I agree, and as we have discussed, mystery books and other genres get a much bigger pass.

That’s a very interesting read.

It reminds me of what the journalist Bari Weiss wrote about politics and opinions becoming the new religion. That’s now the belief system that people truly feel they have the moral right, or even imperative, to crucify other people about. Before it was “my religion is correct and your is wrong and is morally inferior”, now it’s “my beliefs are correct and yours are morally inferior, or just corrupt.”

It’s depressing, but I have to admit it feels accurate.

I was thinking of anti-abortion groups last night after posting here. Not only of the super crazy nuts that were killing doctors- but the ones that would go and harass people in the parking lots. They would harass workers and emotionally vulnerable women going in to get abortions because they saw NOT doing that to be a sin and condoning murder.

You would never see support for that even though they were doing what they thought their “moral imperative” was.

I think YA is another interesting genre.

Twilight and that series is held up by many as just the worst thing that ever happened to women. I’ve read it and my opinion is, unlike other series, its Bella driving it. Every single time she gets her way. It’s entirely her will. Sure Edward and Jacob try to get her to acquiesce to them but it never happens.

Both of them and indeed their tribe or family end up bending to what Bella ultimately wants. Now whether you agree with her decisions is another story.

I agree.

But the attitude everywhere seems to be “Edward is a creepy, controlling stalker and because Meyers is a Member of LDS it’s just propaganda that people should marry young and have children.”

I always feel I have to point out that their story was to start in high school but carry on through college etc and after but the publishers (as it’s YA) wanted it all to take place during high school so Meyers changed her plans.

I personally think because romance is pretty woman-centric there can be a lot of baggage associated with it.

The genre is supposed to be about “true love” and your “perfect partner” so I think that there are people who believe that if a hero has any socially unacceptable flaws and female readers embrace him -its the same as embracing the conduct.

I’ve seen that leak into criticism of heroine as well if they aren’t more ‘super hero” like and aren’t physically as dominant as the male characters. I love a warrior heroine, but if she’s a bookworm like me I don’t expect her to always have major martial arts skills just whacking someone with her parasol every now and then is fine.

I think in general women are also quicker to pick up social justice causes and maybe more likely to apply them to every aspect of their lives when most men probably don’t.

I think women have been in the position of having to justify reading romance as its been ridiculed for decades so maybe they are trying to be like Caesar’s wife and be “above reproach”.

For me, true equality is that I can like stuff that’s just as goofy in its own way as genres and things men like without apologizing for it.

I look at other genres and its fine to have morally ambiguous characters. I enjoy reading it. I think literature would be poorer without the contributions of Patricia Highsmith and Daphne DuMaurier amongst others.

You would never hear the same criticism of male authors that their stories have to be full of absolutely stellar and morally upright “examples”. Yet we have mostly women policing other women authors and being really quick to punish them if they think their works reflect badly on women and the genre.

I agree in romance we are looking for the “ideal” and that is a very high standard.

But based on some favorites discussed a lot of readers also like a rogue or a shady hero too.

Seeing that it’s all fiction and fantasy I guess I’m more elastic on what a “hero” can and can’t be than others.

That doesn’t mean I won’t pan a book with an overly jerky hero though. It just means if that’s the kind of hero you like, I’m OK with that too.

I never thought I would see the day that the left (the left!!) would be on the side of book banning.

It reminds me of the old “Banned In Boston” culture. I grew up in a time when we shook our heads over James Joyce and all the other books that were burned or banned in the “olden days”.

Now it’s more insidious. People say it’s not “banning” or a violation because the government isn’t doing it. It’s just trying to pressure Target and Walmart and any place left where most people can physically buy a book from banning it so no one else can read what you don’t like.

Chrisreader, I think you’ll appreciate this: http://www.vice.com/en/article/g5bv3x/penguin-random-house-staff-confront-publisher-about-new-jordan-peterson-book

Summary: How dare Penguin Random House publish a book that does not espouse left-wing ideology! A number of employees are anguished and making their feelings known. What will be the upshot?

No, the movie’s quite terrible and getting bad reviews because it’s a terrible, stereotypical movie about Poor Southern Folx.

I read Jordan Peterson, because of the criticism, and while I disagree with some of his views quite strongly, I found his point of view well explained and worth thinking about. I am glad I spent time reading him – This was good friction and challenge of my views – in his case, only very little of his views changed mine, but it was still time well spent to me.
 
I will not go into his views here, or mine.

# Chrisreader
 
It was a year or more ago, and it was not so exceptional that I want to re-read or revisit.
 
What I remember, unfiltered, so if anyone wants to point out how wrong I am, I concede immediately without any discussion:
 
He is very much focussed on how you can basically pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make your life work. Also very focussed on how handouts (as he views them) are always weakening and wrong. And that our feelings of being victimized are whining because we should be just pulling ourselves by the bootstraps instead of trying to find guilty parties who victimize us.
 
A part of this is certainly valid, but another is deeply not.
 
My husband got cancer at 44, and he would not have gotten the morphine he needed to die a good way without pain without massive healthcare which my country provides, so he could get those drugs without me having to sell everything and starting from scratch in middle age, destitute or in debt, once he was dead.
 
I do not feel that I (or my husband) should have just pulled ourselves out by our bootstraps and were whining, and I do not think it morally wrong to accept the help our collective insurance scheme provided. I also do not find it morally wrong to advocate for and defend such a system, even if some people who use it when sick might be healthy and abuse the benefits in some way, or some people might end up glorifying their victimhood or some such thing.
 
I also do not feel that being older, or female, or of a non-dominant (in the sense of Masters of the Universe) race is all up to ourselves, and that we should just stop whining and get on with it, because we get weak when believing ourselves to be disadvantaged.
 
The part that is valid is that most of us – me included – have the temptation to try and make things easy for ourselves. So, his part about the individual needing to make an effort (and try pulling at those bootstraps) has merit.
 
In the end, I disagreed overall – and object loudly the idea that we are dominated by white males because they deserve it (based on better own bootstrap-pulling) – but found the book interesting in pieces.
 
So I have not minded spending the money on it, he writes well, kept me interested and made me think.
 
hope that is useful to you.
 
I will read his next book.
 

I also wanted to say I think it’s interesting that a number of complaints against him and other people and things I see, are people protesting for a “friend”.

In other words “I have a friend who will be hurt by this book”. It’s not even “I will be hurt” it’s “I know someone I think will be hurt by this so it cannot be published.”

I will admit that while I am willing to advocate for others, I don’t like to reveal things that hurt me personally because the few times that I have, people have dismissed me. So it is easier to advocate for the hurts of friends and loved ones than for yourself.

I also forgot to mention Roman Polanski. I personally was disgusted years ago when all of Hollywood was jumping to defend him personally over a criminal charge (that was completely deserved IMHO as he drugged and raped a 13 or 14 year old).

They were all outraged he wasn’t allowed to come and go freely from the US despite the fact he fled the country and he won an Oscar as all of Hollywood was embracing him at roughly the same time almost no one would support Elia Kazan (apart from Robert DeNiro and Martin Scorsese) because he “named names” under McCarthy.

I remember being pretty annoyed Emma Thompson (amongst others who were known feminists) had signed a letter supporting him. Now many years later and it’s not popular to support him any longer so many people like Thompson have made excuses and now “regret” signing the letter. Whatever.

Regardless of my feelings about Polanski, I acknowledge he’s a very talented man. I don’t want to throw money into his pockets but I sure don’t want every copy of Rosemary’s Baby or Repulsion banned.

Thanks for bringing up “A Rogue of One’s Own.” For the life of me, I couldn’t remember the name of it and also thought it was relevant to this discussion. It received at least one “F” review on the grounds of the tribal tattoo and the gay antagonist (whom I have heard on other review sites wasn’t exactly the villain, but I digress). I think we had a much more adult and nuanced discussion about the book’s problematic content here at AAR in a review that was also willing to look at its merits. That balance is sadly missing from too many reviews today. Nowadays, people call out minor plot points- troubling as they may be- with the ferocity of inquisitors hunting for heresy.

Another recent source of hullabaloo of this nature is JK Rowling’s book Troubled Blood. Full disclosure: I haven’t read it, but I am going to be skeptical when the perpetually offended crowd hollers “transphobic plotline” without sufficiently backing up that claim. I am especially skeptical considering I’ve read a couple of reviews from transwomen saying the accusation is unfounded. From what I’ve read in dribs and drabs, the plot point in question is that a male serial killer at least once donned the disguise of a wig and a padded woman’s coat in order to get close to a victim. As far as I know, that’s it. That’s the big source of one of the more recent waves of pearl-clutching internet firestorms. Setting Rowling’s real-life comments aside for a moment, have we really fallen so low as a culture that we can’t even handle a villain veering from prescribed political correctness? We’re not even talking about a trans villain here, but a man who put on a disguise for the purpose of concealing his identity while committing a crime. Ugh…

Getting back to the issue of the supposed gay villain in “A Rogue of One’s Own,” this is another challenge for writers these days. While I certainly understand why this is a sensitive issue, we’re getting to the point as authors where we need to prepare ourselves to be crucified on social media if the villain is anybody other than a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant heterosexual cis-male who preferably belongs to a group of white supremacists. Because people will squawk and rave and rant if the villain is anything else (except Mafiosi and Bratva for some reason- that gets a cultural pass). Then you get the other side of it where readers say, “Ugh, I am so sick of reading about white supremacist terrorist villains.” Well, guess why? They’re just about the only villains you can write anymore without censorious, trigger-happy (keyboard happy?) Twitterers calling for your cancellation. Just some thoughts of the day…

It’s tough, isn’t it? Especially in your example of a villain faking a disability, which certainly has real life precedent. Pretending to need crutches in order to lure victims was a favorite tactic of Ted Bundy, for instance.

“This discussion made me wonder how broadly to apply the ‘writers should not make villains belong to marginalized groups because this could be harmful to people in those groups’ warning.”

And this is one of the areas where I think we’ve had a cultural regression when it comes to storytelling. Sure, I totally get the concerns from back in the days of segregation and whatnot. If a minority character wasn’t a villain, he was a sidekick at best. (Some exceptions, yes. But characterization was largely abysmal.)

Then the 1970s came along. I’ve been watching a lot of films from that liberated post-code, pre-PC era lately and have frankly been impressed with the storytelling, risk taking, and diversity of characters. And I don’t mean superficial diversity for the sake of making a point either. We’re talking about the era of unapologetic vigilante films, dirty cop stories, blaxploitation films, and more. One of the most striking things about a lot of these movies is how there are no protected groups. Anybody could be a hero or a villain. Heroes didn’t have to white and villains didn’t have to be either. They could be, but they didn’t have to be. Sure, there are a lot of doozies from the era too, but at least creators had the courage to try new things and push the envelope a bit. Good luck with that now. It appears the only filmmaker with a backbone anymore is Quentin Tarantino. (I don’t think it’s an accident that a lot of his aesthetic emits a 1970s vibe to me. The guy probably knows a golden era of filmmaking when he sees it.)

While I’m sure there were controversies- as there are in any era- I think there was also a higher degree of maturity in the sense that people said, “You know what? That movie stunk,” and then moved on with their lives. And people who were really bothered by portrayals created their own B-film characters to fill a need- or at least went to see those movies.

We really need more unapologetic variety of this nature rather than putting out Twitter fires and taking other damage control measures. But it sure isn’t easy when publishers won’t stand behind their pilloried authors whom they greenlighted in the first place.

Especially now with high accessibility to self-publishing platforms, there’s less of a legitimate reason than ever to fuss and whine about stuff when you could, you know, write your own book? There’s a thought…

The first thing I thought of when reading about the fictional villain was Ted Bundy. He did exactly that- used fake casts and faked injuries in order to get the women he preyed on to let their guard down.

It’s pretty bad if it’s to the point a villain (who isn’t actually even disabled) can’t use well documented real life deceit as part of a story’s plot.

I’ve noticed the same trend on TV shows for a while. Particularly crime shows. If there is a white conservative preacher, lawyer etc. I know he is going to end up being the killer/villain.

And I understand why it’s being done. No one wants to be the example of a “racist” show. But in reality there are a whole gamut of people who commit crimes and I understand for years the criminal element in movies and TV shows was often every type of non-white ethnicity and people want to correct those past wrongs. But you can over correct.

It is like the pendulum swings so far one way that it has swing really far the other way before it can just return to the middle.

Okay, in response to your last sentence….

I just finished watching an episode of “Say Yes to the Dress” on YT, and the bride in this episode tried on a wedding dress with a low back, because she wanted to show off the tattoo of Arabic lettering going (more or less) down her spine. Apparently the lettering was supposed to say something along the lines of “Enjoy life now, because one day you will die”.

Well, in the comments section of the YT video, several Arabic-speaking/reading viewers posted that it was hilarious because the words were out of order–whoever did the tattoo obviously did not know Arabic. (And apparently, neither did the bride.)

And then several Asian viewers posted that they see the same thing with people who don’t know Japanese, Chinese, etc. but who get tattoos in those languages. Often the tattoos have the characters mixed up.

These posters were all clearly amused by the whole thing–people think they’re getting a profound and meaningful tattoo in an exotic language, but in reality, the lettering is screwed up. It is pretty funny when you think about it.

Not surprisingly, there were also a couple of posters who had to school all the other posters about the evil of this privileged white bride appropriating someone else’s language and culture.

I finished that book recently and thought the same things. Anyhoo..

Whenever a course correction needs to be made-and representation, cultural appropriation, and marginalization of minority groups definitely needs to be addressed-there is the risk of over-correction. Groups who have seen themselves as “othered” or ignore may jump on any perceived example of the behavior. For several decades gays were largely either stereotyped in movies or made the villains, so for a while any non “good” gay character was seen as yet another example and soundly condemned. There is evidence that instant reaction is changing as representation becomes more frequent and varied.

I guess I’m ok with some over-correction if the very real problems are addressed and talked about. If a rant review gets more people to think about the realities of homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, gaslighting, cultural appropriation and other issues, then it can serve a purpose. It may be the only bully pulpit someone has access to.

One relatively innocuous example is how homeschoolers are portrayed in books and media. It’s true this is changing, but for a couple of decades I endured seeing homeschoolers mocked or made the villains on shows like NCIS, or in books by some of my favorite authors. When I wrote reviews of the books I took the time to spell out what I saw as harmful stereotypes. (I didn’t give an F, it was only part of the books.)

And I’m ok with authors taking a look at how they are handling these same issues in their books and asking themselves why. They are free to write what they want, but reviewers are free to respond as well. Many times I’ve read here on AAR how “Old School” romances don’t hold up and people mention they wouldn’t feel the same way about the books as they did years ago. That’s because there has been changes in what is acceptable. What we’re seeing now just more of that, and it probably will continue to happen.

Personally, I do belong to a group that faces significant discrimination (PoC), and I have experienced being treated as less because I’m not white. I know what it feels like to be hurt because of this.

However, I also think there are a variety of potentially controversial situations that writers might face when it comes to the depiction of characters in marginalized groups, and it’s not always clear-cut what we should do.

For instance, in my WIP, I’m writing about a hero who is South Asian, like myself. He’s a criminal. This is a romance, so he doesn’t go beyond a certain line, but nevertheless, he breaks the law and manipulates people.

I have one beta reader who is South Asian, and he has offered to be a sensitivity reader. For the record, I am trying my best to write with understanding and tolerance while still portraying a nuanced character and telling the story I want to tell. However, if this beta reader feels that the depiction of the hero is hurtful and damaging towards South Asians as a group (because it might lead people to think less of South Asians as a result, or for any other reason), I’m not sure what I should do if I don’t agree with this assessment. Scrap the manuscript, rewrite it so the hero is white, get a second opinion from another South Asian?

I think that sometimes it’s clear when an attitude or a story is harmful towards a marginalized group, but sometimes it’s not as obvious. In the situation I mentioned where I wrote about a villain who pretended to be disabled, one of the people who felt this was harmful was disabled, but one of the people who was fine with it was also disabled. I considered the issue, took their feedback into consideration, and did what I could to mitigate damage. I included representation via a disabled good character, and wrote in a conversation about how people with disabilities are often overlooked or treated as inferior.

But is this enough? I don’t know. Just as I don’t know how South Asians as a group are going to feel about a South Asian writer’s depiction of a South Asian character who happens to commit some criminal acts. I can only do my best to write a balanced character with as much sensitivity and kindness as possible.

The reaction to Rowlings’ Troubled Blood makes more sense when you see it as the downstream result of her very public comments on trans people. When you have an author who has doubled down on her transphobia in very public press releases, then it makes sense that when people read a story with a cross-dressing bad guy, they are apt to read the author’s attitudes into the characterization. She has made statements to the effect that it’s dangerous to let trans people use the bathroom according to their gender identity, for example, so when she writes about a killer that dresses as the opposite sex it doesn’t seem irrational to wonder if her views have informed her characterization. Maybe Rowlings didn’t write that character with her opinion of trans people in mind, but I don’t think it’s strange to wonder about it.

It’s fine that you and many others have enjoyed the book. It’s also fine that other readers have pointed out the similarities author’s views on how rights for transgendered individuals can be “dangerous, and her choice for book’s villain.

Marian, your story ideas always sound fantastic. If anyone should be criticized, it’s mainstream publishing houses that are too afraid to stray from their standard offerings to publish your work. :)

As for your post, those are all good questions. But I think, overall, our society is becoming inundated with identity politics rather than individuals. This trend is, unfortunately, spilling over into the literary world- making many writers too afraid to write anything outside of a prescribed box. We should treat both real people and fictional characters as individuals. Radical thought, that…

Of course, I realize the world still has a lot of problems, and that we should treat one another with respect. But at the same time, I think a lot of these concerns over portrayals in fiction are a bit like when a couple with a struggling marriage starts fighting over how the other person is squeezing the toothpaste tube. The toothpaste tube isn’t the real cause of their arguing; they’re just fixating on it because they’re either powerless to solve or refuse to solve their actual problems. But, in the heat of the moment, you look at the toothpaste tube squeezed from the middle instead of from the end, and you go berserk rather than just buying another toothpaste tube. In the same way, writers are just an easy target for those with grievances and not anywhere near the real issues plaguing society. And yet they have to bear the wrath of a couple fighting over their stupid toothpaste tube. It’s generally not the writers who are the problem any more than the toothpaste tube. It’s just something overly convenient to latch onto. Does that make sense?

In my own writing, I let my characters guide me first and foremost. (I’m sure you do too!) This means that, yes, a character might have shocking attitudes and/or make questionable choices. Personally, I think getting too hung up on PC politics neuters characters and storytelling. Sure, do your research to avoid making dumb mistakes. And yes, I admit there are lines I won’t cross (i.e. hard limits) for both my own comfort level and, to a smaller extent, that of the reader. But, I don’t hire sensitivity readers and probably never will. After all, I don’t write political manifestos. I write stories starring individual characters, foibles and all.

Congratulations on your upcoming m/m books!

As for your would-be character Surendra Balasubramanian, that reminds me so much of the scene in Green Book (have you seen it?) where Don Shirley tells Tony it might be a good idea to introduce him to the country club patrons as “Tony Valley” because his real name, “Tony Vallelonga,” would be too hard for them to pronounce. Tony says if they want, they can call him “Tony Lip” like all his friends do, to which Dr. Shirley replies that these are high-class people who would not appreciate such an earthy nickname. So, Tony, God bless him, says something like, “Listen. If all these fancy people with all their fancy degrees are so fricken’ smart, then they can say ‘Tony Vallelonga.’ And if they don’t like it, they can go take a s***.” Lol!

But I must admit, writing a PoC hero has been stressful in ways that writing white heroes never was.

And the sad thing is, this potentially reduces the number of diverse, complex characters in fiction. I think the best rebuttal for poor representation is to write books with good representation instead of scaring authors into never writing three dimensional characters who aren’t white. Because, like you said, who wants the stress? Isn’t it tough enough to be a writer?

That’s one of the many reasons why I pursued erotica. It’s one of the few Wild West genres left in that you’re probably not going to be pilloried on the internet for iffy portrayals in a genre that’s already offensive to so many by definition. In a way, it’s incredibly liberating. When I was on an anti-hero kick, writing a bunch of shorts starring burglars, robbers, and whatnot, I’d have to say I was a pretty equal opportunity offender. But would I have taken the risk of writing a black master safecracker or an Indian phone scammer in any other genre? Eh… probably not. I think there’s at least an understanding in erotica that you are reading something subversive and naughty- which is part of the thrill. Plus, who is going to out themselves on Twitter as a smut reader by saying something like, “That self-published 5,000-word explicit interracial lesbian phone sex story I just read on KU is so offensive.” Really? Do tell. It’s a sex story…

I think another reason why the film got away with Tony’s actions is because Italians are one of the few shrinking number of ethnic groups writers can still rag on with close to zero backlash/consequences for it. Frankly, I was impressed the film addressed historically accurate prejudice against Tony just as much as prejudice against Don. He certainly didn’t suffer to the same extent of course, but it wasn’t glossed over either. And yes, the film treats Tony and Don as individuals- just as it should.

It was a little bone of contention with me when I read a lot of reviews accusing Green Book of being a white savior narrative when, frankly, Hollywood doesn’t exactly treat Italians as white people. They are- for all intents and purposes- a safe ethnic punching bag. And I’m sure seeing a nice, feel-good working class story with an Italian protagonist who wasn’t a gangster meant a lot to many viewers.

“It was something Tony the individual did, rather than a trait generalized to whatever group he was part of.”

I’m honestly wondering who’s generalizing these actions though. Does your average 21st century reader actually think a criminal character of X race or ethnicity reflects upon the group as a whole? Who even thinks like that anymore? Or maybe I have just a little too much faith in humanity…

“I’d prefer to appeal to the latter readership.”

Me too. It reminds me of how HBO put up some three minute content warning (IIRC) for Blazing Saddles, stating that some of the ignorant characters use offensive slurs- and that’s because it’s supposed to showcase their ignorance, blah blah blah. When I heard that, I thought, “Seriously? If you’re the type of person who needs a disclaimer-filled explanation of a brilliant Western parody and satire, then the movie’s probably going to go over your head anyway. You are not the intended audience.”

No, I wasn’t aware about Viggo Mortensen being embroiled in a controversy. I’m pretty much done with mainstream media for reasons like this, so I don’t usually get pop culture news until long after it happened. But I say, “Good for Viggo for sticking to his guns. It’s about time more actors did.” And the fact he’s writing, directing, and starring in his own movie? Wow. That’s a lot of work. It sounds to me like his critics fulfill the adage of “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, complain.”

It’s like that thread we had about a week ago talking about casting. Like I said, there are some good reasons why you don’t cast Samuel L. Jackson as Elizabeth Bennet (although that might be a wicked awesome parody- “I swear, Darcy, I ain’t got time for motherf****** like you!”). But sexual orientation is not visible. It can be acted. And why shouldn’t it be acted? What’s next? Are we going to say an actor who has never been in an interracial relationship can’t play a character who is in one? Or that nobody but an actual blind woman should play Helen Keller on stage? Where does this artistic policing stop?

You got me there. ;-)

Nan: My mother always used to say to me and my siblings to remember that “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”. How very true and too bad this old adage appears to have been buried under a ton of social media sewerage-scented verbiage.

I agree that stuff should not be summarily eliminated from the marketplace due to objectionable material or because the artist/actor/writer has objectionable ideas, habits, etc. Let the marketplace decide.

But the two things I do believe are that we need to listen to marginalized people groups. No, those groups are not monolithic and there will be a variety of opinions, but it’s worth the effort to look for the common ground, or majority voice. We as individuals and as society, need to listen to the maginalized voices and search ourselves and our behavior. We don’t get to tell them how to feel about their situation/culture/identity. I may not understand it,or I may think it’s insignificant, but I strongly believe I DON’T GET TO DECIDE what is or isn’t harmful to a group I don’t inhabit.

And while I don’t like the cancel culture anger, I do believe sometimes the anger helps point a spotlight on an issue no one would otherwise hear about. Unfortunately, being well-behaved rarely gets one or one’s issues noticed. I’m sure there were a lot of strident, angry voices in the suffragette movement, we just didn’t have Twitter to amplify it.

I don’t like the ugliness I see (I’m not on Twitter) and I think it can be extremely hurtful. But the way I see it as most hurtful is that it causes others to dismiss important issues in reaction to what they see as cancel culture.

Who is the ultimate authority over what certain groups will accept?

That’s what I wonder too. In my romance, at one point, my PoC hero steals a piece of jewelry. If a PoC reader says this is harmful to PoC because it depicts one of them as a thief, should I accept that this reader is right because he is a PoC? (Not getting into the fact that I’m also a PoC, or into my hero’s motivations for doing this).

If writers look long enough, we will find someone who absolutely hates our work. If we look long enough, we’ll also find someone who loves it. But at some point, I think we may need to use our own reasoning to determine what’s the best course of action, especially in a controversial situation.

Thank you! And I very much appreciate having a place where we can all discuss issues like these even if we hold opinions that are controversial.

Thank you! I’ve been fortunate to find places like AAR and the writers’ forum where I post (a question I had for them was how I could show the white heroine’s attraction to the Indian hero without fetishization – something I think I became aware of through an AAR review). Being aware of so many different viewpoints and ideas has been an invaluable learning experience, and I hope it’s shown in my writing.

I don’t have a problem with people voicing their disagreements with hurtful actions/speech on Twitter or any other platform. I think your disagreement and objections will be listened to by more people if you are civil. But there is no reason why you should swallow your concerns for fear of being labeled as “shaming” someone. Silence is complicity. We have a duty to speak up to and against wrongs so that we do not perpetuate or enable them.

The real shame is that civil discourse has mostly died in America.

Yes, to all of the above, Chrisreader. Certainly in the realm of romance and erotica, who actually wants a politically correct fantasy? Maybe some people, and they’re more than welcome to their reading choices. But let’s just say, there’s a reason why Harlequin Presents with its broody Greeks, Sheikhs, and Italians are still being published. People like reading them, that’s why! I’m sure a big part of the appeal is the “exoticism” and high drama of the stories. And I don’t see anything wrong with that.

“I think unless it’s really, really harmful stuff, people should be allowed to like what they like.”

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that treats microagressions and whatnot as “really, really harmful stuff” that must be trampled over at all costs, as we’ve all been discussing on this thread.

As for harm, I definitely acknowledge there’s some dark and dangerous stuff out there. Kids and teens in particular definitely need watchful, responsible adults these days when it comes to restricting access to certain content. True, families are going to have different opinions and attitudes toward what is appropriate for their kids. No argument there. But I do think it’s harmful when gross misinformation- such as dangerously kinky pornography, for example- goes completely unchecked. (I’m certainly not suggesting parents allow access to this material, but good luck trying to shield your tech savvy kids from it completely.) While I don’t advocate censorship for anything private between and among consenting adults, parents definitely have their work cut out for them when it comes to the vast amount of rot floating around their kids these days.

But again, I regard these issues as families’ responsibility. The problem with a lot of the firestorms today is that companies that withdraw controversial materials increasingly want to treat grown adults like children, telling us certain things are too subversive or inappropriate for us to read or watch. Sorry, but one of the perks of being an adult is unfettered access to decadence and depravity for those of us who consciously choose it. The tradeoff is that we need to take responsibility for our choices rather than falling to pieces over every little controversial sentence in a romance novel. Sometimes that choice is as simple as closing the offensive novel and reading something else.

Oh it’s happened since people started writing books for certain.

There are always people who try to control what information other people receive, whether it’s politicians, religious leaders or just your neighbors.

As far as I’m concerned the only people who should have a say over what I choose to read in my lifetime (barring anything criminal of course) were my parents when I was a kid.

Adults should be free to choose and read anything they want.

What schools teach children should be based on facts, science and the approval of the school board and community.

These used to be considered very liberal ideas, now somehow they are considered conservative. I’m standing in the same spot- but somehow the world has shifted around me.

I am sorry but I disagree. Sometimes wrong is just wrong, as clearly as 1+1=2 and not 3 or 4 or 5. But even where there are differences of opinion, I don’t see why one person should have to stay silent if they have significant concerns/disagreements about something.

Of course we should be civil to each other.

As for changing behavior, maybe I’m a cynic but I think that changing the behavior of the offending actor is a lofty goal that often is not achievable. Sometimes, the end goal is to offer support to others and state that you don’t condone the behavior and you won’t be a part of it.

To stay silent in the face of something that is truly offensive is tacit agreement and contributes to the systemic discrimination or the perpetuation of the offensive behavior. So if you are significantly offended or hurt by it, I think it is almost your duty to make your voice heard — if you possibly can.

Most times, I think we can’t change the behavior or control the actions of the individual who caused the hurt. But you can control how you respond. And standing up for what you believe is right is an important way to model for others, especially your children, how to advocate for themselves and others.

Yes I thought of that as well. How many people have you seen in real life wearing cultural tattoos that don’t align with their own cultures?

I get that in the Dumore book it was a perversion of a deity- so that was another whole level. But it didn’t negate the good things about the book that other people, even ones who had issues with the tattoo, acknowledged.