Romance Writers of America implodes over handling of criticism of racism

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

Now I'm baffled. I completely agree with your first paragraph above, but how do you get from that to the second paragraph? I mean, did you somehow fail to notice who used their freedom of speech to say what they meant, and who tried to force people with undesirable opinions out of RWA?

I'll recap:

1. Donald Trump, Diamond and Silk, and others use their freedom of speech to write about (among other topics) concentration camps, ICE raids, and white supremacy.
2. Grimshaw uses her freedom of speech to like some of those tweets.
3. Davis uses her freedom of speech to write a book.
4. Milan uses her freedom of speech to criticise Grimshaw's and Davis' speech, and to criticise Tisdale for employing them in positions where they serve as gatekeepers for what kind of romance gets purchased by Tisdale's publishing house.
5. Tisdale and Davis lodges formal complaints with RWA against Milan's speech.
6. RWA, directed by president-elect Damon Suede suspends Milan from RWA for a year, and bans her for lifetime from holding office in RWA.

How on earth to you get from that to being worried that conservatives are the ones at risk from being banned from RWA?

You forget number #7, where they reverse their decision. By doing that, apparently it is okay to call someone as being a racist based on simply liking certain posts on social media.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's pretty hard to expressed nuanced thoughts in 240 characters. I use facebook to keep in touch with family and friends, but other than that I tend to ignore social media. If I need to get my heart rate up, then I go exercise.

I believe you kind of agree with me, and I have no objection on how you use social media. That is how it is supposed to be. Use it to stay in touch with friends for easy communication. Share pictures and videos quickly with everybody on your list instead of sending a mass email.

The problems arise very quickly once you step over the line and use social media to air out your dirty laundry. That is everything from your private life or that of others which should stay private. Including everything that is political, ethical, or religious. Ethics is part of religion. Religion and politics cannot be separated, because all politics evolve around ethics of some kind or another. There is a reason the P&R forum is not divided into a P-only and a R-only section.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I believe you kind of agree with me, and I have no objection on how you use social media. That is how it is supposed to be. Use it to stay in touch with friends for easy communication. Share pictures and videos quickly with everybody on your list instead of sending a mass email.

The problems arise very quickly once you step over the line and use social media to air out your dirty laundry. That is everything from your private life or that of others which should stay private. Including everything that is political, ethical, or religious. Ethics is part of religion. Religion and politics cannot be separated, because all politics evolve around ethics of some kind or another. There is a reason the P&R forum is not divided into a P-only and a R-only section.

There is also a distinction between speech that expresses an opinion and speech that urges/drives action. Context matters.

And in *today's* tradpub publishing world, name calling kills books, ends contracts, and kills careers. In *this* context, name calling is *not* opinion but a call to action.

Try this:

https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-...a-twitter.html

Or this:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...ce-controversy

This:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...dessen-twitter

https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/famo...ntroversy.html

Milan is a publishing veteran and very business-savvy and has written insightful comments on the state of publishing today. It is extremely unlikely she was unaware of what the name-calling would lead to. Digging up a twenty-year old book shows specific intent: she went digging for something to pin on her.

Social media is meant for communicating with friends and family and (most often) marketting. it was never meant for rabble rousing and raising lynch mobs but that is what has devolved into.

Best stay clear of tbe big platforms and above all stay clear of the absolutist polarized subjects. That means politics, religion, morals, and sports.

[ZodWallop]

Does anyone besides me appreciate that the president of the Romance Writers of America, Damon Suede, has a name that would be appropriate to the characters in the books their authors write?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by hildea

Now I'm baffled. I completely agree with your first paragraph above, but how do you get from that to the second paragraph? I mean, did you somehow fail to notice who used their freedom of speech to say what they meant, and who tried to force people with undesirable opinions out of RWA?

I'll recap:

1. Donald Trump, Diamond and Silk, and others use their freedom of speech to write about (among other topics) concentration camps, ICE raids, and white supremacy.
2. Grimshaw uses her freedom of speech to like some of those tweets.
3. Davis uses her freedom of speech to write a book.
4. Milan uses her freedom of speech to criticise Grimshaw's and Davis' speech, and to criticise Tisdale for employing them in positions where they serve as gatekeepers for what kind of romance gets purchased by Tisdale's publishing house.
5. Tisdale and Davis lodges formal complaints with RWA against Milan's speech.
6. RWA, directed by president-elect Damon Suede suspends Milan from RWA for a year, and bans her for lifetime from holding office in RWA.

How on earth to you get from that to being worried that conservatives are the ones at risk from being banned from RWA?

AH, crap. I just noticed a name in here that had previously escaped my notice--don't know how, to be honest; I guess I was focused on Milan, Tisdale, et al--and now I have to shut up. Client. My only excuse is, we've had 4,000+ clients in the last decade and it just slid past me.

DAMNATION. I need to check something with someone--but I'll be back (Ahnuld voice).

Hitch

[hildea]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You forget number #7, where they reverse their decision. By doing that, apparently it is okay to call someone as being a racist based on simply liking certain posts on social media.

That doesn't mean they say it's OK, it just means they say that they aren't sure it's enough to warrant suspension from RWA. (As far as I know, the board haven't been very clear on whether the lifetime ban from leadership in RWA has also been withdrawn.)

I think organizations should be extremely reluctant to ban members for using their freedom of speech. And in cases like this, where the public record can be edited after the fact, they should be even more careful. (Grimshaw has deleted several hundred likes, so we can't go back and check for ourselves how fair or unfair the accusations of racism were.)

It seems you are in favour of more restrictions. What kind of statements do you think warrant exclusion from trade organizations?

To take one example: If you think Milan deserves suspension and lifetime ban from leadership because she has accused Grimshaw and Davis of racist statements, should Tisdale also face the same penalties after accusing Milan of being predudiced against people of a specific skin color, and comparing her to neo-nazis?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

That doesn't mean they say it's OK, it just means they say that they aren't sure it's enough to warrant suspension from RWA. (As far as I know, the board haven't been very clear on whether the lifetime ban from leadership in RWA has also been withdrawn.)

I think organizations should be extremely reluctant to ban members for using their freedom of speech. And in cases like this, where the public record can be edited after the fact, they should be even more careful. (Grimshaw has deleted several hundred likes, so we can't go back and check for ourselves how fair or unfair the accusations of racism were.)

It seems you are in favour of more restrictions. What kind of statements do you think warrant exclusion from trade organizations?

To take one example: If you think Milan deserves suspension and lifetime ban from leadership because she has accused Grimshaw and Davis of racist statements, should Tisdale also face the same penalties after accusing Milan of being predudiced against people of a specific skin color, and comparing her to neo-nazis?

Not quite more restrictions, but less. The freedom of speech card is being played at the same time as the diversity card. Not possible at the same time. When you ask for more diversity in books, then please don't try to archieve your goal by limiting what is an opinion too extreme for you to stomach. When anyone is asking for books to be politically correct, they are automatically favoring censorship.

Censorship is the end of free speech. Don't ruin freedom of speech under the umbrella of demanding to be politically correct. Political correct is not about inclusion of a diverse range of opinions, but about exclusion of everything that doesn't agree with your political opinion.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I was reading and researching until I thought "What am I doing? I really don't give a crap about this!"

You've just defined the internet.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Do note that it is a twenty year old book.

The book was republished in 2014.

In addition, since this row, the author has since edited at least some of the racist material out. She did this after someone, as she worded it, "calmly" explained to her what the problems were.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...cism-complaint

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by meeera

The book was republished in 2014.

In addition, since this row, the author has since edited at least some of the racist material out. She did this after someone, as she worded it, "calmly" explained to her what the problems were.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...cism-complaint

Interesting report.

The end of the contract talks is something that hasn't received much if any coverage. Given her age and the way tradpub works, she's done. if she wants to keep writing she'll need a pseudonym and going Indie. And even then she'll likely be quickly outed.

And for a book labeled as an expletive mess it's odd it could be edited at all.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Interesting report.

The end of the contract talks is something that hasn't received much if any coverage. Given her age and the way tradpub works, she's done. if she wants to keep writing she'll need a pseudonym and going Indie. And even then she'll likely be quickly outed.

And for a book labeled as an expletive mess it's odd it could be edited at all.

She is toast. What option did she have, but to go and "revise" the books, given everything that occurred? Does anyone here think that ANY of this would have happened, if the tweet she "liked" was from Jon Stewart? Of course not.

(I have reason to believe that the cancelled contract is very real, by the way.)

Everything that occurred in this mess was simply wrong. The RWA was wrong--twice--and so was everything else.

I have to wonder just how many RWA members have written novels set during the Salem Witch Trials, that confidently and smugly told themselves that this could never happen today, who in turn participated in the Twitter Witch Trials against Davis?

Hitch

[Paperbackstash]

A part of it is that Courtney Milan is very popular on Twitter - I have no hard feelings against the author, and she does good work with her original intentions, but she also loves stirring the flames and social media drama. I've seen it for years since I'm active on there with various book stuff, the main reason I joined Twitter.

I don't know about the validity of all these racist claims, but many are hurt if they aren't valid, which I think was the intent of the complaint. It seems like RWA has a lot of political turmoil, and they have had legit racist history as well, so I am not defending against that. Sometimes Courtney really does go hunting for drama to find and nitpick to share on the social media, however, which is what I think the initial complaint was pointing out.

With the social media climate the way it is now, trying to defend or explain would just get distorted and backfire when people are this worked up.

RWA has such a rocky history anyway, and after this? I don't see a way for RWA to salvage this other than disbanding.

[Paperbackstash]

....

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Hitch

She is toast. What option did she have, but to go and "revise" the books, given everything that occurred?

What surprises me is that the book is apparently "fixable".
Given the expletives, I expected something like the TURNER DIARIES, PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, or at least John Norman.
Not poor(?) research on a historical novel.

Makes me wonder if Scots need to be offended by OUTLANDER or the horde of "barbaric highlander" books.

Originally Posted by Hitch

Everything that occurred in this mess was simply wrong. The RWA was wrong--twice--and so was everything else.

Agreed.
No clean hands. Just varying degrees of intolerance and no civility.

Originally Posted by Hitch

I have to wonder just how many RWA members have written novels set during the Salem Witch Trials, that confidently and smugly told themselves that this could never happen today, who in turn participated in the Twitter Witch Trials against Davis?

For that matter, what about novels about Witches?
Shouldn't Wiccans be complaining about the paranormal books?

So far, we're seeing lynch mobs in children's books, YA, TechnoThrillers, Fantasy, and SF. Now romance. What remains? Horror?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

You've just defined the internet.