Romance Writers of America implodes over handling of criticism of racism

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

Yep. I just care if I enjoy the story.

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by haertig

Simple. This is political correctness run amuck. It always runs amuck. That is why I shun political correctness at every turn.

Yeah, apparently free speech (by the employee) isn't allowed. Milan should have been censured. None of her business who the publisher employs - that is up to the publisher. I haven't read romance in a long time, but the PC has become ridiculous.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

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.

I would disagree with that. Anyone who has had contact with the YA publishing industry will be aware for the ubiquitous calls from literary agents for #Ownvoices authors (where the voice is a minority voice). Judging by these very active calls, I can only assume that being a minority is an advantage to at least being considered for publication, at least in the YA arena.

[astrangerhere]

Vulture has done a very nice breakdown of the timeline of events. No matter the reason, I do feel like I would be loathe to be a member of any guild that treated any of its members this way.

https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/rwa-...explained.html

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I would disagree with that. Anyone who has had contact with the YA publishing industry will be aware for the ubiquitous calls from literary agents for #Ownvoices authors (where the voice is a minority voice). Judging by these very active calls, I can only assume that being a minority is an advantage to at least being considered for publication, at least in the YA arena.

There's at least one prominent case of an author passing for a minority to get an award. He won but was outed later. It was in poetry, IIRC.

The problem in tradpub YA is the being an actual minority and/or diversity activist is no longer enough. The "community" will move the goal posts and find something else to go after them. Often enough the "offense" is an excuse to hide a pre-existing grudge.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Vulture has done a very nice breakdown of the timeline of events. No matter the reason, I do feel like I would be loathe to be a member of any guild that treated any of its members this way.

https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/rwa-...explained.html

This catfight is actually mild compared to the ones involving tbe SFWA in years past.

[binaryhermit]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

This catfight is actually mild compared to the ones involving tbe SFWA in years past.

You talking about the Vox Day fiasco?

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

Card is a Mormon homophobe, whereas Bradley allowed her husband to abuse a minor. Hardly comparable...

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yep. I just care if I enjoy the story.

I agree. I'm enjoying Dan Simmon's books at the moment. I don't agree with his politics, but as long as he doesn't preach to me, I don't care. He writes great books. The same with Card. On the other hand, I tried Ancillary Justice. It didn't grab me. I found the writing pedestrian. I do wonder if its success was helped by the current interest in non-binary genders.

In the following article, someone slams John Christopher's YA Tripod series as sexist and racist. It is a sci-fi series written in 1967 in a market that was primarily for boys.

https://slate.com/technology/2012/02...ead-at-89.html

[binaryhermit]

And Bradley and her husband have both been dead since the 90s, so boycotting them perhaps makes less sense.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

And Bradley and her husband have both been dead since the 90s, so boycotting them perhaps makes less sense.

Right.
But nonetheless many do.
Just like they complain about Twain, and Burroughs, and other long dead authors. Retroactively applying 21st century mores to 19th and 20th century writers.

I'm not saying it is sensible--it isn't --but it happens.
More and more frequently, too.

Worse, they complain when stories set in the past accurately reflect the prejudices of the past.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

True. I think the same thing happens with movies. You see someone in a given film and they play the part so well that you get the fictional world and reality mixed together.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Right.
But nonetheless many do.
Just like they complain about Twain, and Burroughs, and other long dead authors. Retroactively applying 21st century mores to 19th and 20th century writers.

I'm not saying it is sensible--it isn't --but it happens.
More and more frequently, too.

Worse, they complain when stories set in the past accurately reflect the prejudices of the past.

And they try to rewrite the books, which isn't likely to work. I remember a few yrs back someone was going to try to re-write the Narnia books and remove the Christian symbolism as part of it. The symbolic elements of Christian belief are basic to the story- line so how you could remove them without destroying the books (especially "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe") is beyond me. I mean C.S. Lewis wove the tale around basic Christian themes and without them you have nothing left. Twain of course is often ridiculed for words that were in common use back in his time. Is his work P.C.? No. But if you remove pieces of his text and make it P.C. you lose some of the flavor of the stories. People in the 19th century didn't have the outlook on things that people in the 21st century do. If you try to imply that they did then you're being dishonest I think. We may not be comfortable with how segments of society were treated back then but we do need to acknowledge that it happened. If you forget the past you are far more likely to repeat it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by crich70

I remember a few yrs back someone was going to try to re-write the Narnia books and remove the Christian symbolism as part of it.

Do you have any links to articles on that? It sounds too good to be true. Or maybe an Onion article.

A few years ago, people were outraged because Christian radio stations were playing a version of John Lennon's Imagine where the line had been edited to "one religion too."

Of course, it was completely untrue. Yoko would never allow that. I suspect the same is true for the imagined rewrite of the Narnia books.

I guess something sort of similar happened. His Dark Materials was written as a response to the Narnia books. But that's different than what you are saying.

[binaryhermit]

I don't think Yoko Ono would have any say in it, I mean, I don't think original artists have veto power over cover versions of songs. She certainly could loudly complain, but...