(no subject)
Jan. 2nd, 2020 08:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Ah...yet another article on the showdown between Chinese-American romance writer Courtney Milan and the RWA - Romance Writers of America Racism Row Matters Because the Gate Keepers Are Watching
Well, yeah it does matter. What a lot of people don't realize is how big a money-maker the romance genre actually is. Or how many books are published in it. As a genre, it makes more money and publishes more books annually than all the other genres combined. If you want to make money selling books? You write romance.
"Romance, like much other niche literature, interests readers from all walks of life — and the RWA membership, which is made up of writers, agents and publishers, almost reflects that reality. It should be one of the most democratic professional organizations in the publishing industry, working to grow the genre's readership, especially in a time of flagging fiction sales. You can't, however, do that without appealing to more diverse readers, especially as America itself is changing demographically.
That, at least, has been the attitude of people like Courtney Milan. It's not an uncommon goal; you can find writers from communities that have traditionally been marginalized advocating for access, opportunity and better work in any genre — I've done my share of that work in science fiction and comics — but you can also find readers doing the same. (In fact, perhaps especially in genre fiction, writers are the most voracious readers, and voracious readers sometimes become writers.)
But whenever the topic of more inclusion in an industry comes up, it feels like there's always someone insisting that diversity means lowering standards — or that calls for inclusion are bullying, which is essentially what Milan was accused of when she pointed out the racism of Davis' portrayals of Chinese women.
Having been involved in these debates myself, I find it hard not to notice that the people making the most noise against inclusivity are often those who have already put out racist or homophobic work and who strenuously object to their work's being characterized as offensive at all. And though some other authors, when criticized, do pull their books off the shelf for rewrites, most shrug off the criticism or apologize and keep writing books.
Take Nora Roberts, one of the biggest names in romance: In a long statement backing Milan and criticizing the RWA's long history of non-inclusivity, she also makes it clear that she doesn't think her history is perfect, apologizing for the possibility of offensive imagery in a catalog of hundreds of books.
But there's inevitably a small contingent of writers who simply can't handle being criticized, whether directly or indirectly. Vitriolic responses to critics are hardly limited to well-known writers; those who aspire to become household names are equally prone to them. Having your work dissected, discussed and sometimes even demeaned, however, is part of putting it out into the world. All writers know this — or at least they should — and writing romance novels is no exception.
Writers who want to make money, then, often hire sensitivity readers to help them sidestep pitfalls, especially if they don't feel that their agents, editors or publishing houses are up to the challenge. It's just a round of editing that can help a book get more popular and critical acclaim. Critical reaction to flaws in your previous work can serve the same purpose, especially when the conception of who your audience is and what it might accept has changed over time, as it has in the romance genre. So why is there so much anger when people bring up ways writers' work could be better or could appeal to more people?
Well, that's where the cash comes in. Not only is romance big business for those already in it, but the possibility of attracting more readers — and their money — can also make those who think they deserve an audience regardless of the quality of their work antsy about competition from those trying to raise the quality of the industry overall. The complaint against Milan was fundamentally that her criticisms — accurate though they were — had cost other writers opportunities by drawing attention to their flaws. So the real issue isn't whether her criticism about racist elements in other writers' work was accurate, but whether some writers might lose money because of those criticisms.
This is about writing, but it is also about our culture and whether we want the people who have traditionally influenced it to continue to do so without engaging with the consequences their work might visit on other communities. Everybody wants a little romance; what most people of color who read about it don't want is romance novels written by white authors filled with stereotypes about people of color. If the RWA isn't looking out for its non-white (non-straight, non-cisgender) readers' interests, then it's not helping any of its authors — and it's not spending its members' money particularly wisely."
The debate makes me nervous as a writer, I'll admit, because I can't help but wonder if I've screwed up here or there? We all do. What seems fine in our eyes, may be offensive in someone else's. Marvelous Mrs. Maizel made that point in it's last episode -- where Mrs. Maizel, who is nervous about going on stage at the Apollo is advised by Shy Baldwin (think Johnny Mathais) manager to make jokes about Shy. Bad idea. So she does -- and what she thinks are rather innocuous jokes about Shy putting on makeup, how pretty he looks, and his clothes -- taken in another light, are considered "Judy Garland jokes" or jokes about Shy's homosexuality thinly veiled. She's booted from the tour. Or, I'm reading Milan's novel "After the Wedding" and am noticing how careful the writer is trying to be about writing a black man of multi-racial parents. Is it perfect? I don't know. We live in a society that is obsessed with appearances. And defines people based on physical mannerisms, traits, color of skin, language, gender identifiers, voice, religious and sexual practices to the point in which it is almost absurd. None of that matters. We are all human. We are all spirit in organic matter, individual and unique in of ourselves like all other life on this planet. But our egos are insanely invested in such things over and above everything else...and we discriminate based on them. To the point in which sometimes I wonder if the human race is worth saving?
Ugh.
I do not care what race, gender, age, creed, ethnicity, size, shape, etc you are. That's what I loved about fanboards and lj and dreamwidth -- I often had no clue about any of that. I got to know the essence of a person -- not their physical attributes and sexuality.
I'm considering removing all the human physical descriptions (color of eyes, skin, etc) from my current novel. It would probably shave off about 100 pages right there.
2. Went back to work today with a bright and shiny attitude...which lasted until about 9 AM...this resolution to be a kinder person would work a whole lot better if I didn't have to work and commute to work for a living. The combination of my commute and workplace is trying to beat it out of me. Although my co-workers were nice when I told them this -- they said I was already a very kind person. Yeah, well, I know I can do better.
What happened? I went to work with a game-plan, and got blindsided one hour in. Apparently my boss and a coworker managed to renegotiate all the labor rates and add personnel and remove personnel, and change their titles on my fixed unit rate on-call contract without informing me. I found out when the consultant sent me the modification that my boss signed, which I've never seen.
Then, it was just one brain teezer after another. Also, on the commute home, people were being stubbornly uncooperative - standing in my way, doing nothing but playing with their cell phones or staring into space.
By the end of the day, my shoulders hurt, and I was trying not to kick things.
I think the Universe saw my New Year's resolution, and giggling, decided to see how long it would take me to break it on the very first day back to work.
Next year, I'm not going to make any resolutions.
Also, it would help if I could get an hour or two of sunlight a day. Ugh. I leave in the dark, although sunrise often hits as I board a train -- so I get about fifteen to twenty minutes on the way to work, and ten minutes when I return. No wonder I'm Vitamin D deficient.
Well, yeah it does matter. What a lot of people don't realize is how big a money-maker the romance genre actually is. Or how many books are published in it. As a genre, it makes more money and publishes more books annually than all the other genres combined. If you want to make money selling books? You write romance.
"Romance, like much other niche literature, interests readers from all walks of life — and the RWA membership, which is made up of writers, agents and publishers, almost reflects that reality. It should be one of the most democratic professional organizations in the publishing industry, working to grow the genre's readership, especially in a time of flagging fiction sales. You can't, however, do that without appealing to more diverse readers, especially as America itself is changing demographically.
That, at least, has been the attitude of people like Courtney Milan. It's not an uncommon goal; you can find writers from communities that have traditionally been marginalized advocating for access, opportunity and better work in any genre — I've done my share of that work in science fiction and comics — but you can also find readers doing the same. (In fact, perhaps especially in genre fiction, writers are the most voracious readers, and voracious readers sometimes become writers.)
But whenever the topic of more inclusion in an industry comes up, it feels like there's always someone insisting that diversity means lowering standards — or that calls for inclusion are bullying, which is essentially what Milan was accused of when she pointed out the racism of Davis' portrayals of Chinese women.
Having been involved in these debates myself, I find it hard not to notice that the people making the most noise against inclusivity are often those who have already put out racist or homophobic work and who strenuously object to their work's being characterized as offensive at all. And though some other authors, when criticized, do pull their books off the shelf for rewrites, most shrug off the criticism or apologize and keep writing books.
Take Nora Roberts, one of the biggest names in romance: In a long statement backing Milan and criticizing the RWA's long history of non-inclusivity, she also makes it clear that she doesn't think her history is perfect, apologizing for the possibility of offensive imagery in a catalog of hundreds of books.
But there's inevitably a small contingent of writers who simply can't handle being criticized, whether directly or indirectly. Vitriolic responses to critics are hardly limited to well-known writers; those who aspire to become household names are equally prone to them. Having your work dissected, discussed and sometimes even demeaned, however, is part of putting it out into the world. All writers know this — or at least they should — and writing romance novels is no exception.
Writers who want to make money, then, often hire sensitivity readers to help them sidestep pitfalls, especially if they don't feel that their agents, editors or publishing houses are up to the challenge. It's just a round of editing that can help a book get more popular and critical acclaim. Critical reaction to flaws in your previous work can serve the same purpose, especially when the conception of who your audience is and what it might accept has changed over time, as it has in the romance genre. So why is there so much anger when people bring up ways writers' work could be better or could appeal to more people?
Well, that's where the cash comes in. Not only is romance big business for those already in it, but the possibility of attracting more readers — and their money — can also make those who think they deserve an audience regardless of the quality of their work antsy about competition from those trying to raise the quality of the industry overall. The complaint against Milan was fundamentally that her criticisms — accurate though they were — had cost other writers opportunities by drawing attention to their flaws. So the real issue isn't whether her criticism about racist elements in other writers' work was accurate, but whether some writers might lose money because of those criticisms.
This is about writing, but it is also about our culture and whether we want the people who have traditionally influenced it to continue to do so without engaging with the consequences their work might visit on other communities. Everybody wants a little romance; what most people of color who read about it don't want is romance novels written by white authors filled with stereotypes about people of color. If the RWA isn't looking out for its non-white (non-straight, non-cisgender) readers' interests, then it's not helping any of its authors — and it's not spending its members' money particularly wisely."
The debate makes me nervous as a writer, I'll admit, because I can't help but wonder if I've screwed up here or there? We all do. What seems fine in our eyes, may be offensive in someone else's. Marvelous Mrs. Maizel made that point in it's last episode -- where Mrs. Maizel, who is nervous about going on stage at the Apollo is advised by Shy Baldwin (think Johnny Mathais) manager to make jokes about Shy. Bad idea. So she does -- and what she thinks are rather innocuous jokes about Shy putting on makeup, how pretty he looks, and his clothes -- taken in another light, are considered "Judy Garland jokes" or jokes about Shy's homosexuality thinly veiled. She's booted from the tour. Or, I'm reading Milan's novel "After the Wedding" and am noticing how careful the writer is trying to be about writing a black man of multi-racial parents. Is it perfect? I don't know. We live in a society that is obsessed with appearances. And defines people based on physical mannerisms, traits, color of skin, language, gender identifiers, voice, religious and sexual practices to the point in which it is almost absurd. None of that matters. We are all human. We are all spirit in organic matter, individual and unique in of ourselves like all other life on this planet. But our egos are insanely invested in such things over and above everything else...and we discriminate based on them. To the point in which sometimes I wonder if the human race is worth saving?
Ugh.
I do not care what race, gender, age, creed, ethnicity, size, shape, etc you are. That's what I loved about fanboards and lj and dreamwidth -- I often had no clue about any of that. I got to know the essence of a person -- not their physical attributes and sexuality.
I'm considering removing all the human physical descriptions (color of eyes, skin, etc) from my current novel. It would probably shave off about 100 pages right there.
2. Went back to work today with a bright and shiny attitude...which lasted until about 9 AM...this resolution to be a kinder person would work a whole lot better if I didn't have to work and commute to work for a living. The combination of my commute and workplace is trying to beat it out of me. Although my co-workers were nice when I told them this -- they said I was already a very kind person. Yeah, well, I know I can do better.
What happened? I went to work with a game-plan, and got blindsided one hour in. Apparently my boss and a coworker managed to renegotiate all the labor rates and add personnel and remove personnel, and change their titles on my fixed unit rate on-call contract without informing me. I found out when the consultant sent me the modification that my boss signed, which I've never seen.
Then, it was just one brain teezer after another. Also, on the commute home, people were being stubbornly uncooperative - standing in my way, doing nothing but playing with their cell phones or staring into space.
By the end of the day, my shoulders hurt, and I was trying not to kick things.
I think the Universe saw my New Year's resolution, and giggling, decided to see how long it would take me to break it on the very first day back to work.
Next year, I'm not going to make any resolutions.
Also, it would help if I could get an hour or two of sunlight a day. Ugh. I leave in the dark, although sunrise often hits as I board a train -- so I get about fifteen to twenty minutes on the way to work, and ten minutes when I return. No wonder I'm Vitamin D deficient.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-03 05:32 pm (UTC)Self-publishing or non-traditional may be the best route at the moment. That's the route I took. Granted I made no money back and couldn't promote widely, but I did accomplish my aim without some of the pesky blow-back. Most of my family has published independently -- with mixed results.
Those are legitimate questions that you asked, which could have been answered with kindness and accomplished far more to fight against racism, because you don't know who else is reading. I can see how they were misinterpreted -- it's so easy to misread or misinterpret things on Twitter or on social media. Also there are people on it who don't have English as their first language -- which is easy to forget. Plus the environment is super-charged. People have discovered that they can get a lot of likes and followers if they are outrageous or say something nasty. It's a site that is more about "self-promotion" and "self-marketing" than it is about conversation and connection. That's why it has been so easy for foreign interests to manipulate. As I told one person once -- people hate everything on Twitter - they get off on the hate. It's not a good forum for asking questions.
My difficulty with Twitter and social media and the internet at large -- is people don't read or listen carefully. They react and often without thinking it through. And they do it without kindness - often to bolster their own image, or get attention. It's.. toxic. And it doesn't accomplish what people want -- instead of changing someone's mind about racism or making them more aware, they are alienating the person and causing them to dig deep in, and become defensive. Milan may believe that she's fighting against racism on Twitter, but in reality all she is doing is promoting herself as an advocate against racism, which is not the same thing. She hasn't changed any minds that I can see with her righteousness, so much as alienate them. And instead of informing people of how things may in a certain light further racism or feel racist, she's attacking people in such a why that shines herself and friends in a great light and hurts those who disagree, potentially alienating the very readers that she may hope to attract, inform and change the minds of. There are popular writers who have handled this with skill. I think this situation is going to end badly for everyone involved with it - including Milan.
I've seen this happen before on fanboards. And it alienated people. It didn't change minds. The only way you can change someone's mind is with kindness. There's no other way.