Larry M
Banned
Should White Men Stop Writing?
- Thread starter Amadan
- Start date
- Status
Forgive me if I don't understand this correctly, but does it even matter? I thought they were just looking for books that can ...y'know... SELL. The only time "who the author is" should matter is when they are so very popular that people will buy anything they write no matter how good or bad it is, right?
... I feel more than a bit oblivious to this subject.
... I feel more than a bit oblivious to this subject.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 11,766
- Reaction score
- 12,242
- Location
- Atherton Tablelands
- Website
- snailseyeview.medium.com
Here's a hashtag for bleating white men: #NotAllWhiteMaleWriters
As for the 'my life as a white man was terrible, but I pulled myself up by my bootstraps (which I had to fashion from mouse tails, don't you know) without help, so that totally invalidates any problems anyone else has faced and continues to face because my lived experience outweighs everyone else's' category...luxury.
As for the 'my life as a white man was terrible, but I pulled myself up by my bootstraps (which I had to fashion from mouse tails, don't you know) without help, so that totally invalidates any problems anyone else has faced and continues to face because my lived experience outweighs everyone else's' category...luxury.
This is among the stupidest articles on writing I've ever encountered.
Sorry for being too subtle about it.
caw
Sorry for being too subtle about it.
caw
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,984
- Reaction score
- 6,937
- Location
- At some altitude
- Website
- www.jamie-mason.com
I know. I can't tell if this guy is insincere, or just doesn't realize that he's insincere.
Yeah, I think this particular white guy should indeed stop writing -- not because he's a white guy, but because he's annoying.
ETA:
My, I'm grumpy today.
ETA:
My, I'm grumpy today.
Last edited:
Privilege is about systemic bias. It recognizes that, all other things being equal, members of one group will have an advantage over members of another. It's not particularly useful in comparing individual situations, because all other things are generally not equal at that level, and because there are various types of privilege that intersect. There's male privilege and white privilege, straight privilege and class privilege, able-bodied privilege and cis privilege, for example. One may be the beneficiary of one or more types of privilege. So there's little use in getting into a personal pissing match over who's had it harder in their life. The concept is about recognizing that these biases exist and correcting for them where possible. It does bear stating that even if a straight white man has overcome challenges in life, a black man or a woman or a gay man facing those same challenges would have had an additional hurdle to overcome as a result of those systemic biases. That's what privilege means.
So, to the question in the thread title: No, white men shouldn't stop writing. But more POC, women, and people on the QUILTBAG spectrum should be getting published and recognized. Is it possible that this will make it harder for white men to get published and recognized? Maybe. But then maybe that's just a correction the system needs to make. To put it succinctly: The white male perspective is still relevant. But it's not the only perspective. And it shouldn't be the default.
So, to the question in the thread title: No, white men shouldn't stop writing. But more POC, women, and people on the QUILTBAG spectrum should be getting published and recognized. Is it possible that this will make it harder for white men to get published and recognized? Maybe. But then maybe that's just a correction the system needs to make. To put it succinctly: The white male perspective is still relevant. But it's not the only perspective. And it shouldn't be the default.
White privilege? Sure seems so! You go to a bookstore and shelves are full of novels by white males. What is up with that?! White privilege, plain and simple, unless you wanna say white men have some sorta superior ability to write novels, yada yada yada. And I suggest you don't go there, unless you want me to ROLF !!!
I think I can agree with 90% of what Gabbert said, but I do have a problem with the following statement: "We should tell men to submit less. Pitch less. Especially white men." It's not even clear what that means for any individual author; should you leave every third story on your hard drive without submitting it anywhere?
Maybe what she meant was something more like "We should tell men, especially white men, to make an extra effort to ensure their submissions are at a professional level and suitable for the market they are submitting to." Then I'd have no objection. Everyone should try to make their submissions professional, of course. But if white men are the ones most likely to fail at that, then it's reasonable for them to be especially on guard. If you're already a conscientious author, it won't be a huge burden to take a step back and ask yourself one more time "Is this really ready to go?" As soon as the answer is yes, fine--go ahead and submit.
Amadan has characterized the "submit less" comment as directed at Mr. Anonymous personally, but I don't think that's correct. It sounds to me like a very general comment--in fact, the problem is that it's too general. I just wish she had made it a little more specific.
Maybe what she meant was something more like "We should tell men, especially white men, to make an extra effort to ensure their submissions are at a professional level and suitable for the market they are submitting to." Then I'd have no objection. Everyone should try to make their submissions professional, of course. But if white men are the ones most likely to fail at that, then it's reasonable for them to be especially on guard. If you're already a conscientious author, it won't be a huge burden to take a step back and ask yourself one more time "Is this really ready to go?" As soon as the answer is yes, fine--go ahead and submit.
Amadan has characterized the "submit less" comment as directed at Mr. Anonymous personally, but I don't think that's correct. It sounds to me like a very general comment--in fact, the problem is that it's too general. I just wish she had made it a little more specific.
Last edited:
Well, the trouble is that a lot of times, "what will sell" = "what will appeal to the majority." People sometimes come to the conclusion that the majority will only want to read stories by and about people who are like them. Boys will not want to read stories about girls, or stories written by women (I've heard that J.K. Rowling was encouraged to go by her initials to make herself more gender-neutral, though someone correct me if I'm wrong on that). White people aren't going to read books about black characters. A mainstream, mostly straight, audience isn't going to buy a book with a gay protagonist. I would argue that if there's any truth in this, it's a self-perpetuating cycle: boys get the idea that stories about girls aren't "for" them, so they don't read them. White people get used to seeing books about black protagonists marketed only for black audiences, so they don't bother with them.
None of this is precisely the same thing as who the author is (though I noted above that there can be an issue of female authors feeling like they should go by gender-neutral names when writing books in a male-dominated audience or books that are supposed to appeal to a mixed audience), but minority authors are often more likely to write about minority characters, so there's some overlap.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,699
- Reaction score
- 423
- Location
- Germany, native Israeli
- Website
- annagiladi.wixsite.com
Considering there are people who truly believe the essence of that post, I find the whole "white man is bad, knows no trouble, must feel guilty, and relinquish his spot to the less privileged even if earned" attitude cringeworthy. It's not because people of color, women, disabled people, LGBT etc. tend to get less than they deserve, that the privileged should, too. One needs to be elevated, not the other put down. I don't care who wrote what I read. I care that it entertains me. I wouldn't boycott Hitler and binge on Angelou except for content quality. Social justice is NOT to find a new group to put down, in this case, the white man. Social justice is to see everyone at a/the same level where efforts are fairly rewarded for their merit, not their maker.
And if you have to withdraw from competition in a skill not affected by your background, just so someone else has a better chance at winning, then that is simply pathetic and wrong. If everyone writes to the best of their ability, then everyone gets to pitch and market their work accordingly. I'm a white woman, and if I happen to be a better writer than the black woman who has submitted her WIP to the same publisher, then I get to take the cake and eat it loudly, and not feel a drop of guilt. And I'm also fat and have to take pills for my depression, so I'm also disadvantaged by society. Yet, if a healthy, athletic white male is a better writer, then he gets to beat me with pride, and I don't get to whine.
Seriously, rewarding disadvantage makes me sick. At a fancy rat show (for pedigree rats), this really happened: I entered 10 beautifully bred rats and won nothing. A little boy in a wheelchair enters what he could've fished from the sewers and wins a trophy and gets printed all over the rat club magazine. What. The. Fuck. This is NOT fair competition. What you breed or what you write, should be rewarded or rejected for its quality, not for your hardship. Everyone has hardship. Even white people. And no one's hardship should be either a dealbreaker or a VIP pass.
Also, I ain't sharing the pie with those who didn't earn it. If I got published and a socially disadvantaged person didn't and it's clear that this is solely due to content quality, then I will eat my pie and if they complain, I'll smash the empty plate over their skull. Earn your own damn pie. Most white male writers did fairly earn theirs, so why share instead of having the pie-less party earn theirs the same way? Earning something and then having to share it with those who didn't earn it lest you be guilt-tripped, isn't justice, it's coerced charity. Which isn't really charity.
And if you have to withdraw from competition in a skill not affected by your background, just so someone else has a better chance at winning, then that is simply pathetic and wrong. If everyone writes to the best of their ability, then everyone gets to pitch and market their work accordingly. I'm a white woman, and if I happen to be a better writer than the black woman who has submitted her WIP to the same publisher, then I get to take the cake and eat it loudly, and not feel a drop of guilt. And I'm also fat and have to take pills for my depression, so I'm also disadvantaged by society. Yet, if a healthy, athletic white male is a better writer, then he gets to beat me with pride, and I don't get to whine.
Seriously, rewarding disadvantage makes me sick. At a fancy rat show (for pedigree rats), this really happened: I entered 10 beautifully bred rats and won nothing. A little boy in a wheelchair enters what he could've fished from the sewers and wins a trophy and gets printed all over the rat club magazine. What. The. Fuck. This is NOT fair competition. What you breed or what you write, should be rewarded or rejected for its quality, not for your hardship. Everyone has hardship. Even white people. And no one's hardship should be either a dealbreaker or a VIP pass.
Also, I ain't sharing the pie with those who didn't earn it. If I got published and a socially disadvantaged person didn't and it's clear that this is solely due to content quality, then I will eat my pie and if they complain, I'll smash the empty plate over their skull. Earn your own damn pie. Most white male writers did fairly earn theirs, so why share instead of having the pie-less party earn theirs the same way? Earning something and then having to share it with those who didn't earn it lest you be guilt-tripped, isn't justice, it's coerced charity. Which isn't really charity.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
No, I think she was directing it at white men in general.
Let's say what she (and some people in this thread) have claimed is true, that white men are more likely to be shitty writers who submit shitty work. (I said more likely - no, I do not think anyone here is claiming all white men are shitty writers.) Telling them "Up your game" and encouraging them (and everyone else) to put more polish and professionalism into their efforts is fine. But the underlying message that white dudes collectively (yes, I realize she was speaking in generalities and not about every single individual white dude) suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome, and that a conscientious white guy like the letter writer should feel bad because he might be submitting work that's less good than a non-white guy would dare to submit because society affords him the privilege to do so, is a crap message. Even to the degree that that one bit might be true (white men are more willing to put work out there that non-white men would be hesitant about), the remedy should still be the same - a dual message of "only submit your very best work" and "sell yourself as hard as you can, because no one else will." It shouldn't be tailored to ethnicities and genders and tied to white guilt and privilege theory.
To me, the ideas of white privilege and social justice have never made logical sense. My ethnicity didn't bring any scholarships in college, and it certainly hasn't given me an advantage in publishing fiction.
I could write a lot more, but I think it's best served in its own thread.
I could write a lot more, but I think it's best served in its own thread.
Larry M
Banned
I call bs on the letter, it a hoax, just a media stunt to go viral.
move on nothing to see here.
move on nothing to see here.
Larry M
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
I doubt it.
The point being missed by people who call the letter writer insincere or fake is that these people exist and they actually think like that. Maybe they represent a small but disproportionately vocal element of the online community, but they are certainly real. I've met a few face to face, and many more online, in prolonged enough interactions that I do not think they are all constructs, trolls, or performance artists.
Ah, people. Let's back off the snark a little bit please. For a hot button topic with a rather touchy title, we've had some good rounds of exchange in this thread, expressing different takes without insulting each other. Keep to that high road please.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you kindly.
I have to say that the "submit less" advice made no sense to me, either. Even if slush piles are clogged with sloppy, half-assed submissions that come mostly from white men, it's hard to see how that phenomenon translates to white men getting published more often than women or POC.
ETA: I do agree with the other advice in the article, to submit your best work and to support the work of writers from historically marginalized groups as a reader, buyer, or editor, if one occupies that position.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
White privilege is hardly just some theory, it is a very real thing. Privilege is the fact a poor white parent doesn't have to warn their children to be wary of how they handle the police as a matter of course, while poor minority parents do. Privilege is the fact a well dressed Black Professional will likely be followed around a department store or any store really, while their white counterpart won't be. The fact that a white person can be proud of their accomplishments, while minorities are always subtly reminded they're just filling some quota and didn't earn shit. I've got a million examples of things that don't apply to even the poorest of White people, but apply to Black people and other minorities at almost all strata of society.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
I said in an earlier post that I believe privilege exists. But when I referenced "privilege theory" I was referring to just that - there are a host of beliefs and theories surrounding the concept of privilege that are very much theories. (Theories, of course, can be true, but they are not the same as proven facts.)
So your examples are irrelevant. I am not disputing that Jamal is less likely to get a callback on a job interview than James. I am disputing the takeaways from this particular incident.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
I disagree. Your typical poor White male is both straight and abled-bodied, if he raises himself from poverty through his own ingenuity he will garner praise and be hailed as the everyman who made it big. Make him Black, gay, or both and he will garner the vast majority of his praise from those communities. In the case of someone who is both, the praise will likely be mainly from the Black portion of the gay community. That's just a current fact of life.
Comparitivly, making that man an extremely dark-skinned transwoman and she will get much less praise than either man. None of them deserve praise more than the others, but the straight White male will still get more than the other two anyway.
Made sense to me. If most of the crappy stories in slush piles are by white men, then they should be focusing on quality versus output. If they were doing that, then they probably would be submitting less because they were taking more time with each story.
Last edited:
Larry M
Banned
I agree.
My opinion remains that white male bashing (including the 'easiest setting' comment I referenced) solves nothing for anyone.
- Status