Romance Writers of America implodes over handling of criticism of racism

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

A part of it is that Courtney Milan is very popular on Twitter...

Sometimes Courtney really does go hunting for drama to find and nitpick to share on the social media...

I think the second is what leads to the first.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

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.

A thought experiment: What if "all these racist claims" are valid? Is it, maybe, possible that people are hurt by racism, and that the intent of "all these claims" is to try reducing that hurt, just a bit?


@ DuckieTigger: "Censorship" and "criticism" aren't synonyms. Try again.


@ hitch and @ fjtorres: Harsh reviews and criticism are comparable to torture and murder? Really?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by hildea

A thought experiment: What if "all these racist claims" are valid? Is it, maybe, possible that people are hurt by racism, and that the intent of "all these claims" is to try reducing that hurt, just a bit?


@ DuckieTigger: "Censorship" and "criticism" aren't synonyms. Try again.


@ hitch and @ fjtorres: Harsh reviews and criticism are comparable to torture and murder? Really?

If the claims are true, then nothing. Let the readers decide. That is the beauty of freedom of speech, including being able to voice criticism. When you turn your criticism into propaganda, though, you inch closer and closer to censorship.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by hildea

A thought experiment: What if "all these racist claims" are valid? Is it, maybe, possible that people are hurt by racism, and that the intent of "all these claims" is to try reducing that hurt, just a bit?


@ DuckieTigger: "Censorship" and "criticism" aren't synonyms. Try again.


@ hitch and @ fjtorres: Harsh reviews and criticism are comparable to torture and murder? Really?

Who mentioned torture and murder? In what context?

[haertig]

More entertaining than any of the actual books in question, are the people running around in outrage with their hair on fire on You-Twit-Face-a-gram. Social media users are great for comic relief, if nothing else.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by hildea

A thought experiment: What if "all these racist claims" are valid? Is it, maybe, possible that people are hurt by racism, and that the intent of "all these claims" is to try reducing that hurt, just a bit?

As someone else said--the readers can decide. If THEY want to storm the publisher's house, pitchforks drawn, great. Am I the only one pondering, if the passages are so offensive, how come that hasn't happened previously? WHY did this all happen, out of the blue? Oh, wait, right--she liked some tweets. Cancel Culture to the rescue!

What next? Should Twitter storm Amazon, to demand that all the Twains be removed or "fixed?" How about all the other tens of thousands of books, that probably have something in them that someone won't like? Or are they safe, because their authors won't do something STUPID, like liking a tweet?

@ DuckieTigger: "Censorship" and "criticism" aren't synonyms. Try again.

Oh, no. No, no. In today's world, the chilling effect is very real. For all intents and purposes, it may as well be "real" (official) censorship. When people cannot utter their views for fear of losing their livelihood, not due to a massive consensus of the entirety of the public or the citizenry, but through the tyranny of a few loudmouths on social media and a news media all too eager to take up the PC drumbeat, there is no appreciable difference.

@ hitch and @ fjtorres: Harsh reviews and criticism are comparable to torture and murder? Really?

I don't believe I said that. I did say it was equivalent in many ways to the Salem Witch Trials, in the sense of the utter lack of evidence, no indication as to the realiability of the complainants, and most importantly, the mob mentality of it. The "pile on." Honestly, it's like watching chickens in the hen house decide to peck another to death and it's not pretty--in Chickens or people.

Say what you will, the Twitterverse is the modern-day equivalent of the Witch Trials. It's part of Cancel Culture, in which people lose jobs, their livelihoods, possibly their families and so on.

<Edit.>


Hitch

[crich70]

Deleted. I posted then saw the admin post about staying on topic. Not that I was trying to post off topic but better to edit than not.

[FizzyWater]

I spent some time going down the rabbit warrens of the interwebs on this and ended up...conflicted...in how I felt about it.

Courtney Milan, as a person of Asian descent, has every right to be disgusted when she comes across yet another nameless, faceless Asian character in a romance novel (historical or otherwise) whose only purpose is to be the "oh-so-wise teacher" or the "oh-so-exotic purveyor of erotic arts". Usually in about a page of prose, as well.

As a white woman, I'll admit those scenes just "go past" my radar - yes another stereotype, "how lazy", but not objectionable (to me). So I can only try to really understand by finding another situation or stereotype that I do see and experience and remember how annoyed and/or hurt those make me feel.

In my web search, I found a few similar reviews over at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books - given "F" or "D" grade for the same thing. For authors much better known than this one (Mary Balogh, Lisa Kleypas are the two I remember - Kleypas even posted an apology and worked with the publisher to have the offending material removed).

And I know that site is a collaboration of reviewers posting their honest opinions. But it's also one of the more influential sites. So I wish they could give a split kind of grade (B for the story, F for including yet another racial stereotype). And I wish they'd be a bit more aware of unintentional stereotyping rather than just calling a book "racist".

And that doesn't even start on how stupidly the RWA handled the issue!

Where I work, we have a strongly enforced "code of conduct" that includes prohibitions about talking pretty much about anything at work, other than where we work and our job title. RWA didn't have that policy when it came to discussing books. It'll be interesting to see if that changes.

Romance authors, a majority of which are women, seem to have that "be-nice-or-don't-say-anything" mentality that many women were raised with. So this kind of issue ("she's-a-big-meany-and-hurt-authorXZY's-feelings") comes up a lot in romanceland, sadly.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Who mentioned torture and murder? In what context?

You mentioned lynch mobs. In a discussion about racism. In a forum with many members from the USA, where lynch mobs have murdered black people within living memory.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

And that doesn't even start on how stupidly the RWA handled the issue!

Where I work, we have a strongly enforced "code of conduct" that includes prohibitions about talking pretty much about anything at work, other than where we work and our job title. RWA didn't have that policy when it came to discussing books. It'll be interesting to see if that changes.

RWA is a trade organization. They really cannot enforce rules the way an employer can. They wouldn't have any members if they tried. Their existence is because of their members, not the other way around.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You mentioned lynch mobs. In a discussion about racism. In a forum with many members from the USA, where lynch mobs have murdered black people within living memory.

We Americans use lynch mob where the "lynching" isn't murder by hanging, but some other form of "mob punishment".

Carry on.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by hildea

I'll recap:
[LIST=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.

I find your recap deficient...to wit...:

Concentration camps is what OTHERS (not Diamond and Silk or Trump) call the detention centers.

"White Supremacy" - two black women advocating white supremacy? Nor does Trump.

The ACCUSATION is frequent - so much so that it no longer seems to need support. As in "wearing a MAGA hat is racist" etc.

Calling someone a racist is not a neutral act. Having the sole evidence of racism being "liked tweets" where the content of the tweets aren't racists, but are written by people "other people call racists" --- is indeed ridiculous and "mob action".

[leebase]

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.

Didn't she have a position in the RWA....not some random member? Organizations have policies that limit their members freedom of speech all the time because to prevent association of an individual member's opinions from that of the company. And for leadership positions...even more so.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Hitch

As someone else said--the readers can decide. If THEY want to storm the publisher's house, pitchforks drawn, great. Am I the only one pondering, if the passages are so offensive, how come that hasn't happened previously? WHY did this all happen, out of the blue? Oh, wait, right--she liked some tweets. Cancel Culture to the rescue!

What next? Should Twitter storm Amazon, to demand that all the Twains be removed or "fixed?" How about all the other tens of thousands of books, that probably have something in them that someone won't like? Or are they safe, because their authors won't do something STUPID, like liking a tweet?



Oh, no. No, no. In today's world, the chilling effect is very real. For all intents and purposes, it may as well be "real" (official) censorship. When people cannot utter their views for fear of losing their livelihood, not due to a massive consensus of the entirety of the public or the citizenry, but through the tyranny of a few loudmouths on social media and a news media all too eager to take up the PC drumbeat, there is no appreciable difference.



I don't believe I said that. I did say it was equivalent in many ways to the Salem Witch Trials, in the sense of the utter lack of evidence, no indication as to the realiability of the complainants, and most importantly, the mob mentality of it. The "pile on." Honestly, it's like watching chickens in the hen house decide to peck another to death and it's not pretty--in Chickens or people.

Say what you will, the Twitterverse is the modern-day equivalent of the Witch Trials. It's part of Cancel Culture, in which people lose jobs, their livelihoods, possibly their families and so on.

<Edit.>


Hitch

Well said. Cancel Culture is indeed a form of censorship -- and intentionally so. This episode is CLEARLY an example of one person trying to punish another due....not to the book....but to liking tweets. The tweets themselves had no racism...but the source of the tweets are reviled as "racists" -- not because they are but because they are from the opposite political party.

[issybird]

Please be as narrow as possible in discussing this and avoid partisan analogies.