>Bogus Social Media Outrage Is Making Authors Change Lines in Their Books Now
>The silly idea that a fictional character’s statements reflect an author’s actual beliefs is spreading.
>A few days later a Twitter user posted a passage from Casey McQuiston’s Red, White & Royal Blue, a popular gay romance novel published in 2019, in which a supporting character who is the president of the United States complains, “Well, my UN ambassador fucked up his one job and said something idiotic about Israel, and now I have to call Netanyahu and personally apologize.” This, one user insists, “normalizes the genocide & war crimes done by Israel that will always be backed up & unashamedly supported by America.”
I understand that I am feeding into this right now. However, I think this is still important to discuss as 'twitter user said something' is an incredibly popular story template, and the problem is that these opinions are plausible, if not sincere.
So what if it's only a few random twitter users referred to in this article? The problem is that these twitter users are everywhere, and indistinguishable from 'normal' people with 'normal' talking points. Many of them likely are sincere, fuelled by the belief that they're doing what's best for people.
The media presents these as real opinions, and they become real. As you can see from the Netanyahu quote above, the foundation of this is moral outrage and the insistence that the offended party is moral, and is thus 'correct', as how could that suggestion be bad if it's highlighting the woe of others? Similar to the 'boys and girls' drama in the other thread - the woman in that said that "We're not saying people have to use these terms, but we think people in an educational environment should be challenging their use".
IE, we're not forcing you, we're just saying that there's a moral/intellectual imperative and you're a bad or stupid person if you disagree.
We now ostensibly have more people who insist that what one says should be correct, and being incorrect in your language is to be incorrect in your being. These literalist and prescriptivists who want to remove any ambiguity because it makes the world easier to understand. I used to be like that, and think it would be great, until I saw it start to materialise. It's terrifying. I find myself saying (and seeing) 'acknowledgement is not endorsement' a lot more often now. Because it's not, but it's so often interpreted as so. And that's dangerous, it's repressive. The sensitivity over language is making it harder for us to be wrong without it being seen as an indictment of our entire being, by certain people.
I've gotten into arguments before where the other person found it impossible to conceive that ones dating preferences, or sense of humour, could be inconsistent. They are offended by this notion. People must be forthright and consistent, and if they are not then it is because they are hiding something or they are malicious. Not because people barely know their own minds and have the freedom of personal choice, or to 'vote against their own interests' as such.
I see more and more of these simulacra now, where an insincere but plausible opinion is dropped somewhere, and then picked up by those who disagree strongly with that opinion and see said opinion as 'the worst of x'. The offended group then interpret/present that view as a representative of 'x', react to it, and cause a reaction from 'x' which furthers a divide between the two groups.
/r/books/comments/o6b6rr/bogus_social_media_outrage_is_making_authors/ for a nice bit of drama, and further examples of this.
Nabokov? carpet-baggerakov. Cersei and Joffrey get hate mail and death threats. Any discussion of 'IT' will mention the child gangbang scene, and half the comments will be calling King a paedo over it. And as seen with the first example in the article, a character joking is simply a mouthpiece for the antisemitic author.
>>34254 >A few days later a Twitter user posted a passage from Casey McQuiston’s Red, White & Royal Blue, a popular gay romance novel published in 2019, in which a supporting character who is the president of the United States complains, “Well, my UN ambassador fucked up his one job and said something idiotic about Israel, and now I have to call Netanyahu and personally apologize.” This, one user insists, “normalizes the genocide & war crimes done by Israel that will always be backed up & unashamedly supported by America.”
This is a strange example, unless I'm misunderstanding the criticism. If anything, it sounds like the author was critical of America's close relationship (and active role in) Israel's crimes, and the character is resentful about having to call to apologise.
>>34255 Thanks for trying, I struggle to articulate this concept despite thinking about it a lot. I need to speak to someone very smart and very patient and then come back. Maybe I should have posted a different image!
In summary, I think people are presenting strawmen for whatever reason (moral, intellectual, trolling), then people are arguing with those strawmen, and in doing so they create real opposition with their arguments, so the strawman becomes a real man and everyone gets a little bit more divided. Whether it's sincere or not doesn't matter, the final product is a divisive argument either way.
>On the topic of authors revising their work once they have read criticism of it, well, that's their prerogative isn't it.
Yeah, it is true. One of the things that concerns me is that prospective authors are seeing this and just sacking off writing. Amateur writers are being written off because they never fail enough, comfortably enough, to keep trying and improve. I also don't like the idea that they'd compromise challenging work to appease people, or rather that they may have to for their work to stand any chance of exposure.
>>34258 At least 4. Personally I've only spoken to one person who's said that, a student who wanted to write YA trans oriented literature, so slightly different. In the linked thread there are a few people saying it tho.
Granted it may not be as much of a problem as they/I imagine, but it apparently is for some.
>>34257 I read your whole post and I enjoyed doing so. I didn't get angry at any grammatical errors or word choices, which I almost always do with everything else, including many posts here. You're a damn hero and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
But I don't really have much else to add, sadly. Yes, it's annoying. Everything is political now and everything is polarised. It's the culture war. We know. Everyone can see it, but there's nothing anyone can do. And for all these outspoken militants, there are ten times as many people who absolutely do not care. They could have read this person's book, but if it becomes part of The Culture War, they will shy away instinctively and that will be bad.
