Home » YA » In Y.A., Where Is the Line Between Criticism and Cancel Culture?

In Y.A., Where Is the Line Between Criticism and Cancel Culture?

24 March 2019

From The New Yorker:

Late last month, the author Kosoko Jackson withdrew the publication of his début young-adult novel, “A Place for Wolves,” which had been slated for a March 26th release. The book, which follows two American boys as they fall in love against the backdrop of the Kosovo War, had garnered advance praise(“a tension-filled war setting, beautiful young love, family strength and all heart,” one blurb enthused). It also had the imprimatur of the #ownvoices hashtag, in which the main characters of a book share a marginalized identity with the writer—Jackson is black and queer. But a disparaging Goodreads review, which took issue with Jackson’s treatment of the war and his portrayal of Muslims, had a snowball effect, particularly on Twitter. Eventually, Jackson tweeted a letter of apology to “the Book Community,” stating, “I failed to fully understand the people and the conflict that I set around my characters. I have done a disservice to the history and to the people who suffered.”

The Jackson fracas came just weeks after another début Y.A. author, Amélie Wen Zhao, pulled her novel before it was published, also due to excoriating criticisms of it on Twitter and Goodreads. The book, a fantasy tale called “Blood Heir,” depicts an empire that enslaves magical minorities, known as Affinites, and where “oppression is blind to skin color,” as the promotional material phrased it. Critics felt that Zhao’s slavery narrative had erased a specifically African-American experience, and they objected to a scene in which an apparently black slave girl dies in an apparently white character’s arms, in an act of self-sacrifice. Zhao, who emigrated from China when she was eighteen, said that her book drew on “the epidemic of indentured labor and human trafficking prevalent in many industries across Asia, including in my own home country.”

Like Jackson, Zhao tweeted an apology to “the Book Community,” writing, “It was never my intention to bring harm to any reader of this valued community, particularly those for whom I seek to write and empower. As such, I have decided to ask my publisher not to publish ‘Blood Heir’ at this time.”

. . . .

Even casual observers of Y.A. controversies might have seen the Jackson and Zhao incidents, coming so close together, as an acceleration of an already established trend. In 2017, Keira Drake pushed back the release date of her début, “The Continent,” when a groundswell of Twitter critics accused the book of racism. That same year, Laurie Forest’s Y.A. fantasy début, “The Black Witch,” likewise became the object of intense scrutiny, weeks ahead of its publication, after detractors slammed it as a white-savior tale. The writer Kat Rosenfield’s New York magazine piece “The Toxic Drama of YA Twitter,” which centered on the “Black Witch” outcry, revealed that many of Forest’s fiercest critics had not read her novel, and others conflated the perspectives of racist characters with that of the author herself. (The review that set off the cancel campaign against “The Black Witch,” by the blogger and bookseller Shauna Sinyard, “consisted largely of pull quotes featuring the book’s racist characters saying or doing racist things,” Rosenfield wrote.)

. . . .

The Y.A. world is often credibly depicted as a censorious, woker-than-thou hothouse, and never more vividly than in Rosenfield’s piece; the article has become a Rosetta stone for anyone seeking purchase on Y.A.’s callout-and-cancel culture. The community gadfly and bête noire Jesse Singal’s recap of the Zhao controversy in Tablet carried the headline “How a Twitter Mob Derailed an Immigrant Female Author’s Budding Career.” “From the outside, this is starting to look like a conversation focused less on literature than obedience,” Graham wrote in Slate. The Times commissioned two first-person essays, one by Drake, on the “shameful stain” of these eruptions and the “tyrannical coddling of overly sensitive readers.”

“What happened to Jackson is frightening,” the author Jennifer Senior wrote, also in the Times. “Purity tests are the tools of fanatics, and the quest for purity ultimately becomes indistinguishable from the quest for power.” “A Place for Wolves,” Senior continued, “should have failed or succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. But it was never given the chance. The mob got to it first.”

. . . .

A major contributor to blowups like those around Zhao and Jackson, according to many observers I spoke with, is the homogeneity of the publishing world, which remains, on the editorial side, eighty-two per cent white and less than two per cent black, according to a 2015 survey by Lee & Low Books. People of color face economic and racial barriers to breaking into the industry: entry-level positions in editing or literary agenting, which are mostly situated in New York City, offer barely sustainable wages that favor those with existing support systems and family wealth. The result is that the people who are most qualified to weigh in on a text’s treatment of marginalized identities are often the least likely to do so.

. . . .

The marketing manager is concerned, she said, that a skittish industry will turn its back on literature by or about minorities, deeming such projects too dangerous to sign. “I could see a world where the people in power start to become afraid that acquiring diversely means they are more at risk,” she wrote. The editor sounded a similar note. “I worry that my colleagues are just shying away completely from publishing anything that might attract controversy or negative attention,” she said. “We don’t want to censor authors, to only publish from a place of fear and reaction.”

. . . .

[T]he loudest kid-lit agitators . . . view their critiques as constructive, not destructive. When Zhao apologized and withdrew her book, Y.A. stakeholders largely greeted her words with support and encouragement, seeing them as the result of being “called in”—reminded of one’s values as a community member—rather than “called out.” “This is a beautiful apology,” the author Ellen Oh, who had used Twitter to challenge “Blood Heir” ’s “colorblindedness” and “lack of awareness,” tweeted. Oh and another author, L. L. McKinney, are often cited as the ringleaders of the online pushback against “Blood Heir,” but, as the reviewer Gin Jenny pointed out, neither of them “were calling for the book to be pulled. . . . They both flagged problems; that’s all they did.” In a post, the blogger recapped the Zhao drama: “From my perspective, this was a successful interaction!” she wrote. “Some people identified problems in a book that had not yet been published. Not wanting to publish the book with those heretofore unnoticed problems, the author has opted to delay publication. But the coverage of the incident has been very ‘gasp! Censorship!’ ” (After the controversy went viral, Oh, facing a flood of harassment, deleted her Twitter account—her perceived excesses, and those of McKinney, met a swift and brutal backlash, which itself reveals something about the underlying power dynamics of these tempests.)

. . . .

At a recent pen America panel on “callouts, correctness, and culture wars,” the former New York Review of Books editor Ian Buruma seemed to suggest that marginalized people’s desire for authentic representation had a propagandistic edge. Sensitivity readers, he said, forced authors to create ennobled images—to describe an idealized world, not a real one. But the task of a sensitivity reader, properly understood, is to evaluate whether a given portrayal rings true or false, the Y.A. editor said. Depicting a character accurately and resonantly is literary work, a matter of craft. Too often, she continued, publishers insist on a false dichotomy between social justice and aesthetics, construing “sensitivity readers as troubleshooting, as something additional, rather than something that is intrinsic to characterization.”

Link to the rest at The New Yorker

From The Holocaust Encyclopedia:

During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.

. . . .

May 10, 1933 
Joseph Goebbels speaks at book burning in Berlin 

Forty thousand people gather to hear German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels speak in Berlin’s Opera Square. Goebbels condemns works written by Jews, liberals, leftists, pacifists, foreigners, and others as “un-German.” Nazi students begin burning books. Libraries across Germany are purged of “censored” books. Goebbels proclaims the “cleansing of the German spirit.”

Link to the rest at The Holocaust Encyclopedia

From The Jewish Book Council:

Readers may be familiar with the photograph of the Nazi-orchestrated book burning in front of a German university in May, 1933. What is not widely known is that Hitler’s government established a rigid system of book censorship and an index of undesirable books that existed until the end of the war. Inherent in Nazi ideology was the claim to total domination of the world of ideas.

In his new book, Harmful and Undesirable: Book Censorship in Nazi Germany, Guenter Lewy informs us that 5,485 book titles were banned by the end of the war. The entire censorship process was implemented by a number of competing bureaucracies, but mainly the Reich Chamber of Literature (RSK). The banned books included those of alleged moral corruption, works of Marxism and pacifism, books and articles perceived as damaging the martial spirit and morale of the German people and those propagating Catholic or other confessional ideas, and works that fell into the catch designation of “failure to live up to what was to be expected in the new Germany.”

. . . .

Until 1938, the struggle against Jewish books was focused on those written by assimilated German Jews. The list of banned Jewish authors included such writers as Vicky Baum, Emil Ludwig, Lion Feuchtwanger, Franz Kafka, Arthur Schnitzler, Kurt Tucholsky, Franz Werfel, and Arnold and Stefan Zweig. In addition, the Ministry of Propaganda warned the book trade that no mention was to be made anywhere of the works of Heinrich Heine. One Nazi journal pronounced that “Heine is not a poet, he is a Jew.” Once World War II started in 1939, the works of Jewish authors worldwide were either banned or placed on an index of undesirable books.

Link to the rest at The Jewish Book Council

YA

21 Comments to “In Y.A., Where Is the Line Between Criticism and Cancel Culture?”

  1. Damned if I’d ever pull a book I’d worked on for more than a year because the self-righteous snowflakes ganged up on it. In this life, you will get nowhere unless you are able to say, &%$£ you, I don’t care what you think.

    Freedom of speech is under attack, and without it we have no freedom of any kind. Never surrender.

    • +1,000,000

      It’s not just freedom of speech, either.
      It’s all the structures of separation and balance of powers that are under attack, the very infrastructure of the republic.

      In most revolutions, the new rulers seek to institutionalize their philosophy as soon as they achieve dominance. In the US today the “revolutionaries” are seeking dominance by first dismantling the institutions that allow for dissent,leaving room in the public space for nothing but their philosophy.

      • “In the US today the “revolutionaries” are seeking dominance by first dismantling the institutions that allow for dissent, leaving room in the public space for nothing but their philosophy.”

        Funny how the same ‘institutions that allow for dissent’ are the only reason ‘they’ were allowed a voice in the first place.

        How upset they’ll be when some other dissent wins the battle and leaves them with no voice at all …

        • “You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.” Christopher Nolan.

          And they’re not interested in even minor sacrifices, much less dying. Rather they want everybody else to sacrifice for them.

          • And won’t they be upset (and not understand at all) when it becomes their turn to be the sacrifice. 😉

            It’s all on the wheel – it all comes around in cycles.

    • That’s really easy to say when you aren’t the one being harassed, when your agent hasn’t received death threats, when your family hasn’t been searched out and called out on social media, etc.

      In YA, when they come for you it isn’t a quick and in passing assault.

  2. What is the book community?

  3. I’m so glad I self publish. What a dumpster fire.

  4. It’s really easy for those of us who didn’t make our way into publication via the ownvoices community to say these authors shouldn’t have bowed to it. But what is any other community offering them? Would they have had contracts at all, if it were up to the powers that be?

    When you have to join an activist group to get a career in the first place, you have to obey that activist group when it tells you to recant and abase yourself. Unless you think your book is so good that it will hold you up after you’ve cut off the branch you’re standing on.

    Seeing people recant and abase themselves before bullies gets on my last nerve. But I have to admit I am not willing to do anything about it, so my opinion doesn’t matter — and at least these authors have enough independence of thought to ignore the opinions of folks like me.

    • Independence of thought?
      I wouldn’t be so sure of that. They’re herd creatures and the herd is all about tradpub. Not going Indie isn’t necessarily a choice. It might not even register in their querry-go-round mindset.

      Your choice to do nothing, though, is probably the only viable option. Sometimes you just have to shrug and live and let die.

      • “They’re herd creatures and the herd is all about tradpub.”

        And they even go after/eat their own as we have seen.

        They’ll die off/die down after the first few writers ignore them and then have record sales as people buy to see what all the noise is about. Heck, looked at that way this might just be the latest trad-pub gimmick to get people to buy their books. 😉

        MYMV and you/your books not get stuck in the quagmire …

    • When you have to join an activist group to get a career in the first place

      This is true literally in their minds only. There are other options, and have been for quite some time. One option has always existed: have principles that you will stand up for. There is always the option of just walking away from an industry that insists you bow down to witless mobs. Principled people who know their own minds, and have their own values, do exactly that all the time.

      Then there’s the fact the writers in the OP who have bowed and abased themselves, were part of building the trap they themselves have fallen into. I do hope they learn from it, but I’m of the mind that people who think as they do must learn firsthand the consequences of their ideology. That they and their own are imposing these consequences on them is so much the better, for they have no refuge to blame “the Other.” It’s all them and their own. Very poetic, as justice goes, no? So, I am also disinclined to rescue them.

    • When you have to join an activist group to get a career in the first place, you have to obey that activist group when it tells you to recant and abase yourself.

      Thanks, Patricia. I hadn’t quite seen it that way before.

    • Unless you think your book is so good that it will hold you up after you’ve cut off the branch you’re standing on.

      I suppose I would ask what proportion of the targeted audience is part of the activist community, or even knows it exists.

      And, if one is indeed attacked by the community, what is gained by pulling the book from the market?

      I remember professors and English teachers complaining that Harry Potter was terrible material for kids. Fifty Shades? Dan Brown? James Patterson? How many times have we seen the community of micro-selling authors dismiss these folks as hacks?

      Forget about the principles. Follow the money.

  5. I wish the censoring harpies of YA would start screeching about my books. I could use the publicity.

  6. Jeff & Henry above are exactly right. This is only happening to traditionally-published authors, who put their books and lives in the hands of risk-averse corporations in return for — what exactly? And why all the lead time on publication? If you are done with it, the publisher should publish the e-book immediately, before the flaky hoards have a chance to attack it and maybe it will gain a following before they do.

    Except, of course, the publishers do not consider the readers to be the customers, but the book stores.

    Self-publish, keep publishing, and don’t let the b******s breathe. Ignore the critics – even the professional ones.

    • All the lead time? It’s a necessary part of the process. Publishers operate a process business. They bring in material, process it through their system, and send a finished product to market. They work on multiple products at the same time, moving them along a conveyor belt. Lots of businesses work this way. It leads to efficiencies.

      Authors are in the project business. They write one book at a time. Start one, finish it, and them move onto the next.

      Process businesses will try to disguise themselves as project businesses by touting all the individual attention they give to a client. That’s part of the process. The two systems don’t mix well.

  7. The lesson here: when you’re looking for a market to serve, don’t pick the cannibals.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.