Many readers have been busy with celebrations for various holidays this week and many more do not spend much time on Twitter, so some may have missed the news that dropped on December 23, 2019. To get started, I would recommend checking out this thread of tweets from Alyssa Cole. Here Cole lets the public know that RWA (Romance Writers of America) has taken action to suspend author Courtney Milan as a result of an alleged ethics violation. Even with many people getting ready to take breaks for their holidays, this news had an instant ripple effect. Clearly RWA underestimated the ability of romance authors and readers to multitask.
So, what happened? Well, back in August Courtney Milan tweeted about a 1999 novel by Kathryn Lynn Davis which contained what she and many others would describe as fairly egregious stereotyping, and she called the book out as problematic and racist. So, why did it matter that a twenty year old book was called racist? Well, Davis had recently been hired as an editor by Glenfinnan Publishing, a company owned by one Suzan Tisdale, and presumably these folks did not appreciate having the word “racist” associated with someone at the business. Tisdale and Davis responded by each filing ethics complaints against Courtney Milan. Suzan Tisdale’s complaint is here and Davis’ is linked here. The complaints contain several screenshots and Ms. Tisdale submitted more, which can be found here.
Now this is where things start to go off the rails, so hold on. I know I’m throwing up a lot of links here, but it really is worth readers’ time to go check these out. I can summarize everything, but nothing can replace seeing the actual documents or seeing members of the romance community describing events in their own words.
Getting back to Twitter – author Leslie Kelly (a former RWA President) has a great explanation of how ethics complaints are supposed to be handled and it’s very instructive in terms of seeing what went awry in this case. Normally, when an ethics complaint comes in, the Executive Committee (President, Pres-Elect, Treasurer and Secretary) review the complaint and decide if it should go to the Ethics Committee.
Now, at the time these particular complaints were filed, Courtney Milan was the chair of the ethics committee of RWA. Did she get a chance to recuse so that the investigation could go forward? No. It has come out that she was reportedly told to resign her position (which she did). Someone at RWA apparently then decided to bypass the entire ethics committee and form a second ethics committee just for the purpose of considering the Milan complaints. Oh, and the composition of that second ethics committee was – and still is – secret. Because that doesn’t look suspicious at all.
Just as a side note, I’ll mention that in the non-Romancelandia side of my life I have served and continue to serve on a variety of nonprofit and professional boards. Most have an ethics committee, and for those that do, the identity of every committee member is not only known to the accused, it’s a matter of public record. No one has his or her case considered by an anonymous judge. Not only does the accused know who they are facing, but they know who voted which way. This is basic transparency, folks, and it’s essential to building trust in organizations.
The secret ethics committee found Ms. Milan in violation on only one(1) of the grounds of complaint brought forward by Tisdale and Davis, but they recommended that she be suspended from RWA for 1 year, be censured, and that she be banned for life from holding any national or chapter position of leadership. Supposedly this was a unanimous recommendation. However, it is still unknown how many people were on the secret alternate ethics committee nor who they are. While several members of the original ethics committee have come forward to state that they did not receive the Milan complaint, to my knowledge no one who considered these complaints has identified themselves.
Next stop? The RWA Board of Directors. Initially, the Board of Directors, upon motion of President-Elect Damon Suede, voted 10-5 to adopt the recommendation of the ethics committee.
As many are aware, the Board of Directors met and rescinded their vote the very next day (December 24, 2019, if you’re keeping track). So, what happened in the meantime? Well, social media exploded just for starters. When the decision broke, members of the real ethics committee apparently learned for the first time of the existence of the super-secret alternate ethics committee that considered the complaints against Ms. Milan.
Since Courtney Milan has been an outspoken voice in favor of diversity and inclusion in an organization which has had a problematic history with regard to race, seeing her censured essentially for speaking up about racism feels like a betrayal for many of us who had hoped that RWA was working to become more inclusive. In addition, the extreme secrecy concerning how processes work, who considered this ethics complaint, and who voted which way on the Board(per former Board members, vote is to be done by roll call if not unanimous but the identities of who voted for and against the ethics committee report have been kept secret so far) have made it very difficult for authors and other members of the romance community to have any faith in what RWA has been doing behind closed doors in this situation. Added into these concerns are accounts from various current and former RWA members stating that the board did not have oversight of staff and that staff, not the board, at least sometimes decided which complaints got to the ethics committee. And then there is this mention of problematic behaviors from RWA past president (and lawyer!) HelenKay Dimon:
Needless to say, these actions have not been received positively by RWA members or by the romance community as a whole. On Twitter, one can find numerous tweets from authors who have pulled their work from RITA consideration and from RITA judges who are resigning. Many calls have been made for transparency and for RWA to provide a full, complete explanation of what transpired and who was involved at each point along the way. These have been met with silence. In addition, no less than 28 RWA chapter presidents have submitted a letter calling for the resignations of the President, President-Elect and Executive Director of RWA.
And it’s not just the RITA judges resigning. On December 24, Board member Chanta Reed stepped down, citing RWA’s handing of the Milan complaint as the deciding factor in her decision. On December 26, board members Priscilla Oliveras, Seressia Glass, Adrienne Mishel, Farrah Rochon, Pintip Dunn, Erica Ridley, Tracey Livesay, and Denny S. Bryce all resigned from the Board of RWA, Each issued a statement on Twitter that they “no longer trust or have confidence in RWA’s leadership.” Later on, it was confirmed by RWA that the President, Carolyn Jewel, has also resigned.The statement linked in the previous sentence is one which was sent out on December 26 by RWA. I have included that link because it does confirm Jewel’s resignation. However, the statement itself is an anonymous Google doc that I would best describe as word soup. As a professional response to an institutional meltdown, I think it fair to say that it leaves quite a bit to be desired.
The President-Elect, Damon Suede, remains as President of RWA. As a reminder, Mr. Suede is also the board member who, according to the report of the board meeting, moved for the actions of the ethics committee to be adopted. Other than that, his role in this debacle is largely unknown. Likewise, the role of RWA staff in this meltdown has been speculated upon but has not been shared with membership or readers. Given the magnitude of what has occurred, many in the romance community consider this unacceptable and rightfully so.
It’s obvious at this point that RWA screwed up. Frankly, as more information becomes available, it appears obvious that they made more than just one mistake. Their internal procedures are clearly flawed and while Courtney Milan is an author with a high enough profile to draw attention to the problems, one can only imagine how many people who are not so well-known may have been treated equally poorly by the organization. Story after story after story of alleged irregularities and bias at RWA(some going back to the early days of the organization) have been pouring out ever since this particular story broke and I can only imagine that will continue.
So, where does RWA go from here? Over the short term, I honestly think that the organization has broken trust with too many people. This isn’t a situation where they can apologize and hope we will all forget about it. Perhaps if they:
(1) clean house and start over by electing a brand new board who would then hire a new executive director;
(2) audit what has been happening not just with the complaints against Courtney Milan but with the ethics committee in general and make those findings publicly available, including the names of everyone on the shadow ethics committee, and
(3) show by their actions that RWA is willing to listen and to really do the work of becoming more diverse, inclusive and anti-racist, then over the long term they may survive.
However, RWA has damaged its reputation with a significant portion of its membership and with the romance community at large, and one can understand those of us who will be slow to risk trusting it again. There are lots of questions to be answered here, and from what is already known, it is apparent that once those questions are answered, the organization will have to change if it is to survive.
– Lynn Spencer
Well explained Lynn, thanks for such an informative summary of the current situation.
Yes, thanks for doing the work of compiling and summarizing all this.
One other sidebar – apparently Suede is a Dreamspinner press author. DSP has not been paying its authors for as long as a year in some cases. These authors petitioned RWA to intervene and were shrugged off. Suede is reported to still be receiving pay.
Yes, I have been seeing that on Twitter as well. Given how RWA dealt with the implosions at Ellora’s Cave and Samhain, their lack of action on Dreamspinner has been.. .curious. I’d love to know what’s going on behind the scenes with that, too.
Interesting that at least some of the people resigning in protest would have had to have voted to accept the secret ethics committee recommendations for the numbers to add up.
What happened to Courtney Milan was wrong, but considering all the stories that higher ups (including Milan) are coming out with now, it’s clear that a whole lot of people who claim they were trying to change things for the better were letting things slide, and that’s what led to where we are now.
True – it is curious that a board that approved an ethics committee decision would have en masse resignations over their own decision. But to give them the benefit of the doubt – I think it’s likely they didn’t understand that the recommendation they were given came from such a squirrely rigged process. They probably thought they knew who was on the committee making the recommendation and therefore felt Milan had received a fair (and diverse) hearing.
I noticed those numbers as well. I couldn’t find it when researching the story, but at one point there was a tweet up saying that the Board was given a summary but did not have the full complaint file from the ethics committee. Personally, I think there needs to be some openness about who was involved at each step.
New info on this – Suede has released a statement that he essentially filtered the message en route from the second ethics committee to the Board. He is admitting to giving them an incomplete picture. On top of that he is not legally allowed to talk about that – executive sessions are confidential by law.
https://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/1210720394467934209?s=21
That statement is… nutty.
Any time you have a big organization, you’re going to get corruption at some point.
Being independent, I don’t have a dog in the RWA fight. I have precious little knowledge about their scope, what they do, etc. So I will not comment in this area.
But I will say this. The claim that Ms. Davis lost a three-book contract due to internet complaints is part of a much larger, highly disturbing trend. These are people’s livelihoods we’re talking about, and I have seen more than one author/celebrity/employee/whoever ruined because of what can only be described as online shunning and bullying. This is not okay.
While I certainly recognize the right of publishing companies to choose not to publish an author, I take umbrage when authors’ contracts are pulled because publishing houses are afraid of criticism. Grow a backbone and honor your contracts. There are far too many companies now, both in publishing and otherwise, who give in to vague complaints just to avoid being pilloried on Twitter. This is horrible, because the more companies give into this nonsense, the more the whiners and cry-bullies of the world will get away with it. Case in point: About a year or so ago, I read an article about some woman who received harsh criticism for “cultural appropriation” for running a taco/burrito stand because she wasn’t Hispanic. The bullying got so bad, the woman is now out of business. What she should have done, in my opinion, was to tell her nasty critics- most of whom have probably never accomplished anything significant in life- to shove it. (And that’s my polite version.)
Milan’s a mean bully. RWA’s run by idiots. Everyone deserves better than them two as the only options.
Rosemary rogers had Asian. Hard trs in her books (mostly maids) and one book I read was not “cleaned up” the rapes ar there too . Then there’s james clavells showgun, James mit h eras Hawaii and sayonara . I’ve also read Robert elegant s mandarin . He’s also written the books dynasty and from a far land . Then there’s pearl buck?
As Davies books about china are now racist, should these authors workday be ckesned up or omitted too? Just curious
Thanks for your comment, Nodhimmi. I have read James Clavell’s “Shogun” and “Tai-Pan,” James Michener’s “Hawaii,” and Pearl S. Buck’s “The Good Earth.” I think they are all amazing, wonderfully written stories. When all these arguments erupted, I was actually thinking about these books but never got around to mentioning them, so thanks for bringing them up. They are the kinds of epics that make me wonder why I pretend to be a writer. The narratives and characterizations are impeccable.
Thanks for replying. These books were all written by whites . If they are now deemed racist will the print copies all be recycled and the digital formats erased? Will new rules be set, and if so, will that help or hurt the creative process? I don’t know what will happen, but like that old saying goes, you can’t please everybody
Complete digression, Nan, but something you may be interested in : I checked out Glenfinnan Publishing, because I like to know about small presses and indie publishers in this business.
One warning sign, for me, is that they accept all genres. I don’t know of any successful publisher which does this, because it’s so difficult to have staff who can effectively acquire, edit and market all genres (imagine customers who want children’s books going to your website and seeing an ad for blazing-hot erotica). So big publishers have different imprints and small presses specialize. Everything else aside, Glenfinnan Publishing’s scope is just too broad for me to consider or recommend it.
Thanks for the info about Glenfinnan Publishing. The “all genres” is a warning sign to me too. It looks like they are narrowing their focus though. Their website says they are currently accepting submissions for historical romance, Medieval romance, and contemporary romance.
On a somewhat related note, I am currently reading a book about small presses entitled “The People’s Guide to Publishing” by Joe Biel. It is mostly about starting your own small press (no thank you to that, don’t want the headache) but there is some fascinating information about good publishing practices, cover design standards, how to successfully tackle niches, and so forth. You might enjoy reading it as well. Fair warning: Mr. Biel is no fan of Amazon KDP, but I find his perspective as a small publisher fascinating. He also warned about not being too broad. One case he described was how he had trouble selling a book co-authored by Jane Goodall because it didn’t fit the focus of his publishing company. So even a famous author couldn’t increase sales!
Thanks for the rec! I’ll check that book out. I’ve seen so many small presses, even ones with talent and hard work and business plans behind them, go down in the end. If there’s a book that might help people avoid this, that’s great.
And yeah, famous author doesn’t necessarily mean more sales, if that author doesn’t appeal to your target readership.
You are welcome!
As for this thread, you are smart to stay out of the fights I have a propensity to get myself into. You are a far, far better person than I, Ms. Perera.
When I first read the complaints, I took the allegations at face value and was appalled that Davis had lost that contract and that Tisdale had lost three authors, but then I heard from a friend of one of those three authors that they pulled out not for fear of Milan as Tisdale stated but because Glenfinnan hired possibly racist acquisition editors. After reading that, I realized that I have not seen evidence that prove those claims are true. I have only seen screen shots of the social media posts. I would like to see the email or letter to Davis pulling her contract and the same from the three authors who withdrew from Glenfinnan. Davis is at the least disingenuous when she says, “Really? A book written in 1996? This edges very close to libel.” Her book may have been written in 1996, but Amazon shows a publish date of 2014 on the version that Milan critiqued. I suspect that Davis republished it as an ebook in 2014, which gave her a chance to re-edit and update it before putting it back out there. Milan did not seek out a 23-year-old book to critique and probably did not even know it was that old since it has such a recent publish date, something Davis’s complaint neglects to mention. I need to see proof that what Tisdale and Davis allege as consequences are the truth. I don’t see that evidence included with their complaints.
The fact that Milan was asked to step down as chair of the ethics committee before the complaint was heard, and then that committee was bypassed anyway after she stepped down, then the punishment included banning her for life from any leadership roles makes me think that someone high up in RWA was against her from the beginning and rigged the proceedings. It’s all very suspicious when you look closely at the way it was handled.
Rosemary rogers had Asian. Hard trs in her books (mostly maids) and one book I read was not “cleaned up” the rapes ar there too . Then there’s james clavells showgun, James mit h eras Hawaii and sayonara . I’ve also read Robert elegant s mandarin . He’s also written the books dynasty and from a far land . Then there’s pearl buck?
As Davies books about china are now racist, should these authors workday be ckesned up or omitted too? Just curious
RE: The poor burrito stand ladies: They were bragging about stealing recipes from old Mexican ladies.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/portland-burrito-cart-closes-after-owners-are-accused-of-cultural-appropriation_n_5926ef7ee4b062f96a348181
Ah, thanks for the link. I knew I had read about it somewhere.
After reading the article, I still don’t know the exact circumstances of whether the burrito stand ladies were actually stealing or if the article framed it that way. (I realize they have direct quotes, but I have known more than one case of people’s words being altered by the media.) If it is true that they were “stealing,” then no, I am not praising that.
Regardless, I don’t think anybody was helped in response to the burrito stand closure. Two women are out of business, customers aren’t getting the burritos they used to buy, and the old Mexican ladies are being used as a pawn in an article. And if you don’t think the Mexican ladies who had their recipes “stolen” aren’t being used as pawns to let feel-good journalists and outrage specialists pat themselves on the backs, ask yourself this: Of what help is it to them to have a foreign burrito stand close in their alleged defense? Were these women ever tracked down by the journalists for an interview to get their thoughts on the subject? No, and they won’t be either. You’ll also note that none of these do-gooders who feel so proud of themselves for getting a small business shut down will likely lift a finger to improve the lives of others. This is a common pattern of outrage culture: tearing down and destroying rather than supporting and building. Because destroying something is easy. Creating something is darn near impossible. To politely rephrase a quote I like, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, complain.”
It’s hard to see a 10K author big tent organization coming out of this debacle.
I will agree online bullying is not okay. However, I saw the tweets from Milan and I don’t think that’s what she did this time. The book in question was published in 1999 and then re-released in 2014. I think the 2014 was revised but I’m not 100% sure on that.
Milan called out some racist stereotyping in the book. At this point, the author could have apologized and probably moved on but she doubled down instead. Most of us who’ve been around any length of time have stepped in it and said something we regretted or realized in hindsight was hurtful to others. And we hopefully learn and evolve.
I don’t know much about the 3 book contract. At this point, all we have is the author’s word in a complaint. No publisher has been identified nor has one come forward to discuss, to my knowledge.
Thanks for the whole picture. It’s clears up a lot of missing pieces.
As a reader, it’s hard to stay in the storyline of a book when you, being of the same race being portrayed, find it to be so untrue to be offensive. So are we supposed to just ignore it like we’ve been doing for the past several decades? Or in a time where racist comments and ideas are being thrown around by politicians, as well as people we would never have assumed felt that way, are we obligated to speak the truth? If no one says anything, everyone assumes it’s okay… because no one said anything.
I can understand writing about a culture you love, but it’s also a responsibility to be true to that culture. People assume that reading a book, eating the food, having friends of that race, you have “immersed” yourself in that culture. When you’ve been prejudged, not by actions or words, but by color and features every single day of your life…than you can sincerely say you have immersed yourself. I speak as a person of color, who was raised (according to her still being raised) by a white mother. There is racism I’ve faced she never knew about. Well, until recently when she’s had it done to her for being white. I felt so angry and bad because she had never had it spoken to her face. It broke my heart to have my momma feel that way, just like it broke hers when I told her I’ve faced that with people of my own color because of my color and features. I figured can’t change it, just accepted it. See what I mean about not saying anything?
Davis and Tisdale could’ve taken this as a lesson to be learned by all. They could have talked to Milan, made it into something positive and uplifting. A mutual discussion about the responsibility of writers, and how to go about it in a way that inclusive to all. Yeah, the book was written decades ago, but aren’t we responsible for shaping our future so as not to repeat the past? Shouldn’t Davis bend a little and ask for Milan’s insight on what to change and how? In this, Davis and Tisdale didn’t ask for forgiveness or permission, but instead made it into something so hateful and just corrosive.
As for RWA, how they handled it, how they are still handling it, does not inspire trust, nor forgiveness. If it doesn’t benefit all races, religions, and sexual orientations, then they should change their name to exclude America. They should at least be transparent who they are working toward and for who.
Very insightful comment and I wholeheartedly agree. As a reader and fan of Tisdale, I’m fairly appalled by the approach taken and honestly it says a lot about who she is and I for one will steer clear of them.
Thank you for explaining what happened, Lynn. I was trying to follow the story yesterday, but there were so many links to various people/posts involved in the situation, it wasn’t long before I found myself officially confused. I appreciate your clearly laying out the whole sorry mess for us today.
Thank you for this
It bothers me so much how people throw around the word “bully” nowadays. Too often I find that they’ve been criticized, and instead of facing the criticism with grace and maturity, they cry “Bully!” People are wrong sometimes. Just because you’re being criticized doesn’t mean you’re being bullied.
And good lord, some of the things authors are publicly posting in the aftermath of this mess are eye opening.
Yes, calling someone a bully is an ad hominem argument, and it’s a distraction from the actual issues. To me it just indicates that there is a lack of substance in their rebuttal and name calling is a last resort. So, what is the actual problem with identifying racist stereotypes in fiction? Is there a cogent argument on why literary texts should be left unexamined on issues of race?
I have very little insight into the workings of the RWA, or into what animates their internal politics, so I have to admit to a minimal interest in the ethics controversy described here.
However, I did begin by reading the provided links, and have to disagree that Courtney Milan’s original tweets were harmless, or just honest criticism. I think what she started is something we are seeing far too much of these days–i.e. cyber signalling of how “woke” and virtuous one is with respect to what seems to be an ever-expanding array of victimized and oppressed groups. And this “signalling” is done by singling out someone–here an author–who has somehow triggered the individual who is tweeting or otherwise expressing her outrage,
This usually follows a pattern: Milan expresses her outrage very publicly (with trendy expletives) on social media, stoking a cycle of more outrage by others joining in. The original offender is then labelled “racist”, “misogynist” or whatever term they think is relevant to that issue. And if this pattern holds, this original criticism almost always is expanded to whatever institution or group or business the person belongs to. If nothing else, the person who expresses her outrage knows how to make life miserable for the “unwoke” target. Despite the target’s arguments that nothing racist or oppressive was actually intended or even written, the only way to have it stop is to express remorse and ask for forgiveness, and to promise a form of re-education for the writer or business. I can’t help but picture the Maoist Red Guards and the accused writer forced to wear a dunce hat in front of the jeering crowds.
I have been reading romance for over 50 years, and have to admit I am becoming fearful for the future of writers and their freedom of ideas and speech. I have seen this pattern directed to many others–like Mary Jo Putney and Mary Balogh in romance, and even Mark Twain! Often their work of decades before is combed over to see what can be found offensive in view of today’s culture. If the criticism was just privately expressed, that might be one thing. But the minute it takes flight on social media, the process becomes seriously uncontrollable. It’s metaphorically a form of book-burning, and it damages the writer far beyond what is supposedly just a minor criticism
In my opinion, this entire affair represents a bigger problem than just whatever the hell was going on in the inner circles of RWA. The danger is that writers will have to self-censor themselves. If they are lucky enough not to become an overt target of virtue signallers like Milan, they will still also be fearful of blacklisting, firing by their publishing house,, on-line rage, or even boycotts.
This is all wrong, and it should never have reached the ludicrous stage of attacks, accusations, resignations etc. described above. It’s embarrassing and not very adult.
Em, I could not have said it better myself! You are spot on in your assessment of the current climate. In particular, your comment about how writers must apologize in order to make the verbal abuse stop reminds me of why I hate the term/accusation “defensive,” as in “You are so defensive.” To which I always reply, “That’s shorthand for saying, ‘How dare you have a counterargument to my criticism instead of cowering and letting me verbally kick you?’ If you take a verbal swing at someone, expect to be verbally punched back.”
And in regard to Ms. Milan’s criticisms of Ms. Davis’s work, the quotes she selected really don’t seem all that bad. A bit stereotypical? Perhaps. Hateful? Hardly! Moreover, I think it says something when someone goes out of her way to criticize something written twenty years ago. Isn’t there something more pressing or productive Ms. Milan could be doing instead? Given how a lot of AAR readers have complained about Ms. Milan’s slipping story quality, maybe she could take some time to improve her tanking storytelling skills. Just a thought…
I think it’s possible that Milan’s comments are technically in violation of RWA guidelines, AND that this mess stinks of racist policing at the same time.
For instance:
– many authors of color report race and ethnicity based discrimination and harassment within RWA, but their complaints to the ethics committee mysteriously don’t get heard. Two white ladies report issues with an author of color? Heaven and earth is moved to get a prompt, SECRET hearing which results in major consequences
– even if we accept that Milan violated terms, the punishment for her is disproportionate, as stated by Leslie Kelly (more in line with embezzlement)
– the terms themselves may be stacked in favor of white, status quo norms. For instance, calling a person a racist is considered bannable, but the original conduct by Suzan of liking white nationalist/POC unfriendly posts in her publisher account is not.
Personally, if I had been on the ethics committee, I’d probably have said we need to stop and revisit the rules themselves, which date from a less technological time and were absolutely written by white people.
I just saw the actual text of the RWA bylaw: “
Repeatedly or intentionally engaging in any other acts of a violent, harassing (as defined in Section 16.10.2.1.) or intimidating conduct that objectively threaten a member’s career, reputation, safety or wellbeing. Specifically excluded from this section are exchanges of business information, true statements, personal disagreements, honest discussions of books, non-RWA operated social media posts, and marketing materials”
Based on the exclusions it sounds like Milan is not in violation – at least if this is the specific item she was charged with.
It is a mystery to me why Milan was dinged for this offense.
Thanks for posting this update. I have been puzzled how posts about a book could be an ethical violation, even negative posts about a book.
I have been a reader for more than 50 years as well, and this sort of thing smacks of revisionist history. Our values are growing, changing, becoming something new all the time. In my own lifetime things like interracial marriage, women’s rights, abortion, gay marriage, and gays in the military have become legal. Those kinds of developments took decades to achieve. To condemn a book (or author) written at a time when most societal values are different from today’s is shortsighted. It’s important that written records of those sorts of attitudes remain intact so we can see not only how far we have progressed, but how much work is left to do. To chastise a person for once espousing views that were then part of the greater culture achieves nothing but chaos, as we are seeing. What needs to happen is dialogue, not fingerpointing.
While the book was originally published in the 1990s, it is relevant that milan’s comments are on a reissue (I think 2014 but maybe even more recent). In other words, modern white standards can fairly be applied to this release (and I say white because readers of Chinese descent knew this wasn’t ok even back in the 90s)
Yes, and I find this a curious argument some are trying to make about when texts can be examined, as if there’s an arbitrary expiration date on literary analysis. In any case, Milan to my knowledge reviewed the re-issue of a book featuring Asian American characters, and as an Asian American author, why wouldn’t she be interested in examining it?
I teach Mark Twain – since someone mentioned him here in this forum – and of course we examine racism in his works, as do nearly all literary scholars. We do so though in the context of the historical moment in which he wrote.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask that authors self-censor. Of course they should!!! We all should!!!
Especially when they’re writing about another culture or race. And they should listen to criticism with grace and willingness to learn.
I love that twitter and other SM has brought so much of this to light. Racism is real. And it is obviously at play here. Obviously.
And it is also clear that several of those commenting here haven’t read details before forming an opinion.
Perfectly stated! Imagine having to censor one’s own racist stereotypes. Or, yes, listen to someone and reflect if one is called a racist. I too love that Twitter exists. Like it or not, it’s a powerful venue today, and it disrupts people’s ability to say whatever they want without recrimination or repercussions. I prefer to call it “democracy.” I love too that romance authors have taken to Twitter to make their views known.
“it’s a powerful venue today, and it disrupts people’s ability to say whatever they want without recrimination or repercussions”
The problem with this is that even fairly innocuous (or even not so innocuous) comments that people made in private to family and friends can get dragged out in public via Twitter, and the ensuing firestorm can cost these people their jobs and livelihoods- especially if they don’t toe the party line of the SJWs. I don’t want to get into specific examples here, but I am sure we can all think of a few. But I know plenty of people who are genuinely afraid to express a difference of opinion, even a subtle one, for fear of being pilloried and fired. And how would those people on Twitter, many of whom seem to take delight in the prospect of silencing others through their censure, like it if somebody did the same to them?
If someone slanders you, you can sue them. Otherwise, what you are describing above is democracy, for better or worse.
And when it comes to authors publishing products for public consumption for a profit, any product is subject to consumer critique, for better or worse.
“If someone slanders you, you can sue them.” That’s assuming, of course, that a person has the financial means/recourse to be able to do so.
“Otherwise, what you are describing above is democracy, for better or worse.” People losing their jobs over controversial comments is not a question of democracy. It is often a case of companies, who have the power to hire and fire, caving into social pressure in order to present a certain image of themselves.
Now, you and I probably disagree on what that image should be. Whereas you might applaud a company for firing an employee for expressing a troubling, controversial opinion outside of the office, I would applaud a company that said in response to controversy, “You know what? So-and-so is one of our best writers/welders/truckers/etc. You don’t like his opinion? Too darn bad. We’re not firing him because you don’t like what he said. Up yours.”
In regard to democracy, I think you would agree that just because a majority (or even a vocal minority) believes something, that doesn’t mean the belief is correct or moral. Especially if that belief crosses over into initiating aggression against the life, liberty, or justly acquired property of others. (I am not trying to conflate the current RWA issue with democracy, but since you mentioned the word, I wanted to make a comment on it.)
As we’ve said to each other on many posts before, you and I have different beliefs on many things. At least we’re both allowed to share our differences of opinion on AAR!
People lose their jobs for conduct all the time depending on individual company policies. Too many generalizations in your post to continue that discussion.
Twitter is a thorn in the side of the status quo because it’s a public space in civil society where people, anyone at anytime, can talk back. And it’s a powerful thing, for better or worse. Maybe the only thing in which I agree with Trump is that Twitter is a space to go to skirt around institutional power. For the foreseeable future, it’s not going anywhere, and in this particular case, it’s been pretty effective in pulling back the curtain and illuminating to the public the racism that has long bolstered the RWA and even the romance genre.
“Twitter” and “civil society” don’t belong in the same sentence.
Milan based her claim of racism in the very small piece of the very small sample she read on her ignorant and uninformed beliefs about genetics — something she was called out for by other Chinese people, actually, and refused to acknowledge.
All Milan and her cohorts have accomplished is increasing division, not fostering unity and diversity.
.
To me, Twitter does more harm than good. This is not to say it’s inherently evil—it is, like pretty much all the tools the internet gives us, something that does both great things—quickly spread news, gives a voice to those whom the mainstream media often ignores—and terrible things—boosts image over complex realities, exacerbates our differences, creates a culture, even lives, of fear for those in its crosshairs.
This Guardian article expresses far better than I could why, in almost 2020, one of the main reasons Twitter is more harmful than helpful.
And at a time when compromise is needed more than ever – not least to help ease a political impasse that endangers the social fabric of Britain – social media gives every appearance of having been devised solely to guarantee tribalism and intransigence. It is time for us first to acknowledge and then to resist its calculated manipulation of our psychological weaknesses, and assert afresh one of our greatest freedoms: the freedom to change our minds….
There is something deeper here, too. Those previous opinions may well have proven popular – perhaps especially if they were expressed in strident terms. Likes and retweets and followers rack up; it’s addictive. Certain individuals thus build themselves up into brands: they become loved or loathed (each is of equal value on Twitter) based on the very predictability of what they are going to say.This can be lucrative. In the current example, if your brand has been built on your visceral dislike of Corbyn, then any sign of equivocation risks not only a charge of hypocrisy, but essentially a threat to your personal business model. For the rest of us, it jeopardises self-esteem. And this is before we get on to the slew of icons and flags that so often accompany Twitter handles: what begins as an attempt to describe us can end up defining us.
I agree largely with the Guardian’s article. There are many things about social media that are troubling. Facebook is an echo chamber, and public sparing over ideas on sites like Twitter create further tensions. AAR recently instituted “like” and “dislike” emojis, which is probably furthering ill will among some readers while at the same time creating tribalism among others, just as it does on all other sites. But, all of these sites are public spaces where discourse exists. The “controversy” debated there already pre-exists in our world. That is the bigger macro problem the Guardian left out, or at least in the passage cited here. Redress the social ills first and foremost.
LMAO @ your belief that Twitter is some egalitarian playingfield that . It’s not just the status quo but the marginalized who are hurt by Twitter fol de rol.
* hurts everyone when they become cliqueish, should have said.
Marginalized people are hurt by institutional power and system racism, sexism, classism, etc. I understand that Twitter is playing a role in social unrest today and likely furthering divisions, but social unrest. and divisions have long existed. Let’s not pretend that racism is suddenly a new thing in America.
Among all the things social media is doing, including here on this very site, is providing a place where all people can talk back, Blaming one platform for the problem is pretty simplistic. Put the blame where it belongs — racism, sexism, classism, etc. Fix those social ills rather than blame Twitter, or “social justice warriors,” or “cancel culture,” or economic boycotts from the left, or people marching in the streets in protest. There will always be attempts to deride protesting. To me these angry posts here on AAR against anti-racist protests or mean Courtney Milan are examples of the status quo feeling unease.