The Absolutely Positively Worst Man in England, Scotland and Wales
If you love Reckless, my personal fave of Stuart’s historical romances, you’ll like The Absolutely Positively Worst Man in England, Scotland and Wales. The latter has all the trappings of the former with not quite the panache or charm.
In TAPWMiESaW, our anti-hero is (Earl) Kit Adderley who, if the reputation he has earned is accurate, is a genuine rotter. He ruins and kills without a care and is shunned by all of society… except the moronic peers who gamble with and lose to him (he cheats) and the women who simply cannot resist his overpowering beauty and seductiveness. Kit spends his dissolute days bored out of his mind–he is, of course, brilliant–and, when roused, doing very bad things.
Our tale begins with Kit playing cards with the absurdly oafish George Latherby who, when unable to pay his considerable losses, promises Kit the very large dowry of the plain woman he–George–is to marry in a few weeks. Kit is unwilling to wait so they hatch a plan to, that very night, kidnap the bride, whisk her off to Scotland, wed and bed her–Kit thinks he might as well do the latter because George has the pox–and collect her fortune which Kit, who is loaded, doesn’t need.
The caper, however, does not go as planned. The goons they hire for the job kidnap both the bride–one Bryony Marton–and her lovely young cousin Cecilia. The women are tossed into a carriage where Kit and, occasionally, George join them and they jolt off to Gretna Green. It will shock you not that Kit is immediately, ineluctably drawn to Bryony. She has freckles, a gorgeous mouth, is tall, and utterly uncowed by him. For her part, he is the most beautiful man she’s ever seen and by far the most interesting thing that’s happened to her since her globe trotting father died and she came to live with Cecilia’s truly terrible parents.
As they gallop along, stopping for food and shelter and–yes!–bathroom breaks, Bryony and Kit banter, Cecilia natters–she has an unnecessary romance with a Bow Street runner her parents have sent after her (only her, not Bryony)–and George competes to be the biggest evil idiot to grace the pages of an historical romance.
Kit is an enigma–it’s hard to know why Bryony falls for him although he has a swooning sexuality that jumps of the page–and I wish Stuart had shown us more of his evolution to (barely) hero. Bryony is overly self-aware but she’s amusing and I rooted for her to find her HEA. A few weeks after reading their story, I recall little about them other than I had a good time reading their romance.
This is a throwback novel–it hollers OLD SKOOL–and if you hate that sort of thing, you’ll hate this book. But if you’ve missed Stuart’s badly behaved, bad boy heroes and have got five dollars to spare, this book isn’t a bad bet.
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
Book Details
Reviewer: | Dabney Grinnan |
---|---|
Review Date: | November 30, 2020 |
Publication Date: | 08/2020 |
Grade: | B |
Sensuality | Warm |
Book Type: | Historical Romance |
Review Tags: |
Call me a prude, that a man who has killed is a bridge too far.
He’s killed in duels. There’s no evidence he’s just killed people. It’s kinda this huge fake out–he says he’s terrible but there’s no evidence and we, the readers, only see him as an iffy hero because of his thoughts but not his actions.
I love that we have these nuanced discussions here and that when you read a review the comments help flesh things out even more.
I think it’s interesting that Elizabeth Hoyt’s new book got hit with a big old “F” review at another site because her hero is too jerky.
I am not a favor of F reviews because I find it hard to believe a book is completely worthless. They seem more like statements or stunts to me.
That’s an interesting review. I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on its merits. However, I do like Hoyt’s Scandalous Desires which our reviewer did not.
We can argue endlessly–and in Romancelandia we do–about whether or not romance needs to reflect real life and/or real life (current) values. There is no consensus there.
I just finished reading Tana French’s The Searcher which I thoroughly enjoyed. French is over a decade younger than I am but her moral sensibilities are similar to many of my generation. In her latest, the hero makes a series of choices that are, by the standards often articulated by Romancelandia’s more zealous modern critics, unacceptable. Furthermore, French makes it clear she’s not on the side of those who police language.
But mystery doesn’t fret–from my vantage point anyway–about these issues in the way our bunch does. And that’s fine. On both sides.
I liked Scandalous Desires too and I argued at the time that while Mickey was in the wrong to set up the situation, he didn’t ‘ruin” Silence’s marriage. If her husband had any faith in her he would have believed her.
Hoyt has written a lot of heroes who did jerky things- up to and including The Duke Of Wakefield who was supposed to be a model of perfection.
I like a reformed villain story. My favorite Kerrigan Byrne book is the one with the assassin for the hero.
I agree about mysteries- anything goes there. It’s how you can have a “hero” like Ripley from the Talented Mr. Ripley series.
It made this–questionable–list!
That’s an interesting list for sure. I’d argue about some of the choices on it- at least the books. I like a lot of the authors featured but the choices for the novels chosen are far from a lot of the authors‘ best books IMHO.
At the end of the day lists are *so* subjective. I’m sure my top lists would be the opposite of someone else’s.
I’ve found my best option is to find reviewer/s with similar tastes and ones that give very thorough reviews.
It’s funny, over at Dear Author years ago everything I thought was really new and exceptional kept getting B- reviews. Kiss of Steel by Bec McMaster and Willing Victim by Cara McKenna both got B- reviews when other things like Eleven Scandals to Start by Sarah Maclean got an A!
I still stand by McKenna and McMaster’s works, I think they were both exceptional in their own genres. I used to joke that I would only bother reading the B- minus reviews at DA because that’s where I was finding all the best stuff.
I so disliked that MacLean.
Me too!
I will say that, when I reviewed for Dear Author, like at AAR, there is no group think on books. It’s up to every reviewer to assess whether the book works for her.
Oh I’m sure. That’s why finding reviewers who have similar tastes is so important. It was just funny that for a stretch where I was finding a number of books I thought were really exceptional and they were all getting that exact same meh grade.
I remember when you switched from DA to here because all of a sudden a name from one site was on another and it gave me a moment of “wait where am I?” Lol
I always enjoyed DA and did a review there back in the day. It’s too bad the comments there have died down so much. It used to be incredibly lively.
I think I am the only person whose ever reviewed for both sites and did so at the same time. It was really fun!
You are a trendsetter for sure!
“Scandalous Desires” was my least favorite of the Maiden Lane books, not so much because of Mickey (although I thought what he did to her at first was cruel) but because I didn’t like Silence. I read it a long time ago so don’t remember precise details, but I thought that what she did endangered all of the good works her family tried to do with the Foundling Home, which was dependent on donors and maintaining the reputation of those associated with it. I also thought Silence protested too much about almost everything, yet when it counted had no backbone. Of course, YMMV.
I find a good rant review very helpful. Plus, a review is one person’s opinion about the book,and if it was an F for them, so be it. I like knowing what didn’t work for some people so I know if the same buttons will get punched for me, too. I always read the bad reviews of any book I’m curious about.
I accept the F’s just as I’d accept an A when I read a review of a book I ended up hating. It’s all so subjective, and every review where the reviewer takes time to explain their reasons has merit.
I guess I’m sympathetic to the authors. If work and care is put into something then giving it an F seems like an overreaction to me and more like “canceling” the book.
IMHO it’s basically saying there was not one thing from that book that was even adequate and even worth working on. That’s something I find hard to believe about authors whose work is at a certain level.I can’t think of a romance book off the top of my head I’ve read that was that bad.
Of course everyone has a right to their opinion or review and to express it. I wouldn’t want it any other way. But reviews like that are as telling to me about the reviewer as the reviewer is being about the author. And if it’s fair game on an author’s work I think it’s fair game on the review too. (Unfortunately AAR is one of the few sites who also believes that).
As you say “It’s all so subjective, and every review where the reviewer takes time to explain their reasons has merit.” And I agree 100%. I also agree that author’s work has merit too.
I guess, as a former teacher, I look at F as part of a grading scale. You can get 30% right on a test/paper and still get an F. So I don’t see an F grade as saying the book has no worth, just that it didn’t have enough of worth to rise above an F in that reviewer’s grading rubric. In no way do I see an F review as meaning 0% merit.
Do you also feel that way about DNFing a book? I don’t rate books I DNF, but for me that’s basically saying I didn’t find enough merit in this book to even finish reading it. I don’t give a grade/star rating, but I do explain why I dnf. Sometimes that’s more about me than the book, but other times it’s definitely about the book. I guess I can see a DNF as potentially more damning than an F for me.
I’ve only ever given out one F and one A+ in all my years of reviewing. If a book was going to be an F for me, I suspect I’d have DNF’d it instead.
You know my curiosity is compelling me to go find the F and the A+!
Susan Johnson’s Seductive As Flame and Susan Wojciechowski’s The Christmas Miracle of Jonathan Toomey.
I don’t care for DNFs either. I don’t think I would review a book if I DNF it.
There have been books I’ve started to read that I didn’t finish for one reason or another but I wouldn’t review them.
The same way I wouldn’t expect a movie reviewer to say “Oh I walked out halfway through the movie but here’s my grade” or a teacher (great example by the way!) to say I only read part of this student’s work but I’m grading it anyway.
I think I find it overly dismissive and misleading. I saw a Goodreads review that was like a one star/very negative because the reader/reviewer read the very first part of the book (which had some twists) went on a rant about it and completely mischaracterized what happened because they didn’t read beyond a chapter or two.
That’s Goodreads, you have a right to post and say whatever you want (and I’m a HUGE fan of people getting to post their opinions whether I like them or not) but it was just factually plain wrong.
Obviously, I hold review sites to higher standards than single Goodreads reviews, but they also have the right to post what they want. My issue is that on some sites it’s become about “cancelling” or showing how correct their opinions are. It’s not really bad writing that’s getting an F, it can be a plot point, or in the case of Kleypas a few years ago, a sentence or two that gets a book an “F”. So for me, that’s more like a publicity stunt or attention getting. It’s always a really well known author that needs to get the ‘F” to publicly shame them in some way.
Anne Stuart’s book above seems to have some very controversial points to it, but does that mean it should be a big “F”?
Again, it’s just MY opinion now so feel free to disagree. I’m not on a boycott campaign against anyone. I don’t have it out for any reviewers or sites, I just appreciate the way AAR approaches reviews more than other sites I visit.
I don’t consider explaining why I dnf a book the same as reviewing it. I appreciate knowing how books impact other readers even reviewers not on “review sites.” I learn from the good, the bad and the ugly.
I’m hesitant to make sweeping comments about the motives of reviewers on one site verses another. I find merit at all the reviews sites I frequent. If I didn’t, I stop reading their reviews.
I do find it interesting that as a whole people are unwilling to critique a review but not another piece of writing.
I am sure if people don’t like an author’s work they can just stop reading them as well, but that doesn’t mean they can’t review them. Both pieces of authorship are put out for public consumption.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that certain writing is sacrosanct. Author’s motives are questioned constantly in reviews and online.
I don’t think discussion on three very specific reviews all of the same nature are necessarily “sweeping comments” but I don’t want this to veer any farther into what is starting to feel a little personal so I’ll end my remarks here.
“My issue is that on some sites it’s become about “cancelling” or showing how correct their opinions are.”
Just for clarification, this what I was basing the “sweeping comments” on, not your discussion of the three reviews.
I get the motives, why you dislike F and DNF reviews, and I agree with most examples you mentioned being negative.
I disagree with the conclusion (- as a discussion, not as an attack, your opinion is common, sounds so reasonable, and I have met it often, and thought about it a lot.)
I would not “banish the F” because then, very soon, we would have the same discussion about the D-
I strongly dislike the idea as such that there are grades that cannnot be given, as long as there is a system, and like AAR, the system holds the reviewer to account by requiring justifying the grade, and allows for some control by allowing others to challenge the grade, or to make up their minds themselves. I actually read negative reviews more carefully, than a middling B, and might sample a book just because I want to know for myself.
When employee assessments started in my (then) large employer, there was a grading from A-D. Then people objected to D. So D stopped existing, but extra good people got an AA. When I left, we had AAA and people were objecting and discussing whether a person who got a C should actually be fired, because they were so bad, and whether we should consider B- the worst grade a person could be assessed at…
I think F reviews are completely appropriate when I reviewer explains her thinking one one. And I agree that no one wants book reviewing to become yet another everyone gets a trophy arena.
Well said!
I agree with your points, and under Dabney’s one F review I actually agreed that she made me believe that that book, in her opinion, deserved an F. She didn’t like a single thing about it, from plot, to characters to execution and made that abundantly clear in the review. To me, that’s a F grade.
Perhaps I was too vehement or didn’t express myself well enough before . My problem with with the F reviews I mentioned were that the grade was given based on a small part of the book. In one case it was literally a sentence or two that had zero bearing on the plot and was excised from later editions.
There were many other things people, including the reviewers liked, such as characters, writing or development. An F was used to in those cases not because the entire work was so bad, but for emphasis to show they thought the one point or issue was so bad, the entire book was an F.
I personally don’t think that is accurate or fair, (and again it’s my opinion just like it’s theirs to give the grade).
The same way I don’t think it’s fair for people to give reviews of a book based on one or two chapters, something else I have seen done. If a person says ‘I read two chapters and I got bored, DNF” then that’s another story as well. They aren’t trying to say they are summarizing the whole book and it’s honest (although it wouldn’t be much of a review).
I appreciate your comment and never take disagreement as an attack. I think you’re correct that there is a place for those grades when they are done well.
I think it’s harder on online reviews when you have letter grades or just a few stars to convey a rating.
I assume when you are grading a student paper or test they see what is right and wrong pretty clearly. To me an online F is quite stark and just looks like a big “fail”.
I think a D- to me would convey that it’s a big old mess but I’ll give credit for what small amounts actually worked.
My other problem is how targeted they are. It’s always pretty big name, attention grabbing authors or books getting the F grade so it feels like click bait/shaming to make a point IMHO.
I understand that those authors will be more than fine. It’s not going to cost them their jobs or livelihoods I just don’t care for it as a practice.
Just for the record, one of the (so far two) F grades I’ve given is for a book that I’ll bet no one here would ever have heard of otherwise. The author is definitely not a big name in romance.
The second F grade was for a book by an author who had one other book reviewed at AAR, so I don’t think this is a big-name author either.
I don’t doubt it. AAR has never been guilty of writing things for sheer impact or views. At least not in my opinion.
“I assume when you are grading a student paper or test they see what is right and wrong pretty clearly. To me an online F is quite stark and just looks like a big “fail”.”
And I would assume if someone reads the review of an F book they will also see what worked and didn’t for the reviewer. In fact, a review of a book outlines things in much more detail than a teacher’s letter grade. I’m not understanding the difference here. But I didn’t mean to start an argument.
Oh I don’t consider it arguing. It’s a discussion. We have different opinions on it, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. I’m not mad at your opinion- I get what you’re saying. I just see it differently.
My complaints on the reviews I’ve mentioned are that there is really only one thing they based the grade on. In Kleypas’s case it was about two sentences that were later removed from the book without changing it one iota.
In Hoyt’s case it was that the hero was too “bad”.
I guess I am biased in that I thought Kleypas’s book was one of her best works and the reason for the F grade had nothing to do with 99.9% of the book.
I haven’t read the Hoyt book yet but I know the quality of her work so I’m dubious about the accuracy of the grade.
I believe it was the same with “A Rogue of One’s Own” where the hero had a skewed tattoo of an Indian deity that people agreed was problematic but the rest of the book was deemed to be solid and forward thinking on many other fronts.
For me personally, I don’t feel a book should be judged on its characters’ moral merits. That is just me. Literature is rife with anti-heroes and the idea that a book is an F because a reviewer feels it might make the world a worse place in someway doesn’t work for me.
I agree, and as we have discussed, mystery books and other genres get a much bigger pass.
I’ve enjoyed following this discussion.
Since 99 percent of the fiction I read is romance of some sort (historical, fantasy, sometimes contemporary), I was surprised to see you guys mention that other genres seem to get more of a pass when it comes to the characters’ ethics, etc. Now that’s interesting.
Is it because the audience for other genres (such as mystery) is not primarily women? Or what? Why do you think other genres get more of a pass?
I hazard one goes after the power one can. So, in a world where the mainstream critical patriarchal literary world dismisses romance readers and writers, those same readers and writers aren’t listened to in those other realms. BUT, in romance, they have power which they wield.
Okay, but…I’m still confused. I think you are pointing out that romance readers/writers feel ignored or demeaned (or should I get with the new lingo and say “othered”?) by the male-dominated mainstream (i.e., non-romance) literary world. And so, when romance readers/writers are actually discussing the romance genre, they feel heard and valued when they speak up, so they really go for it. Did I understand that correctly?
If so, this doesn’t explain for me why other genres, like mystery, get more of a pass. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what is getting a “pass” in other genres.
You’ve correctly identified two separate issues.
One is that in all realms, people attack what they can. So, in a female dominated genre like romance which has traditionally been ignored by the mainstream critical world, it makes sense that its fiercest critics are those within that system. Most romance readers and critics have been unable to dent the external world’s indifference to their work/reading but they are able to shame someone who does listen to them–others in their isolated–and, yes, thank the gods, this is changing–arena.
The other issue is that once someone makes a fuss, within the romance community, that fuss is rewarded with attention within the community. Every community has their rules/standards so what will get a response varies depending on the rules. When I say that other genres such as lit fic, mysteries, and horror give many of the social issues that romance gets shouty about, what I mean is that, within those communities, there isn’t the interest in the relevance of where one got one’s sexual expertise or tatoo. There are, I’m sure, other taboos that those communities care about. YA authors appear to have to navigate a far more stringent path to publication, for example, than thriller authors do.
Does that make sense?
This article says what I was far less articulately trying to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/t-magazine/cancel-culture-history.html
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.”
That’s a depressing distinction.
It’s depressing, but I have to admit it feels accurate.
Yep, Chrisreader, you are right on the money. The “woke” crowd actually believe that they are doing a service to mankind when they dox, harass, bully, and harm Americans who do not share their beliefs. Sadly, people are losing jobs, or being subjected to censure in the workplace, for refusing to worship at the altar of Wokeness.
I remember back in the day when certain pro-life folks were killing doctors who performed abortions. The killers completely believed that they were doing god’s work. So there you go.
I firmly believe that shaming is a poor tool to try and evince social change. It doesn’t work well and routinely backfires. Furthermore, much of the shaming we see today in social media is one the biggest reasons we are so polarized–shaming encourages people to take more extreme, less nuanced positions on issues.
And it just causes hard feelings, even if you know you are in the wrong. It makes for backlash.
Who likes to be shamed or have their nose rubbed in it even if you know you were in the wrong? It’s human nature to get defensive. And if you really aren’t in the wrong, or don’t think you are it’s even worse.
There is also a big difference between saying someone made a mistake, is mistaken and saying “you are horrible and evil”.
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.
Yes, thank you! :-)
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.
What? Why? It’s a baby 50 Shades where, after fulfilling her fantasies, the chick’s in charge.
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.
Yes, and I also think there’s a mindset that romance writing= women. Therefore there can be no weakness or bad examples because that’s reflecting back on “all women”.
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 go into a totally different direction on this:
To me, the reason is the genre – a love story is, well, a love story. So people in it should be loveable, because this is kind of the main point.
So, if I have a love story in another book, say suspense or fantasy, I do not expect a HEA, the story is about something else and all in all, the people in it are not held to the same standard of loveability as the standard/ main character focus in that book may be on murderousness, or world saving, or or.
in real life, I can be friends with persons that I could not have as a love partner, because some parts of their lives or personalities are objectionable to me.
so yes, love interests have to”fit” in many ways that friends, or fantasy quest companions, or partners in crime do not.
I am in no way saying that the way this plays out in current practice of criticism is ok, and agree with a lot of the discussion below about excesses of criticism.
but I found it interesting that the discussion did not go in this direction too, since this was my very first thought when I read stl-reader’s question.
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 agree. I find it especially troubling that we’re also moving in a cultural direction of merging artists with their art. Controversial- or sometimes even criminal- artists are increasingly having their old work pulled from television line-ups and book shelves. Essentially, they are being erased like in the Communist era. The author Lionel Shriver lamented this as well, saying (paraphrase from memory), “If someone commits a crime, you put him in jail. But you don’t destroy everything good that person ever did or made.”
Furthermore, what is with these hoards of people who clamor to have contracts pulled, books revised, and authors publicly shamed? I’m not saying don’t ever criticize anything, but you cross a line with me when you are actively attempting to sabotage someone’s livelihood. You don’t like a particular book? Fine. You don’t have to read it. But don’t act so smug and moral for getting the book cancelled so no one else can read it either. As far as I’m concerned, it’s people like these who make the world a worse place, not authors who write allegedly “offensive” work.
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.
“I never thought I would see the day that the left (the left!!) would be on the side of book banning.”
I know! Crazy, isn’t it? And I 100% agree that it’s more insidious because promotors of cancel culture can hide behind the fact that there isn’t legal censorship. That’s a good example of cowardice at its finest. Tear down your enemies, pretend you had nothing to do with it (or alternately gloat about it), find someone else to destroy, and repeat the cycle. Never create anything, just be a job-destroying serial nuisance while hiding behind your keyboard and pretending what you’re doing isn’t a roundabout form of censorship. Ugh!
What I don’t get is why these major companies are caving in to a minority of complainers who probably aren’t customers anyway. Grow a backbone, and tell these people where to stick it! That’s what I say! And considering how entangled so many major corporations are with the government in one way or another via lobbying and whatnot, I definitely consider these book bannings a form of censorship-lite. Definitely not a good thing…
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?
Oh Jordan Peterson, I know of him but have never read what he writes to see what is so offensive.
I was going to borrow something of his from the library to see what was going on with his stuff and the wait list was months long! Clearly he’s popular with a lot of people.
I think Hillbilly Elegy is going through something similar now. Although Ron Howard and the cast are all quite liberal it’s getting terrible reviews that seem to be based on the fact that the guy who wrote the memoir is conservative. People online who have seen it said it is very moving and many from the area said it is unfortunately true to life but many critics have just eviscerated it. I will watch it to see how it is (although I can’t comment on its authenticity).
Thanks for the link!
No, the movie’s quite terrible and getting bad reviews because it’s a terrible, stereotypical movie about Poor Southern Folx.
I’ve heard both sides. Some people posting on Facebook swear it’s great and others said it’s literally the most boring thing they’ve ever watched.
I think Amy Adams and Glenn Close are both great actresses. I haven’t read the book so I don’t have any opinions one way or another so I’m going to give it a go and see what I think.
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.
I am interested to see exactly what he is saying that makes him so popular. I’ve only ever read one line quotes in articles which is quite different than actually reading someone’s complete thoughts.
Even if I disagree with everything he says I think it’s very important to know what people are actually saying and reading. As you say, good friction.
If I decide he’s someone I don’t want my money supporting, then it’s still not a problem as I will borrow it from the library and not be helping him monetarily.
My usual practice is to to try and buy books I have enjoyed from the library first in order to support authors if I am able. If I find a work a waste of time or distasteful, obviously I don’t purchase or support them.
Thank you so much for posting about your experience! I appreciate your feedback very much as all the talk on him is extremely polarized one way or another.
# 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.
Thanks again Liselotte for your very thoughtful and detailed reply to my post. It’s the most complete analysis of his work I have found yet.
I have only seen a few quotes of his work like the ones in the article above like “stand up straight with your shoulders back” and “set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world”
I don’t have a huge problem with either of those but it have seen him described as the worst kind of racist so I knew it wasn’t the shoulders quote that was getting him in hot water.
I agree with you about people needing a hand and support. How many of us have had to rely on unemployment assistance alone in our lives (which many people don’t realize is paid by the employer, not the employee).
I live in a state that was the first to offer healthcare to all before it was adopted on the federal level and I have seen firsthand how it has helped not only the people who are less financially solvent, but the injured/disabled, the elderly and the unemployed. (That being said I think our state system is far superior to Obamacare which needs a lot of help, redesign and restructuring. I am lucky to live in a wealthier state with lots of great hospitals and universities that support the system and I know that many other states do not have these resources).
On a business trip I once spoke with an officer of a good sized company with a large income who told me he and his wife had to depend on government support when they were first married with a child and were getting started.You never know what life is going to throw at you.
I’m glad you and your husband were able to get what you needed at that time in your lives. I personally think that in the U.S. alone there is so much government money that if it was all managed well we could serve so many more people.
I saw a news show that reported that if insurance fraud was investigated and prevented that the money it costs would pay for healthcare for all with no problem.
I am happy you were able to look at Peterson’s work as a whole and find something applicable and valuable in it. It may not work for everyone but it seems some people found it life changing.
Like religion, I think self help and personal growth books are incredibly personal and depend on the life and beliefs of the individual. One man’s trash as they say is another man’s treasure.
Hopefully we can chat when I finally get my hands on one of his books.
Thanks again!
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.”
Sometimes, people claim the hurt on behalf of a friend because they fear that they will be mocked or dismissed. Just like when you were a kid and said that you were asking for a friend.
Or they claim that it is for a friend because they want to maintain their privacy and not reveal too much about themselves.
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.
That’s a good point.
The pollster who predicted Trump’s win in 2016 said his analysis was correct because one of the questions he posed was “who do you think your neighbor will vote for” because many people didn’t want to admit they were voting for Trump.
What the “friend” comments made me think of was the complaints by many people of color that white people, 9and mostly white women), while wanting to help were co-opting movements and speaking on behalf of marginalized groups too much.
It reminded me of a video I saw recently where a group came into a town or state they didn’t live in to protest on behalf of Black Lives Matter. The group was predominantly white. The town’s demographic was largely black. A black woman resident stopped to talk to them about her concerns that they would do damage, litter or harm the area. Many of the (white) people who came to ostensibly support the BLM movement were openly rude to the black woman in her own community. I think her opinion should not only be considered but should hold more weight than someone not of that demographic who doesn’t even live there.
When I saw the “friends” comment my thoughts immediately went to people who were trying to speak for other people. But you may well be correct in your assumption.
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.
Yes to all of this. I get especially disgusted when celebrities rush to embrace indefensible criminals but roil with righteous indignation when a comedian makes one stupid or ill conceived comment. Okay, so Roseanne and Don Imus made rude remarks. How is that even in the same league as statutory rape? But to a lot of these posturing celebrities, off-the-cuff “racist” comments are apparently a lot worse and more unforgivable than people who have physically harmed others. Figure that one out. I’ve come to the conclusion that those kind of people will defend anybody in their camp for the most major crimes and trample over anyone who lives outside of their camp for the smallest faux pas. Bleh!
It’s not going to work well if we hold artists of the past to our current standards. Polanski is interesting in that he committed a crime at the time and has never been held accountable for it.
My kids and I just rewatched the Lord of the Rings trilogy which is, rather complicatedly, connected to Harvey Weinstein. He produced Shakespeare in Love and many other fabulous films. I think he’s loathsome and am happy he is in prison. AND I’m not going to stop watching those films.
It’s so interesting and a little scary how things have flipped in just 10 years or so.
In 2009 celebrities were angrily supporting Polanski despite his never having done his sentence for his crime. Major celebrities who worked with him like Harrison Ford and Kate Winslet were happy to talk about what a great experience it was and that they had no regrets. (Most have backed off and now won’t even comment on him when asked by reporters- Winslet has done the mandatory tearful interviews disavowing her previous support of him and Woody Allen).
Now in 2020 a major University, (I want to say Harvard) had a number of students, mostly female, try to blackball an attorney from teaching a course there because he belongs to a law firm that represents Weinstein. It’s not even him personally that represents him (I don’t think), he just works at a firm that took Weinstein’s case- so he shouldn’t be allow to teach anymore.
To me that’s horrifying. It’s trying to punish lawyers for representing clients and effectively is trying to make it so people accused of crimes cannot get lawyers!
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…
“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?”
I once started a thread on a writers’ forum to ask people’s opinion of a villain in a romance I’d written. The villain uses a wheelchair, although he doesn’t need one, to convince the heroine that he couldn’t possibly be responsible for a certain crime. There is also a secondary character who uses leg braces, and who does need them, and who’s a good person.
The resulting discussion was quite heated. Three other writers responded to say that a villain who pretends to use a wheelchair could be very damaging to people with disabilities, since it might lead readers to feel that real-life people with disabilities were also faking it, and that people with disabilities who read the book would be hurt if they felt they had representation, but then the person in the wheelchair turned out to be a villain.
There were dissenting opinions. Some posters felt that faking disability to deceive the heroine was something a villain might do. And one person who does have a disability said that if we assumed disabled people were so fragile that they couldn’t read about a villain even faking disability, that seemed like another way of belittling them.
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 while I considered the matter and decided not to make any major changes to my manuscript, I doubt I’ll be straying outside the guidelines again.
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…
Oops I posted before reading your comment as well regarding Bundy. I guess it just shows its a pretty well known and documented way evil people have used to do evil.
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.
And when I first read about Ted Bundy, I never thought, “He faked using a crutch, therefore it’s likely that other people who use crutches are also faking it.”
We sometimes talk about how romance readers can separate the escapism of the genre from real life, and I think this would fall under that umbrella. I might read about dukes; doesn’t mean I want to marry one. I might read about a villain who pretends to be disabled; doesn’t mean I’ll go on to believe that actual people who are disabled are also lying.
However, I do think that writers who go this route (villains are members of marginalized groups, or even villains pretend to be members of marginalized groups) should be prepared for a backlash. Whether or not this reaction is deserved/justified is another matter, but writers need to be aware that it could happen.
As Nan de Plume said, it’s just easier to make my villains white, straight, cis, able-bodied, etc. because there will be no problems with those.
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.
I said somewhere – probably on my review of the Dunmore – that I had read loads of m/m books where men had tribal tattoos but those books and authors were never called on it. I just finished listening to a book where the (white) American MC has tribal tattoos (from a different country) but that book never sparked the sort of controversy that the Kleypas and the Dunmore did. And in real life, people – I imagine – get tattoos based on visuals as well as for other reasons related to culture and meaning. .
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.
Hah, well, yes, there IS always the risk that you’re not getting what you think you’re getting, I suppose.
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.
I agree with you, Carrie G.
I also think that people who do not belong to a group that faces significant discrimination have no idea what it feels like so it is easier to dismiss the hurt and damage that comments/behavior/depictions may have on others. It adds insult to injury when their concerns are dismissed as over reacting.
As for disability in romance, there are few examples of people with disabilities in romance as it is (I’m not counting the pseudo disabilities, where the hero has a scar but it still gorgeous). If you have a loved one with a disability, you begin to get a glimmer of the infinite ways that they are treated as less.
I wish that as a society we could develop more tolerance and kindness for others.
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.
Very interesting post, Marian. Thank you; it’s made me think about your dilemma but I wonder if the opinion of just one beta-reader is enough to cause a writer to ditch a story that they are building and, prior to that reader’s opinion, they were happy with. This is the ultimate problem for writers, I suspect. Some will love the work; some will loathe it. I also wonder if our current “cancel culture” is making writers ultra-cautious and thereby satisfying some readers but dismaying others so the writer may follow the path of the least resistance. For example, there was a huge shout-out about Troubled Blood by Robert Galbraith (aka J K Rowling). Some interpreted it as being hypercritical of trans people. I read the book and closed it wondering just what the hell the uproar was about. I enjoyed the book; others hated it. Pretty much par for the course. I think that a good writer should write what they want. No one has to purchase or read any book and in this day and age, there is ample opportunity to get “pre-offended” by what you haven’t actually read. Write from your own heart, Marian; if it’s good, you will reach your audience.
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.
PS, I’m not saying she doesn’t have the right to write what she wants,and I’m not saying a cross-dressing villain is necessarily insulting to transgendered individuals. What I’m saying is the reaction to Rowlings’ character is more complex than just the representation in the book, and whether you agree with it or not, it makes sense that some people felt her personal views informed the character.
I agree and that’s fine. But public shaming for those who disagree which Twitter is rife with is, for me, not OK. I’m not a fan of shaming for anyone.
I understand that and agree. I was just pointing out the reasons here are more complex than a single cross-dressing villain. I would also point out that just because people react in unkind and unhelpful ways shouldn’t obscure the validity of the complaint. I am seeing people refusing to consider important issues because they don’t like the way some people handle it. Black Lives Matter protests are highlighting real problems, for example, and shouldn’t be dismissed because some have devolved into riots.
Cancel culture is real, I get it. But so is using that as an excuse not to address very real issues, especially when those issues make one uncomfortable.
Totally agree. You can completely support the goals of BLM and not support using the phrase “defund the police.” You can believe in women’s rights and still enjoy traditional historical romance.
It’s incumbent on all of us to leave this world better than we found it. And that takes real work and being uncomfortable.
I wonder if the opinion of just one beta-reader is enough to cause a writer to ditch a story that they are building and, prior to that reader’s opinion, they were happy with.
That’s the question I ask. Yes, we should listen to people in marginalized groups and take their experiences into account. I completely agree with that.
But what do we do when people in the same marginalized group disagree? Just because we share the same skin color or orientation or ability doesn’t mean we’ll think alike.
And what do writers do if we have carefully considered our story/depiction/character, and we’ve thought about feedback, and we don’t agree? That’s why I brought up the example of my villain who pretends to be disabled. The reasoning that readers might be led to believe that real-life people with disabilities are also pretending… well, when I read A Song of Ice and Fire, where the dwarf Tyrion Lannister murders a woman, I never thought, “Other people with dwarfism are also likely to be murderers.”
If readers are already prejudiced towards certain marginalized groups, they may be likely to think this way, but does this mean we should avoid creating marginalized characters with faults, so as not to give such readers any fuel for their biases?
I don’t expect anyone to answer these questions, because I think the answers may well vary with genre, with character, with writer, with story and with reader. I just want awareness that these questions exist. And that asking them doesn’t mean I’m trying to harm people in marginalized groups.
Write from your own heart, Marian; if it’s good, you will reach your audience.
Absolutely agreed, and this is something I try to do always. Thank you.
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.
Thank you very much, Nan. I did recently contact a cover artist and she’s going to start work on covers for my two m/m novels in January, so one way or another, I’m getting out there.
But I must admit, writing a PoC hero has been stressful in ways that writing white heroes never was.
For instance, at one point, I had the hero (whose name is Jayesh Keele) introducing himself to a rather snobbish white man. I thought of the hero giving his name as “Surendra Balasubramanian,” knowing the white man will be not be able to pronounce this, and will be embarrassed as a result.
Then I wondered : will people think I’m making fun of Indians? Stereotyping them with names like Apu Nahasapemapetilon? The PoC hero is using the stereotype to get the better of a white man, but still. Am I stressing about this too much, or not enough, or what?
This means that, yes, a character might have shocking attitudes and/or make questionable choices.
I agree. I also think there are ways to show that the character’s faults should not be universally applied to all the people in that character’s marginalized group. If writers show that characters make questionable choices because of their upbringing, social circumstances, personality, etc. rather than because of their ethnicity, orientation and so on, I think that’s a great part of writing such characters as interesting, three-dimensional individuals.
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!
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 enjoyed Green Book too. But one reason the film could get away with actions like Tony stealing a “lucky rock” from the store was because no one would say that this reflected badly on white men as a whole. It was something Tony the individual did, rather than a trait generalized to whatever group he was part of.
What’s the solution to this, for writers? I think it varies between books and characters and so on, but if the story requires a marginalized character to do something questionable, I’d like writers to be aware that there are options. And that representation doesn’t need to mean characters who don’t put a foot wrong. In fact, when I’m reading about characters of color, I prefer the opposite!
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’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?
That was the impression I got from people telling me that a villain who says he has a disability, but is lying, might lead readers to feel that real-life people who say they have disabilities are also lying.
Personally, I feel that I could either tailor my characters’ actions to satisfy such readers, or I could write for people who, for instance, read Othello and yet didn’t conclude that real-life black men were likely to kill their wives too. I’d prefer to appeal to the latter readership.
“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.”
Have you seen there is more backlash against the movie Green Book lately? I think it’s been triggered by Viggo Mortensen’s new movie that he wrote, directed and starred in where he plays a gay man who is taking care of his father. A lot of people are unhappy he is playing a gay man and he is defending himself very vehemently.
His opinion is that he would never ask about an actor’s private life so he doesn’t know the personal life of his co-star who plays his partner. He said one of the reasons he ended up playing the role is because he didn’t have to pay an actor for this small film and that he wants it judged by the work.
He’s one of the few actors recently that has really dug in and refused to backtrack or apologize which doesn’t surprise me as he is quite an intense and committed person from what I have seen over the years. I don’t think he is someone who does something if he thinks it’s wrong so I don’t think he would apologize unless he really meant it.
I feel like most of Hollywood and the media throw out an apology as a means to save face but don’t mean it at all. Most of them ring hollow to me.
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?
“Or that nobody but an actual blind woman should play Helen Keller on stage?”
Well, to be as accurate as possible, shouldn’t the woman playing Helen Keller be blind and deaf?
You got me there. ;-)
Beautifully stated, Elaine S., especially this:
That’s one of my biggest problems with Twitter firestorms over authors. In the 21st century, you can read plenty of sources beforehand to see if a book is going to be right for you or not. Sure, there might be some nasty surprises, but isn’t part of the idea of being an adult not needing everything bubble-wrapped and disclaimered to death?
Outside of college or certain jobs, no one is forcing adults to read books. This isn’t assigned reading like in your school days; you have the freedom to close that book (throw it across the room, if you wish), critique it, read something else, recommend better work, etc.
But I’m not buying the argument that if someone’s feelings are hurt, they are justified in making a big stink with the expressed purpose of getting authors’ contracts pulled. Sorry, but I don’t believe hurt feelings are a justification to deliberately try to hurt someone’s finances- which are tenuous for most authors, I might add. You want to boycott something and tell others to join you? Fine. No one’s forcing you to financially support work that offends you either. But it’s a deeply troubling trend when a noisy minority of complaints has the power to scare publishing houses and major book retailers into dropping authors so nobody else can read them either. That is when cancel culture crosses the line with me.
Maybe even ten years ago, I might have been a little more sympathetic to outrage about poor representation. But with self-publishing accessible to pretty much anyone with internet access and a Word-style program, what is the excuse at this point? Instead of tearing authors down, build up authors whose work you admire. Write and publish your own books too. If people are really offended by the portrayals out there- as I’m sure they are- do something about it that doesn’t involve serial online pillorying. If you want to talk about problems with mainstream publishing and the lack of visibility with self-publishing, fine. There are definitely problems on both sides of the industry. But for heaven’s sake, don’t take out your grievances on authors who are just trying to eke out a living.
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 am hesitant to say that people posting or others haven’t faced significant discrimination or problems because I simply don’t know their personal lives or what goes on in them.
I am very limited in the amount of real, important, personal information I share over the web and I think that others likely are too. Some people have openly shared things they have faced in their lives here with us, and I am appreciative of their generosity in doing so.
I’ve known people who have suffered from the most horrible kinds of racism or discrimination in their lives that they don’t share easily and maybe wouldn’t be guessed by others so I just assume that people all have their own burdens and I can’t assume more than they have said either way.
I think the issue being discussed is the right of people to express their views or work and let the public decide with their pocketbooks or in other ways what should and shouldn’t succeed.
I personally feel that people have the right to decide themselves what is accepted or rejected without the government or other groups making those decisions.
If someone feels a book is harmful or distasteful then they should be able to share that opinion and influence others. I don’t however, think that because a work, particularly of fiction, has elements that some people may object to that it can should summarily be eliminated from the market before people can make their own decisions about it.
Sadly, that is often something that is happening.
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.
The problem I see isn’t that people shouldn’t express their views but how do we decide who has the rights over other people’s work?
Who is the ultimate authority over what certain groups will accept? If one group of women embrace a work or an idea and another thinks it’s harmful does one get to decide for everyone? I say no.
I have seen so many conflicting ideas from my friends, online in the news, etc from so many different groups and types of people I couldn’t begin to select one official stance on anything for each group.
I’m not on twitter either and I have very grave reservations about how they do their business. If people want to tweet all day long though I say have at it. But if the tweets are demands that institutions are blindly following and using to effectively control or censor others, then I have a big problem.
Every single thing has become so splintered now. Twitter and Parler are facing off, every news station has a “viewpoint” so that you basically have to pick a slant before you even get the news by selecting what news report you will watch.
I want more communication, not less. More facts and somehow more fairness and transparency.
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.
You are such a hero to me, Marian! Stay true–you rock!!
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.
I see friends of mine struggle with being PoC and having ideas that don’t fall in line with everything they are supposed to accept and reject and it’s hard. Very few people agree on everything regardless of a common ethnicity.
Everyone is walking such a tightrope these days trying to be true to themselves but also trying to maintain the right image that won’t get them ostracized or called out.
It seems to me that you really examine what you do and your impact, and at the end of the day all you can do is rely on the fact that you are a good person and are trying to do well. As you well said “write from your own heart”.
Just the fact that you care, consider other people and try to do your best shows me it must come across in your work as well.
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.
If history shows us anything, it’s that stories are always more complicated than we’d like them to be. Like you I think the best way to understand ourselves, our past, our present, and influence the future is to get as much knowledge as we can.
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.
I am all about discourse and I agree wholeheartedly that it’s a shame it’s mostly died in America.
I don’t think anyone should have to swallow their concerns, even people I don’t agree with. My complaint is the exact opposite.
I don’t think any group has the right to tell publishers or stores they cannot print or carry an opposing viewpoint.
I especially don’t think twitter should get to decide as I saw a recent report that says the same 10% of people generate 90% of the tweets.
The problem is there are groups of people who want to pre-decide for everyone else. If a book is bad then let the public decide by not buying it. If it doesn’t succeed you can guarantee publishers and stores won’t waste their time and money on it.
If there are people interested then they shouldn’t have to fight publishers or Target to get to read it. I know they aren’t Government institutions-but when you control access to a limited resource it becomes like government intervention.
Society really seems to struggle with live and let live, an ethos that was widely accepted just a generation ago.
Discodollydeb’s post today about Nancy Friday kind of hammered home for me my problem with criticism/cancelling of some romance novels because of problematic heroes etc.
Ultimately these are fantasies, which I think is as essential as good REM cycles and dreaming for people’s psyches.
If a person enjoys a novel with a un PC hero or even a “bad guy” hero who repents etc. they shouldn’t be shamed out of buying and enjoying it which is what I am afraid is happening.
A lot of what people enjoy in fantasy has no bearing on what they really are expecting in real life. I think unless it’s really, really harmful stuff, people should be allowed to like what they like.
I cannot remember the last time I actually heard “live and let live” from someone who meant it.
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.
Chrisreader, what you are describing is essentially censorship and I don’t think the majority of people are in favor of that.
But I suppose it is not surprising given that some classic literary works have been banned intermittently by school boards/libraries by vocal parents in cities across the United States.
Unfortunately, selective censorship also has been practiced by some school boards for years — excluding textbooks that teach evolution, for example.
So maybe there has always been a vocal minority that seeks to censor books over content and some of it has just moved there censorship campaigns to social media???
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.
co-signs
There has always been a healthy slice of the population who wishes to toss out offensive (to them) books. Conservatives have been trying to purge libraries for as long as there’ve been libraries.
What is different today seems to me to be two interwoven things. First, social media connects us all in a way that simply didn’t exist before its existence. If a library in East Littleburg decides to not buy any kids books with queer families, we will all know about it now AND we’ll know how strongly others feel about that call. Second, the reach of social media and its permanence has made institutions take the perspectives of those critics more seriously than they did even five years ago. Twitter really does last forever–even if you delete your account, screenshots of your words will always still be out there.
These two things have created what I think most refer to as the cancel culture which is certainly real. Now, whether or not one feels the cancel culture is a force for social improvement or for social destruction is something there is currently no consensus on. But it is something that is different than the censorship that existed pre-internet.
I respectfully disagree. Wrong is not an immutable construct–what one person may consider wrong, another considers right. Furthermore, if the goal is to change behavior, shaming is a poor tool and often does exactly the opposite of what the shamer intended.
But that’s just my opinion and I don’t expect you to share it!
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.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’m someone who tends to believe the best in people and this thread has reinforced that optimism for me.
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.
I’ve never given an F. A few D minuses yes, but not an F so far. As for DNFs, I do that very rarely; because I read so many ARCs I power through until the very end so I can vent my spleen in a review! But I have written the occasional DNF “review” – in which I clearly state my reasons for not continuing with the book. I think that’s fair enough.
If a reviewer explains and is thorough in their review while being fair I never have a problem with it. It doesn’t matter if it’s the complete opposite of my opinion.
I’ve had issues with people reading a chapter or two then presuming to rate and review a book. Or “cancelling” an entire work over something either very small or proportionately small.
I honestly can’t think of a review here, of yours or anyone else’s, that I thought was unfair or where the work wasn’t put into it.
Sure, there are ones where I disagreed with the grade (everyone’s idea of what is fun, boring or sexy varies) but I’ve never read one at AAR that I felt was unfair or sloppy.
“I’ve had issues with people reading a chapter or two then presuming to rate and review a book. Or ‘cancelling’ an entire work over something either very small or proportionately small.”
This is what I’d call an unabashed witch hunt. I swear there are people who just sit around all day waiting, itching to find something “offensive” so they can jump all over it on their Twitter feeds. It’s a weird kind of narcissistic sadism that can have serious consequences for the victims of their wailing rants. Whoever coined the term “cry-bullies” was spot on. Because that’s what they are. They’re airing their grievances for attention while simultaneously committing cyberbullying. And then they hide behind some alleged cause (i.e. “virtue signal”), acting like said cause justifies their online temper tantrums that can cost people their jobs and reputations. That’s just sick.
And publishers in particular need to stand up to these people rather than discarding their controversial authors. You signed them on, you greenlighted their work, you probably put it through an entire editorial department and marketing team, so stand behind those authors instead of acquiescing to the mob.
Authors need to stand their ground too. Quit apologizing and wringing your wrists over every little petty complaint of “cultural appropriation” or “insensitivity” or whatever. If you have to apologize, say, “Well, I’m sorry you didn’t like it. Maybe you can write a better book.” Period! Sorry, but these perpetual online complainers need to be told “no” just like a bratty kid. And they’re definitely not hearing it enough.
Another sad thing is, all these phony “reviews” have the potential to make real reviewers look bad. Like you said, Chrisreader, I think all the reviews here are articulate and thoughtful rather than rants of righteous indignation.
Well said, Nan. The awful practice of cry bullying, or whatever you call it, permeates so much of contemporary life. It’s beyond appalling and it will, of course, eventually come round and bite the perpetrators and their ilk in the backside. But sadly not soon enough for many of us. Social discourse via face to face inter-personal relations seems to be a fading practice at times. So sad.
As far as I know, the review that started this discussion is for a book no one here commenting on it has actually read, so the comments are about merit of the review, even though those commenting haven’t read the book to know its merits. Also, the review sites motives have been called into question. I also call that “cancel culture.”
I’m aware there is some “white savior” issues going on with the cancel culture, but I strongly believe we need to listen to the voices within the marginalized groups. Yes, there will be different views even within a community, but knowing a couple of Asians who don’t care about a particular cultural appropriation does not mean most do care. After all, there are blacks and gays that don’t think Trump is homophobic or racist, but millions more who do.
So if an author portrays a disabled person in a way that makes actual disabled people uncomfortable, then I hope they listen. They are free not to change their minds or their writing, but to dismiss the complaints as “petty” and the people affected as childish is hurtful.
“does not mean most don’t car.”
I disagree completely about your definition of cancel culture. Not agreeing with a review or the methods used to review is criticism. Trying to keep people from supporting a website or trying to get a reviewer “fired” is cancel culture. That’s a huge difference. Disagreement does not equal cancelling.
It is clear many of us visit a number of romance related websites and have things to say about a large number of reviews from Goodreads across the board. I have never heard anyone here ever say they wanted to get a site boycotted or a person removed from reviewing. Healthy discussion is a good thing.
I don’t even see this as a discussion. It’s more like a mutual admiration society. I’ve tried to bring up the point that even if we are seeing over-corrections, that’s to be expected and will even-out as more eyes are opened to how authors sometimes promote stereotypes of marginalized communities. All the discussion I’ve seen has been about how petty and awful people are for “over reacting” to this marginalization. How it’s all “cancel culture!”
When I had a child go to therapy I learned one very important lesson. Stop defending yourself long enough to let the other person feel all they need to feel and to heal. If I was “unfairly” blamed for some of their problems, I could take the heat and let it pass. It hurt and it drove me outside my comfort zone, but fair or not, it was what was needed for that person to heal. And that was my goal in the end, too.
I look at this whole situation in a similar vein. There are whole groups of people hurting out there, who have been othered and marginalized. So if a few people may get caught in the cross-fire on the way to correcting this problem. Yes, it sucks, but I doubt any of these authors, just like myself above, are without blame in pushing stereotypes, if only because that’s what is most familiar! Our goal needs to be healing.
I was a middle-aged, white female working retail in the age of Trump. If I corrected some black customers about our procedures, I risked getting called a racist because my demographic voted for Trump heavily. It happened, and it hurt, but you know what? I may not have been racist in doing my job, but these women have been hounded in retail stores for simply shopping while black, so I kept my mouth shut and took it. Some day I pray it won’t be an issue anymore.
So I think in the name of pushing for inclusion and honest representation in books a few authors can handle getting called out, even if they didn’t mean it the way it looks. It helps to have a fresh perspective on your own hidden biases.
I have no problem with people being called out for biases. My opinion is it should be fair and applied evenly across the board-that is all.
I’m sorry if you feel your opinion is in the minority in this discussion. I can assure you it’s not across the board here. There are many times mine is the lone voice or one of two on an issue. I am sorry if you feel like your opinion wasn’t heard. I can say I heard it and there are many people who share your opinion.
We clearly disagree on the issue of how much is enough when there is a problematic element in a book or even in life.
I guess I don’t think it’s fair to punish some people for other people’s wrongdoings. I don’t think it was fair when it happened to you and I certainly don’t think it was fair for people who were victimized for decades or more.
As I commented above, the pendulum seems to swing hard one way then another before it corrects itself. That doesn’t mean it’s fun for either side that’s getting the hard swings.
I am a woman and some people think it’s disloyal that I don’t think that women should get special privileges legally to make up for other women’s mistreatment in past legal proceedings. Many people on this board disagreed with me-vehemently. You can go find that discussion and see how completely opposite to a “mutual admiration society” it was.
I would say the handful of people who have followed and commented on this discussion are probably the sum total of people who feel this way about cancel culture and similar issues on this board. It likely drew them precisely because such comments are by far the minority these days. On a lot of boards even questioning anything will get you cut off.
If you want to see other people who agree with your way of viewing it you can surely find their comments on countless other discussions here. Certainly on pretty much all the other sites.
I have always been a discusser and a debater, it’s how I grew up. I like hearing other points of view and don’t take it personally if someone disagrees with mine. I have a lot of friends of all different political beliefs and opinions and I learn a lot from our discussions. As long as it’s not personal retaliation I’m fine.
Chrisreader, thank you for this excellent and thoughtful post.
I feel as though this is an open and fair discussion, and one in which everyone gets to make their points.
This is the goal for me as the Publisher.
I agree it’s open and free. I just don’t agree that we’re seeing much difference in the points being made. But perhaps I’m the only one that feels this way, so I’ll bow out.
Thanks for your contributions Carrie. I’m quite certain you are not the only one who feels the way you do based on previous discussions that have come up. It’s not easy to search for them because they seem to branch off from other books or topics.
I hope to see you on the boards for other discussions.
Well, I don’t believe that, in general, anyone changes her mind based on conversations online. It’s more that people say what they feel and then they feel better about having done so. Which is just fine.
More publishers should be like you, Dabney. Keep fighting the good fight. :)
Well, it’s my plan to retire in 2021 so….
Retire!? Does that mean no more AAR? :'(
I hope not!
What!!!???
I’ll be 60 next year…..
I understand that you are very deserving of time for yourself, I’m just being selfish. I admit it.
Thank you. It’s my belief that there’s someone who can do this better than me!
Well we’ve finally found something we disagree on!
Thank you!
We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve read dozens of discussion here and don’t see what you see, so we’ll leave it there.Thank you for the discussion.
Thank you Carrie for making me think and discuss. You have added a lot of value to me, and I will think about what you have said. I know that it is work to write and reply and try to find common ground – thanks for that!
I have been reading this thread for days and thinking about it. What struck me is:
I am personally unable (except a short verbal outburst once every few months) to be angry, and let it out. Loud aggressivity, hate words and threats, vitriol etc. scares me a lot. Always. From anyone, including when I lose control like that.
So, I have a deep barrier to cross before I can even process what the anger is about.
I move away, physically and mentally, and have a truly hard time even beginning to hear the reasons. Or engage with the angry person in any way at all. Strong flight response.
I understand now that by treating the anger/vitriol/hateful action itself as objectionable, scary and avoiding it, I am not engaging with the actual topic some persons are shouting out about.
I am pouring the baby out with the bath water.
While I should at least try to listen, there where I am actually safe, because some persons cannot but escalate as they go ignored, and I actually want to hear and understand more.
thanks, Carrie – no matter if this is what you meant, your willingness to continue the debate showed me an important handicap of mine. And how this makes me part of the problem, where I cannot listen, but might need to learn to, somehow.
You guys are all the best. The tenor of this conversation makes me so proud of AAR’s readers.
I will say it again, I really think we have an incredible, well read and articulate group of posters here at AAR. I always find a comment or perspective that makes me think and I never know where a thread can lead.
I enjoy coming here so much. I really think this site is unique and a gem.
“beams”
Wow Liselotte, your post just really impressed me and made me stop and think. I am really struck with how differently we all approach things and process them.
It’s a great reminder to me not to assume everyone else is thinking of things the same way I do and I love that you felt comfortable enough to share your feelings here.
I hope that nothing I post ever makes someone feel like they can’t respond. I will debate until the cows come home, but I never want it to feel like there is any malice behind it. I come from a family where we pretty much talk about (and frequently debate) everything.
I’m used to knowing that I can say what I want and disagree and debate and it’s all good.
You speak as if it’s a flaw that you don’t harbor or verbalize your anger a lot, but I think it’s probably just that you are a naturally kind person.
If it’s because you are in any way afraid of reprisal I hope you know that they simply don’t tolerate that at AAR and your opinion, even if it’s a controversial one will be welcome.
Thank you so much for your contributions to our discussion. I appreciate them even more knowing they may have taken you out of your comfort zone.
This is a safe space, I hope, for all who comment here.
Dabney, you uphold the truest definition of a “safe space.” Most people who use the term want a “censorship space” and/or “echo chamber space.” I salute you!
It helps to be old and to have both been a serious debater and have raised a son who was a nationally ranked debater. We are all about understanding both sides of the argument in my house!
Debate here is good, and allows me to “flex my muscles” more than otherwhere – thanks Dabney too!
Thank you. I was really fortunate to be in an online group of over a dozen brilliant women for over 20 years. In that group we learned to trust each other even when we vehemently disagreed. I learned how to articulate(I hope!) my feelings and opinions, and I learned how to better stop and think before voicing them. But most importantly I learned to question my own views and assumptions. It was exquisitely uncomfortable! Over the 20+ years (we’re still friends but don’t have an exclusive groups anymore) I quite literally changed my life and beliefs because of the ways I was pushed to see beyond my experiences.
When I learned to question what I thought I knew, I also stopped thinking the world owed me “fairness.” And I started listening to the anger and vitriol and trying to see through to the pain underneath. Yes,some people just want to lash out and hurt, but that generally doesn’t come from nowhere. It often comes because the person doesn’t have the ability to express all the reasons or the patience anymore to try. In trying to accept that I could be missing something important in my own understanding or behavior, I gained insight, at least some of the time.
Earlier I talked about being perceived as racist by two black customers at at work. That hurt, especially when they complained to corporate. I was hurt and defensive, but my boss helped me move beyond that. I wasn’t censured, but instead, we looked at the incidences and at how the customers saw them. We looked at video feed to help. What we saw was enlightening. In both cases I failed to greet the customers as they came in, once I was with another customer and once I was talking to a co-worker. In failing to greet them, I failed at my fist opportunity to establish a relationship and give them face-to-face time. Later,when I needed to correct their behavior (I worked in a candy shop and customers were not supposed to help themselves to the open bin candies) I did it directly and without any preamble. I didn’t go up and say “Let me help you with that.” It didn’t help that I had greeted the next customer that came into the store (white) and the black customers had noticed that.
All this to say is my behavior, however benign looking to me, was hurtful to my customers and, when their many many bad encounters in retails thrown in, made them angry. I saw I could do better and be more aware of how a customer’s previous experience could color how they saw my behavior. If I had responded to their anger by dismissing them, I would have never seen my own behavior or understood theirs.
Wow–Carrie, thank you SO much for sharing these concrete examples. That is beyond helpful in terms of understanding what it is you are talking about.
It’s funny–I had a similar thing recently where my daughter pointed out that, when a black friend does something and I brag about it, I always say she’s black. Which is not cool. I hadn’t really thought about why I was doing what I was doing until she called me on it. It was so helpful. Not only did I change my behavior, I realized a set of biases I had that I didn’t think I did.
Thanks, Dabney. And thanks to everyone who has overlooked all the grammar mistakes and awkward sentence structures in my posts. When I get on a roll, I don’t always get the words right.
YES!
Chrisreader – I feel safe at AAR so no issues on that. Thank you for asking, and thank you for your lovely answer
Carrie G. you ar right, this is exactly how to learn, and yes, this is what I am realizing more and more – how can I still remain engaged and present and see beyond the anger – your example is very good, it captures exactly how one can learn!
That’s lovely to hear.
I follow Jenny Crusie’s blog and this book was promoted there; I got it because the title made me laugh (also really like the cover design, with that breeches button winking at us). And I was entertained, but almost in spite of myself. There is a lot wrong with this ‘hero’ and the way he treats the heroine. The vile villain did not get the gruesome death I was hoping for. The side romance between spoiled rich girl and Bow Street Runner wasn’t essential to the plot, but it was a much-appreciated diversion even though her behavior to him was almost as bad as Kit’s behavior to Bryony.
Basically, I thought the book was well-written and would never say ‘you shouldn’t read this’ because different strokes for different folks and I know a lot of people actually like an alphole hero. It was entertaining, but for me the equivalent of an oversized dessert: I kind of regretted it later.
Anne Stuart is definitely an author that works for you or doesn’t. What I appreciate about her is that she doesn’t try to sugar coat her heroes. She flat out says they are bad and you can take them or leave them.
I much prefer this to heroes that we are supposed to think are great guys but do really questionable stuff. Stuart alerts you from the get go its not going to be about a nice guy.
The heroine In the review sounds like one of the ones from the Ruthless series- attractive to the hero but considers herself unattractive.
Yes–she’s definitely in the Charlotte camp. Kit is a badder hero than Adrian.
I was excited to read this – enjoy a ‘bad boy’ & loved Stuart’s Rohan series –
however: (spoiler-ish I guess alert here & returned book so cannot quote)
within the first chapter or two or so (right after they have abducted the gals) our ‘hero’ is contemplating raping our ‘heroine’ – not ‘seducing’ but rape, which, of course presumably he has raped in the past since it’s such an easy, casual thought in his head & it’s coupled with the expectation that our heroine’s soon-to-be-husband will murder her in the future. Ugh.
Rape is never okay in my book even if I suspect he never does – having the hero look at a woman & figure after her husband ‘has’ her he’ll take his turn too is just too disgusting for me.
I returned the book for a refund……
(I recommend Hoyt’s ‘Duke of Sin’ for a genuine bad boy book that’s a DIK for me)
I’d say that, as you read the book, it’s clear Kit has never raped anyone. His thoughts are somewhat of a fakeout.
I just plain love the title, TBH.
I’m in. No one writes OTT like Anne Stuart. Do love her bad boys. It might not be a DIK but I’ll chance it that it’s better than a lot of the other books that have come out lately (except for the Loretta Chase :-). Am laughing at freckles…….Thanks, Dabney.
It was mindless fun. Which is sometimes the best thing on the planet!
Is Byrony plain or ??? Not sure. Anyway, sometimes a book like this with utterly bad boys, girls TSTL and a silly plot is what you need while stirring the gravy or completely covid-bored on a foggy and dreary afternoon when there isn’t even some decent Daytime Trash TV. Might, might not get this one.
SHE HAS FRECKLES.
And that, apparently, is what makes her hideous. She is not a traditional beauty–red haired, curvy, and freckled.
FFS! Oh well, I think we have had frecklephobia before.