The irony is that there is no proof whatever that RH or her cronies are people of color. Using social justice rhetoric apparently is rather late in her long game, appearing two or three years ago. Before that it was just general issue hate and bile. She/they just got smarter at it. And primarily attacked *women POC*
RH/WF/BS has always, to the best of my knowledge, claimed to be SE Asian, and I think always Thai. I am not sure that it's relevant, anyway. At best, it opens up a whole can of pointless arguments and apportioning blame based on inferences and no proof.
If RH is a PoC, then is it worse or better than if she is white and pretending to be a PoC? I mean, we're at a level of so unbelievably shitty already, and I just don't see that speculating about who or what she is, background-wise, is what matters.
What matters is what she has done.
What matters is why people have excused her, and her actions.
What matters is how we choose to deal with each other, and whether we learn from this.
What matters is that, when we see this sort of viciousness, we stand up to it and call the instigators out for what they are.
Actions matter. Words matter. But in my book, if the actions don't match the words, then we judge the actions and (and sometimes by) the results.
RH used hate and anger. She created hate and anger. She used people. And for
( ... )
I do feel that RH has just used book reviews as pegs for rants and not bothered to find out whether the book actually contains rant worthy material or not.
I don't know. It seems to me that one of the reasons she had as many supporters as she did, and even still does, is because she did write some good reviews. I think that for many people, it's a 'being a fan of problematic things' issue. How problematic a thing is is a line we have to draw. Roman Polanski? He's a brilliant filmmaker, but I don't watch his films and think less of people who think his talent gives him a pass. Joss Whedon? I watch and wait, hoping that he will learn, because he seems to be teachable -- and not a criminal. RH? No way.
I only looked at a small sample of the reviews because there wasn't a big overlap between those she reviewed and those I knew well.
But on all of these I felt that either she hadn't read the book -maybe the sample kindle chapter and some other reviews -or if she had read the book had made a large number of errors or deliberate distortions in her review.
She isn't the only person who does that- Christopher Priest pulled the same cheap trick when reviewing Sherri Tepper's admittedly rather weak book in his Hugo awards rant in the Guardian.
People usually read reviews when they're deciding whether or not to read a book rather than when they are already familiar with the book, so they're not going to pick up on those errors and distortions.
I'm sure that colourful rants may make for eye-catching prose and pull in an audience but it's not a review let alone a good one.
I think there are two senses of "fan of problematic things" here: is the work inherently problematic, or is it problematic because of other things we know about the creator? Woody Allen's Manhattan is creepier given what we know now than it was when the movie was first released, for example.
Again, it matters whether the attack review is dishonest (or carelessly misleading in major ways) about the contents of the book/movie/etc. "I dislike the prose style" is inherently subjective, in a way that "kills off all the female characters" or "is allegedly set in England, but the police procedure and legal background are American and include things that wouldn't happen in England." The sort of thing that TVTropes might file under "Did not do the research," which can certainly be fertile ground for snark.
Oh, it didn't come out wrong. I just have a hard time seeing myself that way, because I don't know any other way to be. That and I know there are people who see it as being tiresome and stubborn.
Comments 13
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If RH is a PoC, then is it worse or better than if she is white and pretending to be a PoC? I mean, we're at a level of so unbelievably shitty already, and I just don't see that speculating about who or what she is, background-wise, is what matters.
What matters is what she has done.
What matters is why people have excused her, and her actions.
What matters is how we choose to deal with each other, and whether we learn from this.
What matters is that, when we see this sort of viciousness, we stand up to it and call the instigators out for what they are.
Actions matter. Words matter. But in my book, if the actions don't match the words, then we judge the actions and (and sometimes by) the results.
RH used hate and anger. She created hate and anger. She used people. And for ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
But on all of these I felt that either she hadn't read the book -maybe the sample kindle chapter and some other reviews -or if she had read the book had made a large number of errors or deliberate distortions in her review.
She isn't the only person who does that- Christopher Priest pulled the same cheap trick when reviewing Sherri Tepper's admittedly rather weak book in his Hugo awards rant in the Guardian.
People usually read reviews when they're deciding whether or not to read a book rather than when they are already familiar with the book, so they're not going to pick up on those errors and distortions.
I'm sure that colourful rants may make for eye-catching prose and pull in an audience but it's not a review let alone a good one.
Reply
Again, it matters whether the attack review is dishonest (or carelessly misleading in major ways) about the contents of the book/movie/etc. "I dislike the prose style" is inherently subjective, in a way that "kills off all the female characters" or "is allegedly set in England, but the police procedure and legal background are American and include things that wouldn't happen in England." The sort of thing that TVTropes might file under "Did not do the research," which can certainly be fertile ground for snark.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment