people say or what they hear about the book from third parties... to me that is reminiscent of growing up listening to Focus on the Family radio where James Dobson says 'dont' read this book, don't listen to this music, don't watch this movie, it isn't Christian enough, it's blasphemous, it's immoral, whatever'... & then my mom's like 'hey everyone don't read/watch/listen to this & let's go make sure they're not going to carry it down at the local bookstore/video store/record store b/c it's evil & we want to stay away from it & warn everyone else to as well.' Maybe this Goodreads system is a new method of doing that old fashioned 'let's "ban" this book from what we consider acceptable to read' campaign, & if so then it's just further evidence of what I see wrong w/ this kind of groupthink mentality. I really feel like going to Goodreads now to find out what people are saying not to read, just to read it & see what the big fuss is all about. If it's about 'omg it's racist b/c the white teenager is surprised a Muslim woman could be a professor & also wonders if she can have a cat & also has to help lead her to freedom & also doesn't become non-racist enough based on my own standards by the end of the book' then I am just going to LOL & go buy the book on Amazon b/c in my very humble opinion that's a ridiculous reason to 1 star a book & say not to read it or that it's racist etc.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

DesertRatRose said:


> I read the description of American Heart and the book sounds TIMELY to me. This girl could be no other race but white (I say this because it seems the author is depicting a certain archetype--but for sure racists come in all colors.) AND it sounds like the main character is one who has believed "the other" which had been constructed for her. I think the author wants to show that being a racists is not natural; and the fastest ways to abolish racism is certainly PRACTICE treating others as you wanted to be treated but also learning people who are not like ourselves for ourselves. It's sounds as if that's the theme of the story. I think this book is going to be religious experience! I'll order it!


Yes, I agree with a lot of this & you say it much more succinctly than I tried to... good job.


----------



## AmpersandBookInteriors (Feb 10, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> That would make sense. And in their artwork, they don't draw themselves all the same shade, so actually that seems likely.


I agree. My last professor in ancient Greek history ('round 2010) was very vocal about the high probability of mixed skintones in that area, and several hundred years later there's very suggestive evidence that there were Roman emperors with darker complexions, so it's quite possible that there was no single dominant skintone.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> I honestly think that this very thread is a great example of the groupthink mentality that I & others find worrying about the 'American Heart' book controversy.


Can you give me one example of the "groupthink mentality" on this thread? Not generalities, but specific examples.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

kcmorgan said:


> I have a hard time imagining a Muslim sitting down to pen a book about a highly educated Muslim woman who needs a jaw droppingly dumb white girl to save her.


Most educated people are liberals and less likely to hold such intrinsic racism as the character is supposed to have, therefore the uneducated white girl is the perfect character choice for this scenario. The opposites coming together and thwarting obstacles and finding the middle ground between them is a tried and tested trope. Throw in the danger element of them both having something to lose if caught and you have the basic elements of most thrillers. I'd even go as far as to say it was a flip of that series that was on not so long ago with Anna Friel as an American Soldier trying to escape the middle east and the Muslim teenager saving her, I think it was called American Odyssey, I thought that was a good storyline where a white, smart, female soldier needing saving by a Muslim, poor, peasant teenage boy.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

writerlygal said:


> Thank you, ShaneJeffery.
> 
> I honestly think that this very thread is a great example of the groupthink mentality that I & others find worrying about the 'American Heart' book controversy. People in line with the groupthink ignore the vast substance of arguments made by anyone who disagrees w/ the groupthink b/c they want to stick to their own emotional pleas & invented systems of hierarchies of oppression/levels of privilege that we're all supposed to just get in line w/ and agree w/ just because they made it up. To me it almost seems like a religion or cult & if you disagree w/ part of it then you are evil & must be shamed & embarrassed into apologizing for & never ever again writing a book about a white teenager coming to terms with racism & justice in our country by helping a member of a minority group escape persecution. [Oh, the horror & shame of ever writing such a book - what an evil racist writer & book! It deserves to lose its Kirkus review star. It deserves to have people warned against reading it, by people who haven't even read it. LOL JUST KIDDING but that is really how they think & act.]
> 
> ...


Congrats. You are the first person in 27 pages of this highly volatile topic that has actually managed to offend me. I have spent days laying out what I think and which of my life experiences brought me to those conclusions, even when it's been embarrassing or depressing, I've laid myself out there in hopes people might see where I'm coming from. And you come back with "groupthink" and "lack of rationale". Really?

I really hope you have me blocked because if you sat there reading through all my posts and that's the conclusion you came to my efforts would have better spent writing porn. At least then I could go cry about racism in my big pile of money.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Valerie A. said:


> Can you give me one example of the "groupthink mentality" on this thread? Not generalities, but specific examples.


So you can deny each one? 

The groupthink is not a hint in this thread, it is a torrent. Specific examples? 80% of every single page.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Laran Mithras said:


> So you can deny each one?
> 
> The groupthink is not a hint in this thread, it is a torrent. Specific examples? 80% of every single page.


Examples would be helpful. Unless you don't have any. 

Maybe groupthink doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Monique said:


> Examples would be helpful. Unless you don't have any.


GAWD, linking every single page would get me banned for spamming. (shakes head)


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Laran Mithras said:


> So you can deny each one?


So I can see what they are. But thank you for assuming, although it must be an exhausting exercise.



> The groupthink is not a hint in this thread, it is a torrent.


Until we've established that, it's a collective accusation.



> Specific examples? 80% of every single page.


You do know the meaning of the word "specific," right?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Monique said:


> Examples would be helpful. Unless you don't have any.
> 
> Maybe groupthink doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me.


A group of people have decided the book is racist, dehumanizing, etc., based on the authority of two reviewers and the desire to do right by minorities. That's textbook groupthink.

By the way, the decision is "sub-optimal" because it isn't based on evidence.


----------



## Valerie A. (Dec 31, 2016)

Valerie A. said:


> A group of people have decided the book is racist, dehumanizing, etc., based on the authority of two reviewers and the desire to do right by minorities. That's textbook groupthink.
> 
> By the way, the decision is "sub-optimal" because it isn't based on evidence.


The decision to lump these people into a group is equally sub-optimal. Each of them may have individual, nuanced reasons for shaking their heads at *a* book, any book, that relies so heavily on tired old stereotypes, even if their sole purpose is to be torn down like a row of straw men (or women, in the spirit on inclusivity). While none of us here has read the book, I do trust reviewers to know stereotypes when they see them. They are an insult to everyone's intelligence, especially the teenagers' for whom the book is meant--although it's easy to forget this in the heat of the debate.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

WHDean said:


> A group of people have decided the book is racist, dehumanizing, etc., based on the authority of two reviewers and the desire to do right by minorities. That's textbook groupthink.
> 
> By the way, the decision is "sub-optimal" because it isn't based on evidence.


Hey, can you look up ad hominem in that textbook?

Do you believe that a person cannot object to a book without reading it? That they can't object to certain premises?

And I don't mean censorship or book burning or murdering authors, I mean believing that writing that book was a poor choice on the part of the author?

If you feel they cannot, I'd like to bring up another book recently discussed on these forums, though in that case there was ambiguity about the contents. Well what if there wasn't. What if the blurb stated that the book was an erotic romance between a 40 year old man and his 15 year old daughter? Would people have to finish the book to object to the contents?

Assuming your answer is no. If it is okay to object to inappropriate relationships without reading the book, why is it wrong to object to racism? And while you may argue that that premise isn't racist. That's not a black or white issue, it's a line. Just like inappropriate relationships are a line. Maybe some people feel that if the daughter is 18 then it's acceptable to write the book. Maybe some feel that if she's his stepdaughter and not his biological daughter then it's acceptable to write the book. Some may feel you can write whatever you want, whenever you want and even that book is acceptable in it's current state. No one gets to decide anyone else's lines.

And that's not even taking into consideration that this is a book aimed at the YA market. Keeping children from harm is almost a universal imperative in our society. Our disagreement is over if it's harmful or not, and while yet another book teaching children to view the world with this racist mindset might not be harmful to you, I've listed over the course of this thread at least five different ways it's harmful to me.

But yeah, DURR, groupthink. Don't mind me, clearly I've shown I'm incapable of reason.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

writerlygal said:


> I stand by what I said - everyone should write whatever the bleep they want to write & fellow writers should support freedom of expression even if they disagree w/ it. That is the foundation of a free society & creative, artistic endeavors.


I'm afraid I rolled my eyes and didn't respond to this because *I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH IT*! Of course everyone should write whatever the bleep they want and fellow writers should support freedom of expression! And part of that freedom of expression is the freedom to criticize, the freedom to make up your mind what to read and not read- however you choose to decide, the freedom to argue with other people about what should and shouldn't be published. I support your freedom say what you choose. I support the author's freedom to write the book however she darn well chose. I support the right of the reviewers- positive and negative- to review the book however _they_ chose. I support the right of Kirkus to publish or pull whatever it wants. And the right of the publisher to publish or not. And the right of readers to mark books in whatever way seems to make sense to them. *NOBODY'S* rights are being in any way infringed here. Not yours. Not mine. But I DO resent the implication that I am part of some sort of angry mob out with pitchforks simply because I exercise that right. Or being accused of 'group think' because I agree with some of the people here- and disagree with others- just as YOU are doing. I suspect you would also resent it if I said it of you.

I brought up Goodreads because I DO use it and am familiar with the dilemma of having no other way to keep notes on what you're reading, what new books are coming out etc. than rating the book. As a writer I refrain from starring books in this way, because I know how I and other writers feel about having our work treated like this, but the vast majority of people on it are readers, often with their settings marked to private. They are not there to give feedback to writers. Many of them are not there to talk about books, either. They just use it as their private library catalogue, and to keep track of their yearly reading goals.

I don't say it's entirely benign- there has been at least one case of an author mobilizing her friends to one-star other authors. Clearly it's possible to use the system to intimidate and silence people. In those cases, however, all the victims _were small-scale indie writers_, the perpetrator was relatively more powerful and there was no general outcry of 'censorship!' and 'mobs and pitchforks!' - or, in fact, pushback at ALL from the indie community until one woman finally stood up to her and took her to court.

In this case, the situation is entirely reversed. The writer is backed by a major publishing house. She's written a book which is getting major publicity. And she's written a book which plays into the ugly racial divide we've always had in the US. Is she really the one being 'silenced' here? I think it's rather the rest of us who are being told we should just shut up. That we're acting like an unruly mob when all we are doing is saying, "Hey. We know this narrative. It's an old 'feel-good' story that we- white society- tell ourselves when we don't want to be asked to deal in any substantive way with some of the ugly things embedded in our culture. When we want to tell ourselves that yeah, 'bad things happen' (to other people- not to us- and done by some mysteriously bad government that we also had no part in bringing about) but WE'RE fine. We're not complicit or responsible in any way for what our society does to certain groups of people. Yeah, THAT story. Could you maybe not tell that story any more? Because it's not helping. I mean maybe it's helping you imagine that you would be one of the good, brave Germans who hid Jews, but it's hurting a lot of other people."

And to those of you NOT actually reading this thread but just dropping in now and then to shout 'censorship!' 'mobs!' and generally stir things up- yeah, you get a big eye-roll from me.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

'Group think' basically means that more than one person disagrees with you and it makes you angry.

It's the step below calling everyone 'sheeple'.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

I do like the way that when you post an 'awkward' counter-argument to a few posters in this thread that is an inconvenient truth to their narrative they just ignore it. From my days in politics, I recall that we just offered a sweet smile to our opponent for their attempt at deflection because we knew that those viewing the debate saw right through them and their lack of an argument. 

People will always pick the most convenient 'truth' with which to debate their side but when that truth becomes unraveled they flounder and call out some perceived insult as a bigger issue to focus on instead.

The truth is the book's contents has been written on both sides of the divide and on many occasions. Even Robin Hood was saved by a Muslim. Why were people not up in arms about that? Because it didn't fit their political agenda.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I do like the way that when you post an 'awkward' counter-argument to a few posters in this thread that is an inconvenient truth to their narrative they just ignore it. From my days in politics, I recall that we just offered a sweet smile to our opponent for their attempt at deflection because we knew that those viewing the debate saw right through them and their lack of an argument.


I agree. I see that happening here, although, I suspect, in different places than you do. You know, another thing politicians do when they don't want to answer a question is make insulting insinuations about the questioner. And then, when they're called on it, offering a sweet smile and saying, "Oh, but I didn't MEAN it that way." Or else they take the more modern road of just sneering and calling them 'snowflakes' for protesting... :/


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, this might be a record. 28 pages of relatively civil discourse before the sniping and name calling started.

But, at this point, nothing new is being said so I'm locking the thread. The mod team will discuss as to whether there's any value in re-opening it.


----------

