Article: fantasy fiction offensive?

Hairyback said:

I would say it's more like a handful of wheelchair students saying that they are offended that the rest of the school participates in athletics, because it's a painful reminder of their disability, and makes them feel excluded, and the other half saying that they couldn't care less. The ramp is an objective hindrance, athletics is subjective. yes, their feelings are real and raw, but should the rest of the world have to walk on egg shells because of it?

Click to expand...

I think a slightly more accurate version of this would be if the handful of wheelchair students are noticing that the school has built only enough ramps to be legally compliant, meaning most of them are in inconvenient locations, often causing students to have to rush and be late for class - all while the athletic department is getting all the press and funding.

Drawing attention to repeated, systemic, sustained inequities isn't, IMHO, a bad thing. And if you're writing something that makes you worry, it's probably worth thinking about why, whatever you ultimately decide to do about it.

Hairyback said:

I would say it's more like a handful of wheelchair students saying that they are offended that the rest of the school participates in athletics, because it's a painful reminder of their disability, and makes them feel excluded, and the other half saying that they couldn't care less. The ramp is an objective hindrance, athletics is subjective. yes, their feelings are real and raw, but should the rest of the world have to walk on egg shells because of it?

Click to expand...

I am not a writer nor reader of YA, didn't follow the controversy, but your version of this analogy doesn't work for me at all. The "rest of the world"--which by itself implies POC are a small minority in the world, which they are not--doesn't need to walk on eggshells, but they do need to be aware this isn't their world. We live in a society, are interdependent, and as such we cannot make progress without considering all. If you are a person who doesn't require a ramp and don't live with anyone who currently requires a wheelchair, you don't need a ramp into your home. But as someone who uses and wants public spaces, you need to consider those who do require ramps, and pay your taxes/be aware/support everyone in the community to make sure they're available for those who need them.

ap123 said:

I am not a writer nor reader of YA, didn't follow the controversy, but your version of this analogy doesn't work for me at all. The "rest of the world"--which by itself implies POC are a small minority in the world, which they are not--doesn't need to walk on eggshells, but they do need to be aware this isn't their world.

Click to expand...

In this instance, it isn't the POC that I'm referring to, but the tiny few who take offense.

ap123 said:

We live in a society, are interdependent, and as such we cannot make progress without considering all. If you are a person who doesn't require a ramp and don't live with anyone who currently requires a wheelchair, you don't need a ramp into your home. But as someone who uses and wants public spaces, you need to consider those who do require ramps, and pay your taxes/be aware/support everyone in the community to make sure they're available for those who need them.

Click to expand...

Here's the TL;DR version of the article:

repeatedly tore into Zhao on sites such as Twitter and Goodreads, outraged by, among other things, the novel’s depiction of indentured labour. For despite Blood Heir’s Slavic setting, her detractors assumed the plot was inspired by American slavery and thus something Zhao had no business writing about because she is not black. In a tirade that might surprise students of Russian antiquity, one critic reportedly raged: ‘[R]acist ass writers, like Amélie Wen Zhao, […] literally take Black narratives and force it into Russia when that shit NEVER happened in history.’

Click to expand...

The reason I don't like the Ramp analogy in this instance is because it implies that without it, the people in question are being hindered in some way. This is the opposite. It's saying this is my special building, and because you aren't in a wheel chair, you aren't allowed to access it. Only I can write about slaves, you don't understand, so you can't.

Polenth said:

If you didn't read all that, the point to take away is that if you came into this late and all your information comes from popular articles, it's very likely that some things about the context have been concealed from you. It's easy to make people sound unreasonable when you remove all the context for why they reacted that way.

Click to expand...

This.

There has been a substantial problem with poor research and follow-through, and an intense desire to grab eyeballs.

Writers should think about it this way; there's a substantial readership that really wants books.

Write the books. Write them well. Use beta readers you trust. Write your book to the best of your ability.

lizmonster said:

Drawing attention to repeated, systemic, sustained inequities isn't, IMHO, a bad thing. And if you're writing something that makes you worry, it's probably worth thinking about why, whatever you ultimately decide to do about it.

Click to expand...

I agree, it needs to be called out, but, I also worry that sometimes calling out everything, and pushing for too much at once can have the opposite effect, and end up hurting your cause. In sales, (as with winning an argument with your spouse) there's a universal truth: when someone is convinced, that's when you stop marketing and get them to sign up, because, there comes a tipping point where, if you carry on telling them why the product is so good, those people will suddenly start resisting and even push back. How much more will that apply when you are reprimanding them or trying to change their behavior?

Hairyback said:

I agree, it needs to be called out, but, I also worry that sometimes calling out everything, and pushing for too much at once can have the opposite effect, and end up hurting your cause.

Click to expand...

I think this is true, but at the same time, I don't think muzzling people is an acceptable solution to this problem. There are real issues of bias and blindness in publishing, and the occasional overreaction doesn't change the fact that it is important for us all to keep the issues visible.

If publishing were doing a better job, it'd be a lot easier to refute accusations that were erroneous or over the top.

Hairyback said:

In this instance, it isn't the POC that I'm referring to, but the tiny few who take offense.



Here's the TL;DR version of the article:


The reason I don't like the Ramp analogy in this instance is because it implies that without it, the people in question are being hindered in some way. This is the opposite. It's saying this is my special building, and because you aren't in a wheel chair, you aren't allowed to access it. Only I can write about slaves, you don't understand, so you can't.

Click to expand...

I didn't read the analogy that way. IMO, there are certain stories that aren't mine to tell (not speaking specifically to *this* story/writer).

lizmonster said:

I think this is true, but at the same time, I don't think muzzling people is an acceptable solution to this problem. There are real issues of bias and blindness in publishing, and the occasional overreaction doesn't change the fact that it is important for us all to keep the issues visible.

If publishing were doing a better job, it'd be a lot easier to refute accusations that were erroneous or over the top.

Click to expand...

This. (bolding mine)

Cobalt Jade said:

All the trouble and kerfluffle started with this blurb by the publisher. The underlined part seems a barb aimed directly at American POCs. So of course the book was read and problematic parts found to prop up that first negative impression. If the ARC had been released with the underlined part excised, nothing would have happened. The publisher should have been on its toes, not the writer.

Click to expand...

Reading along with the thread, I was hoping someone would point to that blurb. The Blood Heir reviewers went under attack on social media by people (or bots) who hadn't read the book, which shows how much of the hoopla was based on marketing. The publicist for Delacorte Press should absolutely have been contemplating their decisions in these past few months.

However, I think more than a few words riled up the internet. A color blind argument is a sensitive issue in the USA, yet that's more intense with along with blood inheritance. The stereotype of Chinese-Americans as historical experts could've have fed into the pile-on from certain unexpected voices, the same ones likely to try to sound non-racist with arguments along the lines of "color doesn't matter as long as we remember blood is thicker than water" and who repeatedly latch onto black-and-white narratives. Then there's the daily conflicts in YA publishing about morality in works marketed to teenagers. Imperialistic Russia is also a sensitive topic. Fantastical retellings of Princess Anastasia is a particular sore spot. That "good and evil exist in shades of grey" for a "dangerous" princess based on an assassinated child from history was bound to get under the skin of all sorts of readers. The marketing that spread through reviewer blogs, recommendation emails, and private messages poked at a wide range of hurts. The book likely will, too.

Zhao made a smart move halting the release of her book. In my opinion, that self-determined timeout the best way to calm down the flames. The version of Blood Heir that's on sale again as a pre-release doesn't look significantly different, which means those of us who were wary of the book before are certain to stay away this time while potential buyers won't be deprived of the book they've wanted to read. Delacorte could've stepped up more to shield her and ARC readers from the backlash, but at least they respected their author's decision to push back the release date, which doesn't happen enough. Minority fiction authors are too often tossed aside. Zhao seems to also have recovered well on Twitter by locking her account long enough to reconsider her draft. (ETA: And her letters! Those are more professional than we generally see anymore. I'm in awe.)

I agree with the Slate writer that this is a good example for the publishing industry, and we need to look at good examples. The industry could be handling controversial releases much better than what's frequently happening.

MaeZe said:

Good news: book is going to be released in June now.

Click to expand...

Just curious--where did you see that? Amazon still has the release date as November 19. The Slate article also mentioned that date.

This idea that some POC not being offended invalidates the POC who are—we all know it doesn’t work that way. That’s a pretty big logical fallacy.

lizmonster said:

Twitter has a much smaller influence in the real world than most people hope (or fear) it does.

There have been a few situations (not in YA) where I'd have loved to see Twitter anger turned into substantive change, but it hasn't happened.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. Twitter does not have the level of influence some of you seem to imagine it has. If you aren’t very active on Book-Twitter, you probably never even knew that there was a lot of fuss about John Green a while back. You know why you didn’t hear about it? Because nothing came of it.

So, the pile-on is real, and also nothing substantive will come of it. Publishers aren’t going to pull books over criticism. That doesn’t mean the criticism doesn’t have any basis for complaint.

I’m not familiar enough with this book in particular to comment on it specifically, but in general terms, I don’t think anyone needs to worry about the Twitter mob shutting down their career. I also hope that if I ever get criticism like this, that I can respond to it respectfully. And I’m not going to stop trying to include diversity in my work because I’m afraid someone will speak up if they don’t think I got it right.

JJ Litke said:

This idea that some POC not being offended invalidates the POC who are—we all know it doesn’t work that way. That’s a pretty big logical fallacy.



Yes, this. Twitter does not have the level of influence some of you seem to imagine it has. If you aren’t very active on Book-Twitter, you probably never even knew that there was a lot of fuss about John Green a while back. You know why you didn’t hear about it? Because nothing came of it.

So, the pile-on is real, and also nothing substantive will come of it. Publishers aren’t going to pull books over criticism. That doesn’t mean the criticism doesn’t have any basis for complaint.

I’m not familiar enough with this book in particular to comment on it specifically, but in general terms, I don’t think anyone needs to worry about the Twitter mob shutting down their career. I also hope that if I ever get criticism like this, that I can respond to it respectfully. And I’m not going to stop trying to include diversity in my work because I’m afraid someone will speak up if they don’t think I got it right.

Click to expand...

It's true that some POC not being offended does not invalidate those who are. But—see, there's always a "but"—but if we who are merely allies aren't careful, we begin to think of POC as a monolith; it's the same with being an ally of the LGBTQ+ communities. Thinking of our brothers and sisters in those communities as constituting a monolith denies their individuality and their humanity, as well as ignores the points of intersectionality between communities. Teddy Burrage's "Black People Are Not a Monolith" (Black Girl in Maine blog*) explains it better than I ever could.

ETA: Each viewpoint matters and should be considered carefully. It's the only way we can even begin to approach gaining a better understanding.



*I recommend the blog; it's one of the many I follow. Those blogs help to keep me from believing everything I think.

Ari Meermans said:

ETA: Each viewpoint matters and should be considered carefully. It's the only way we can even begin to approach gaining a better understanding.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was getting at. Because some weren't offended is beside the point. Some were, and their voices matter.

JJ Litke said:

ETA: Each viewpoint matters and should be considered carefully. It's the only way we can even begin to approach gaining a better understanding.


This is exactly what I was getting at. Because some weren't offended is beside the point. Some were, and their voices matter.

Click to expand...

I'm the opposite. I think every person matters, but I don't think that every voice or viewpoint matters, because I don't think that everyone who has a complaint is being authentic, or self-aware. Some people enjoy the dopamine rush that a confrontation brings. Some people are entitled, some are bored, some enjoy hurting other people, and the power that they get from amassing a mob. Some are politically motivated. Some are jealous, some are financially motivated, some want fame, some have been pampered their whole lives, and expect others to keep pampering them, some are simply echoing what others have told them and have never been challenged on their beliefs, and, most of all, as with any other group, a large chunk will chase one thing after another, and never find true peace and happiness because they are chasing after the wrong things.


So, while I will fight for equal respect and equal opportunity, I don't think it's good to assume that everyone has good intentions or is on a journey of self-discovery, just because they belong to a marginalized group. (That sounds a lot like the noble savage trope) If someone's upset, we should examine ourselves and try to understand them, but, when necessary, we should also be willing to challenge their world view, call them out on their BS, or share the same lessons that we've built our own lives on, on self-actualization, and agency and the dangers of victimhood.
Imho, there is far too much unnecessary outrage that make media conglomerates a lot of money, and the people they're trying to help into a laughing stock, and we are so busy trying to be understanding, and trying not to offend, and shielding them like they are infants, that we are too scared to challenge them as true equals.

It's okay to challenge assertions but let's not make it personal.

Okay, now for something completely different. It's technically a derail, but it's a happy one, so I beg your indulgence.

Much of my writing is based in anger (I have no idea what that says about me.) It's like there needs to be a wrong that needs righting in some way to get me to finish something.

Earlier in this thread I posted that I thought it was a shame that we seem limited to what we're born to. Having the freedom to be anyone is one of the coolest things about writing, and for me, at least, I feel that has been curtailed. That stuff has already been covered earlier and needs no reply. I'm just offering it up here as background information.

I've been struggling with my selkie--corbie trilogy, and I'm still mostly at the outline stage. (I've drafted a bit, but I always get hung up on character motivations, and that's not a good place for me to write from.)

But then I took my irritation with that limitation and translated it into my story outline. (Don't worry--it's no thinly veiled rant against political correctness or anything like that.) But it revolves around the thought that people can be limited, or allow themselves to be limited since they see no alternative, by what they're born as, in the broad general sense. In my book I'm going to use it to get some of the selkies and corbies working together to beat the Big Bad.

It's kind of the old American dream of upward mobility, applied to a more moral sphere. We can all learn and grow. We can become better, more effective, and stronger than we are today.

I've been stuck on a worthwhile theme and now I've found one. So at least for me, something very positive came out of this thread.

indianroads said:

To me, it often seems people are seeking out things to be offended by. If you don't like a book, stop reading it. Everyone has a POV - writer / reader, we each see the world through the perspective of our own experiences. The world is far too diverse for any of us to please everyone, to try is to risk an outcome of one of Aesop's Fables - Try to please all, and you'll please none.

Click to expand...

The argument always tends to devolve into this (at least on one side), and I really think this is a red herring.

Of course it's impossible to please everyone. Of course you're going to offend some people inadvertently.

But this isn't about (for example) offending football fans by including a character that hates football. This is about perpetuating/playing off stereotypes that are actively hurting large swaths of our population today. This is about thinking about your worldbuilding, and maybe deciding not to take the default go-to way out when you need to have your character be a savior, or a stranger in a strange land, or a naif learning from the bad experiences of others.

And yeah, you can take all the care in the world and still piss people off. That's what happens when you put art out into the world. But worrying about saying the wrong thing should make you do more homework, not grouse about how people are too sensitive. You don't have to change what you're writing to please the world, but if a big chunk of the world is telling you you've put your foot in it? Doesn't hurt you to sit back and consider what they're saying. None of us are past being able to learn something once in a while.

indianroads said:

Forcing an author to write a certain way, or avoid certain topics or characters seems a lot like censorship to me. IMO no one should be forced into believing what others insist on.

Click to expand...

I have good news for you: this isn't happening. What is happening is that sometimes people are speaking up, and what with free speech and all, they're absolutely entitled to do that, just as you're entitled to ignore them.

I also feel it's worth noting that in the US/most of the west, stereotyping white people, regardless of ethnicity, isn't fraught the same way.

And we've come full circle. That's it, folks.