Romance Writers of America implodes over handling of criticism of racism

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

What racist statements did Sue Grimshaw make? From what I've read, she put African-American Romance books in the African-American section of Borders, and she has "liked" right-wing tweets, such as anti-Elizabeth Warren, ICE raid and Pro-Trump tweets.

I suspect you already answered your own question.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You could get the specifics by reading the article linked in the first post. Then there are links to follow from there. Be warned, it can become a rabbit hole. I was reading and researching until I thought "What am I doing? I really don't give a crap about this!"

I reached the same conclusion when I downloaded the sample and looked at the first page. Why am I wasting this time?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

What racist statements did Sue Grimshaw make? From what I've read, she put African-American Romance books in the African-American section of Borders, and she has "liked" right-wing tweets, such as anti-Elizabeth Warren, ICE raid and Pro-Trump tweets.

yeah, in the few minutes I spent looking at the evidence for Grimshaw's attitude, it seemed pretty thin.

Putting black romance in the black section rather than general romance could be ghettoizing those books. Or it could be putting them in the section where they sell best. There's a case for both sides. But around there is when I decided I really didn't give a crap.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Not knowing the specifics, this looks a lot like a personal spat where (what used to be called) the "race card" is being used to damage the reputation of an enemy.

That's the way I see it. The first person to utter the word "racist" is usually the racist. And they try to cloak themselves by using political correctness, exclaiming loudly that they are offended, virtue-signaling, trumpeting their "woke-ness" (what a stupid word), etc. I have no need for these hypocrites.

Come to think of it, I have no need for romance novels either. So I suppose those folks can argue over who's the racist amongst themselves to their hearts content. The title of this thread sounded interesting, so I investigated it. But really, I don't care one bit about what romance writers do. It's not a genre that I have ever (or will ever) read.

[maddz]

I will confess it seems a bit reminiscent of the previous spat to make the Grauniad ('Cocky-gate').

In general, most romance leaves me cold - I do read some, mostly older Regency romances (blame it on my liking for Jane Austen) from the 60s to the 80s, and more modern urban fantasies that aren't paranormal romances (necrophilia and bestiality are far too pervy for my taste).

I also find most romance plots coercive at best and borderline rape fantasy at worst, and most are badly written.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by maddz

In general, most romance leaves me cold - I do read some, mostly older Regency romances (blame it on my liking for Jane Austen) from the 60s to the 80s, and more modern urban fantasies that aren't paranormal romances (necrophilia and bestiality are far too pervy for my taste).

I also find most romance plots coercive at best and borderline rape fantasy at worst, and most are badly written.

I've tried rereading some of the romances I loved as a teenager in the 80s, and they've aged even worse than the SF I loved at that time. They really were horribly rapey.

Romance has changed a lot in the last forty years, though. If you like regency romances and are interested in seeing where the genre is now, I suggest checking out "The Governess Affair" by Courtney Milan, it's a free novella, so it won't require a huge investment of time or money.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by hildea

I've tried rereading some of the romances I loved as a teenager in the 80s, and they've aged even worse than the SF I loved at that time. They really were horribly rapey.

Romance has changed a lot in the last forty years, though. If you like regency romances and are interested in seeing where the genre is now, I suggest checking out "The Governess Affair" by Courtney Milan, it's a free novella, so it won't require a huge investment of time or money.

Agreed, I got into romance by reading early Fern Michaels, I can no longer read/stomach those books, and she no longer writes those kinds of books. But that was the style back then.

Fortunately, as you said romance has come a long way since then and I hope very few are writing those kinds of books now. But I have since moved on to a different genre of romance.

As for the claim itself, I have no doubt that minority writers of all persuasions are marginalized where ever they can be within big organizations. This will shine a light on it, and hopefully things will change for the better.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So nothing specifically against Tisdale herself/himself... and what does a "history of supporting racist statements" mean exactly? How do you support a racist statement?

Not knowing the specifics, this looks a lot like a personal spat where (what used to be called) the "race card" is being used to damage the reputation of an enemy. In other words, just scanning this, it looks like they're "gaming the system."

I imagine if he/she hears someone make a statement that someone else believes is racist (it's not always clear I'm sure) and nothing is done/said to whomever made the statement nor is any memo sent out to shed light on a potential problem (even if it was just a misunderstanding) that that could constitute supporting racism. At least in the eyes of some.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

yeah, in the few minutes I spent looking at the evidence for Grimshaw's attitude, it seemed pretty thin.

Putting black romance in the black section rather than general romance could be ghettoizing those books. Or it could be putting them in the section where they sell best. There's a case for both sides. But around there is when I decided I really didn't give a crap.

Sometimes it's not about what a person said/did but how what they said/did is perceived by others. I mean say I liked an author who had beliefs in their personal life that are supremacist in some way. I think such views are rather backwards myself, but someone else noting that I enjoy his/her fiction might come to the erroneous conclusion that I think in similar ways to the author, just because I like their fiction work. I think such perception says more about the person doing the perceiving than about what they are concerned about myself.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect you already answered your own question.

So basically what you are saying is: As long as you fully agree with the most extreme left thinking, you are safe from being called a racist? No, thank you. Orwell had a name for it, which he called Newspeak.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

The Guardian has a good article on this.

There's also an earlier Guardian article on racism in RWA from April 2019.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

What racist statements did Sue Grimshaw make? From what I've read, she put African-American Romance books in the African-American section of Borders, and she has "liked" right-wing tweets, such as anti-Elizabeth Warren, ICE raid and Pro-Trump tweets.

Actually, it was Borders policy, not hers.
They had a separate buyer for AA material, not just Romance.
The exception was SF&F because, as they put it, tbose buyers were looking for SF and not cultural familiarity.

Borders management was weird. One of the many reasons they gone.
But they might have been sort of right: hardly anybody looks for "cultural familiarity" in stories of alien worlds and times. Although that is changing...

More catfights to come.

Lots of detail here (starting back in sept) that shines light of the backstory:

http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2...nce-buyer.html

The thing wasn't really about the book but about a years long pre-existing conflict.

The old saw about watching sausage be made applies; no clean hands in this mess.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So basically what you are saying is: As long as you fully agree with the most extreme left thinking, you are safe from being called a racist?

And it doesn't work, anyway.
You're heard about the twitter wars in the YA tradpub world?
The offended become offenders at the drop of a galley proof.
Nobody in that world is safe because the goal posts move constantly.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

Sometimes it's not about what a person said/did but how what they said/did is perceived by others. I mean say I liked an author who had beliefs in their personal life that are supremacist in some way. I think such views are rather backwards myself, but someone else noting that I enjoy his/her fiction might come to the erroneous conclusion that I think in similar ways to the author, just because I like their fiction work. I think such perception says more about the person doing the perceiving than about what they are concerned about myself.

Some folks can't separate the work from the author, and it works both ways.
Some ascribe a character's beliefs to the author's personal life even when the story makes then an antagonist, anti-hero, or outright villain. (S.M. Stirling's DRAKA series almost got him tarred and feathered.)

In other cases, perfectly fine stories get lionized until the author gives one interview too many or somebody close to them gets them branded as unsavory. Whereupon the author gets ostracized and the previously lionized books get flagged as trash, even post mortem.

Orson Scott Card and Marion Zimmer Bradley come to mind.

Oftentimes it is best not to know anything about the author and let the work speak for itself.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So basically what you are saying is: As long as you fully agree with the most extreme left thinking, you are safe from being called a racist? No, thank you. Orwell had a name for it, which he called Newspeak.

To make a nerdy point, I don't think that's an example of Newspeak.

You could say such a thought process is Orwellian.