What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Writing A Novel Without Experience Of Issue - Cancel Culture (1 Viewer)

Do you agree with criticism of this book based on author's lack of experience with the issue?

  • Completely Agree With The Criticism

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • Mostly Agree With The Criticism

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • Somewhat Agree With The Criticism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • On The Fence

    Votes: 2 3.5%
  • Somewhat Disagree With The Criticism

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Mostly Disagree With The Criticism

    Votes: 20 35.1%
  • Completely Disagree With The Criticism

    Votes: 28 49.1%

  • Total voters
    57
You joke, but one of my first thoughts on reading this article was that if the author had written this as sci-fi, fantasy, etc. - take the problem being examined and put it in a different setting/context -  there would have been less likelihood of this kind of backlash.

Given the author's actual approach, you'd better have your research done and taken great pains to be as authentic and true to the subject as you can, or you will (rightly in my opinion) come under criticism for your execution. The author isn't helping herself any by expressing getting paid was her main motivation in writing this.
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE ROBOTS?!

 
Tom Wolfe's valuable oeuvre is dead in the water if this is allowed to stand. I'd argue against that, and vehemently. He's an American treasure that often took immigrant and dispossessed voices and held them up to scrutiny, both with withering criticism and not-too faint praise.

Cancel culture is nuts and there's no sense addressing it. 

 
I guess Harriet Beeche Stowe could be a point of comparison here. Seems like she pulled off something like what this author purports to be attempting without much of the backlash.

 
This criticism is somewhat deserved IMO.  There are a hundred things she could have written about fictionally, but she chose this.  She could've written the same book, but had it set on planet Zandar and there would be zero outrage.

The issue is that she knew this was a politically charged area and something that actually affects people everyday in our world.  If you're going to write about something like that, even in a fictional setting, you'd better have your facts right and exaggerate very little.  The fact that most Mexican authors who lived in those situations are bashing her tells me she didn't.

It's also a bit of a smudge on Oprah's reputation as she could've chosen a number of books written by authors who lived that life, but instead chose an already wealthy, privileged white American author with no connection to the daily struggles of an immigrant to put on a pedestal instead and I can see that not sitting well with Mexican authors either.

 
The only reason cancel culture has any impact is if the institutions themselves have rot on the insides. It's very hard to destroy a building of brick and mortar properly done than an institution that invites rot by kowtowing the initial complaint of being under represented and therefore discriminated against in the first place.  Our immigrant groups have always assimilated, with their perceived harmful traits held up to the light and condemned for assimilation rather than the other way around.

However this comes off, so be it, but that's always the way it was. Assimilation is a limiter, not a license. 

 
Tom Wolfe's valuable oeuvre is dead in the water if this is allowed to stand. I'd argue against that, and vehemently. He's an American treasure that often took immigrant and dispossessed voices and held them up to scrutiny, both with withering criticism and not-too faint praise.

Cancel culture is nuts and there's no sense addressing it. 
Is this really cancel culture? It just sounds normal literary criticism and media trying to get a story. The book is going to be a huge hit and she made a fortune on it already. It has already been optioned for a major movie. 

 
His best work is now old-ish, but I thought this would be a good thread to put in a plug for Ted Conover.  This guy does not shy away from doing his homework, and he writes about interesting corners of society.  I loved Newjack, and Coyotes had a meaningful impact on my views regarding immigration.  Rolling Nowhere was interesting but I had hoped for a little more for whatever reason.

 
Is this really cancel culture? It just sounds normal literary criticism and media trying to get a story. The book is going to be a huge hit and she made a fortune on it already. It has already been optioned for a major movie. 
It's cancel/cancer culture, only rendered impotent in a way. The result can be separated from the impulse and the means by which the impulse gains traction. It may have failed this time, but what about other works. This has become a problem especially in YA literature, with cancel culture coming to the fore on twitter and defeating DiY books. The indies rising to the fore couldn't stand the crush, as Superchunk might say.

This particular iteration seems to come from mainstream lit crit, which, while not successful this time, bodes ominously. If literary criticism bends over backward to be part of the cancel culture, or if cancel culture and identity politics gain an already serious foothold in the intellectual discussion, then serious literary criticism has lost.

 
It's cancel/cancer culture, only rendered impotent in a way. The result can be separated from the impulse and the means by which the impulse gains traction. It may have failed this time, but what about other works. This has become a problem especially in YA literature, with cancel culture coming to the fore on twitter and defeating DiY books. The indies rising to the fore couldn't stand the crush, as Superchunk might say.

This particular iteration seems to come from mainstream lit crit, which, while not successful this time, bodes ominously. If literary criticism bends over backward to be part of the cancel culture, or if cancel culture and identity politics gain an already serious foothold in the intellectual discussion, then serious literary criticism has lost.
I would say the issue for literature is actually that this book started a bidding war between like 9 publishers and netted a 7 figure deal of the author, got the label of being "The Next Grapes of Wrath" not for any literary quality but because it was well sold and perceived as highly marketable. Every publisher every year finds a book they think market the #### out of and make it a big hit. For awhile it was books with "girl" in the title. All other books basically get no promotion. Literature isn't in danger because some Mexican people didn't want to read the Michael Bay version of their country right now. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 Literature isn't in danger because some Mexican people didn't want to read the Michael Bay version of their country right now. 
That's a straw man. Nobody is saying literature is in danger. As for your text, it proceeds to judge the contents of the book as apropos a notoriously fetish-bound director of violence. Have you read this book? If not, how to ascribe it an aesthetic impetus? I'm not saying it's not Michael Bay-esque throughout; I simply don't know. 

As for literature: As soon as this line of thinking gains foothold, it spreads like mold through antiquated wood. It's like a gypsy moth and the elms. Okay, enough analogies. It's not just coming after her -- it's coming after everything, and has been since the canon came into question in the '80s. Dead, white males (or living, American females) are no longer the canon. The anti-canonites are trying to reserve space for the traditionally "underrepresented," which is the new buzzword now, because world literature and its adherents suffered so badly at the obviousness of quality back in the eighties and nineties. Underrepresentation is more of a political term of art once the artistic canon couldn't see fit to put enough world exotics in over the dead Europeans.

Underrepresentation, then, takes the act to a new level by making the personal political via some sort of implied quota. I've seen it in the music ads -- asking for artwork or calls for employment, especially among the "underrepresented." It wants its place in the pantheon. It wants to reserve the literary or artistic voice to those experiences had by traditionally distinct groups for members of the distinct groups themselves. Regarding cancel culture, the buzz of underrepresentation stakes out its barrier of sanction or soft censorship for the "dispossessed," and one of its methods is cancel culture, that which tries to quiet the talented outsider voice.

So we have the movement identified ("representation"), and now its modus operandi ("cancel culture"). So we've diagnosed it here in the few paragraphs above. My opinion is that it needs to be paid no heed within the literary crit world (hint: it won't be because of the self-flagellating political baggage turned to rot in lit crit) and the artistic world writ large. That's simply my declarative two cents and nothing more. 

 
That's a straw man. Nobody is saying literature is in danger. As for your text, it proceeds to judge the contents of the book as apropos a notoriously fetish-bound director of violence. Have you read this book? If not, how to ascribe it an aesthetic impetus? I'm not saying it's not Michael Bay-esque throughout; I simply don't know. 
Not Michael Bay necessarily in violence but in it being a massive media hype job. It's the annual blockbuster that the publishing company has all it's money riding on and is putting the full media court press on to ensure it sells big. 

As for literature: As soon as this line of thinking gains foothold, it spreads like mold through antiquated wood. It's like a gypsy moth and the elms. Okay, enough analogies. It's not just coming after her -- it's coming after everything, and has been since the canon came into question in the '80s. Dead, white males (or living, American females) are no longer the canon. The anti-canonites are trying to reserve space for the traditionally "underrepresented," which is the new buzzword now, because world literature and its adherents suffered so badly at the obviousness of quality back in the eighties and nineties. Underrepresentation is more of a political term of art once the artistic canon couldn't see fit to put enough world exotics in over the dead Europeans.

Underrepresentation, then, takes the act to a new level by making the personal political via some sort of implied quota. I've seen it in the music ads -- asking for artwork or calls for employment, especially among the "underrepresented." It wants its place in the pantheon. It wants to reserve the literary or artistic voice to those experiences had by traditionally distinct groups for members of the distinct groups themselves. Regarding cancel culture, the buzz of underrepresentation stakes out its barrier of sanction or soft censorship for the "dispossessed," and one of its methods is cancel culture, that which tries to quiet the talented outsider voice.

So we have the movement identified ("representation"), and now its modus operandi ("cancel culture"). So we've diagnosed it here in the few paragraphs above. My opinion is that it needs to be paid no heed within the literary crit world (hint: it won't be because of the self-flagellating political baggage turned to rot in lit crit) and the artistic world writ large. That's simply my declarative two cents and nothing more. 
The criticism I have read is mostly that the book is mediocre at best but is getting the full force of their publishing company behind it to make the definitive book of Mexican refugees. I think to not ask questions of that process and why critically more praised books on the same subject aren't given anywhere close to the same help from the publishing companies. It seems like from the reviews and articles I have read, it's not at all a statement by anyone saying a white woman shouldn't write stories about Hispanic women. 

 
In fact, the anger is about who gets to publish whose stories and for what price.
If that's not cancel culture as seemingly decried by the author of the op-ed, then I don't know what is.

"Oh no, no cancel culture here. Just we're talking about who and when and why and for what price."

Okay then.

Only a Latinx, I guess. 

 
Not Michael Bay necessarily in violence but in it being a massive media hype job. It's the annual blockbuster that the publishing company has all it's money riding on and is putting the full media court press on to ensure it sells big. 

The criticism I have read is mostly that the book is mediocre at best but is getting the full force of their publishing company behind it to make the definitive book of Mexican refugees. I think to not ask questions of that process and why critically more praised books on the same subject aren't given anywhere close to the same help from the publishing companies. It seems like from the reviews and articles I have read, it's not at all a statement by anyone saying a white woman shouldn't write stories about Hispanic women. 
I do think this is interesting too. 

A publishing company receiving criticism for trying all they can to use traditional channels and legal methods to promote a book they have published seems interesting. 

 
I do think this is interesting too. 

A publishing company receiving criticism for trying all they can to use traditional channels and legal methods to promote a book they have published seems interesting. 
It's not about that. It's about the business model where publishing companies try to have 1 or 2 big hits and they dump all their promotional funding into those couple books so they control what books are hits, what books get read, etc. It obviously work financially,  but authors and critics don't always feel like it puts the most high quality books on the radar of people. Similar to how a music nerd likely feels like someone just listening the top 30 radio station isn't getting exposure to the best music or to a cinephile ,the big blockbuster movies are rarely considered "true cinema".  

The book is going to be a massive success. It's made the author rich. Millions will read the book and discuss. Most readers will really like it because it sounds like a real page turner. Reviews will be mixed, criticism will take many forms (as we see).  I just hate the term cancel culture and think it's almost always used to trigger predictable feelings which bring predictable clicks and views. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the feedback @Ilov80s

For your question as to who is saying a white woman can't write stories about an experience she didn't have, the article quoted in the original post is saying it.

American Dirt's publisher, Flatiron Books, said in a statement that it's "[C]arefully listening to the conversation happening around the novel. The concerns that have been raised, including the question of who gets to tell which stories, are valid ones in relation to literature and we welcome the conversation." 

The outrage over the novel's success prompted one writer to draft a form letter urging independent booksellers to read critiques of the book, recycle advertising materials for it, prominently display books by immigrant and Latinx authors instead, and avoid hosting Cummins. The director of McAllen Public Library, located on the Mexico-U.S. border, declined an invitation to celebrate American Dirt in partnership with Oprah's Book Club. 

"The numerous inaccuracies in her story are clear evidence of the white gaze, capitalizing on hurtful stereotypes and cashing in on human suffering," she wrote. "After two sleepless nights and numerous conversations with my predominantly Latinx staff, I decided that I cannot – will not– endorse this book at my library." 

 
I'd never even heard the term until today. Here is one dictionary's definition.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cancel Culture
I'd like to cancel this sentence from that definition:

 It is a direct result of the ignorance of people caused communication technologies outpacing the growth in available knowledge of a person.
It might be partially salvaged with the strategic insertion of the word "by," but even then it's a painful sentence to read.

 
Thanks for the feedback @Ilov80s

For your question as to who is saying a white woman can't write stories about an experience she didn't have, the article quoted in the original post is saying it.
American Dirt's publisher, Flatiron Books, said in a statement that it's "[C]arefully listening to the conversation happening around the novel. The concerns that have been raised, including the question of who gets to tell which stories, are valid ones in relation to literature and we welcome the conversation." 

The outrage over the novel's success prompted one writer to draft a form letter urging independent booksellers to read critiques of the book, recycle advertising materials for it, prominently display books by immigrant and Latinx authors instead, and avoid hosting Cummins. The director of McAllen Public Library, located on the Mexico-U.S. border, declined an invitation to celebrate American Dirt in partnership with Oprah's Book Club. 

"The numerous inaccuracies in her story are clear evidence of the white gaze, capitalizing on hurtful stereotypes and cashing in on human suffering," she wrote. "After two sleepless nights and numerous conversations with my predominantly Latinx staff, I decided that I cannot – will not– endorse this book at my library." 


1)The question has been raised and discussed but searching through Tweets and reviews, I don't see many at all coming to the conclusion white people can't write about other cultures. The conclusions I see are that whoever is writing about cultures- and especially real life tragedies, they should get it right. It should seem authentic. That's a fair point for debate. 

2. One unnamed person wrote a letter. I am not going to worry about what one person said in a letter. 

3. Discussing white gaze or harmful stereotypes or cashing in on human suffering isn't at all the same as discussing who is "allowed" to write about what. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd never even heard the term until today. Here is one dictionary's definition.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cancel Culture
Consider yourself lucky. It boils down to, when people don't like something, they often want it to go away. Now that everyone has the internet, relatively small groups of people can complain about things most people consider trivial. Since the whole world is run by corporations who only care about profit, they are prone to giving into even small pockets of dissatisfaction in order to protect every bit of that profit. It's real but I also think it has become a buzzword so anytime there are people complaining about something (especially race, gender, sexuality) cancel culture gets attached to it as a sort of short hand for what the argument is supposed to be about. I don't think it promotes good conversation or nuanced approaches but instead sets up players so that they can all take their usual sides and make their usual arguments. 

 
1)The question has been raised and discussed but searching through Tweets and reviews, I don't see many at all coming to the conclusion white people can't write about other cultures. The conclusions I see are that whoever is writing about cultures- and especially real life tragedies, they should get it right. It should seem authentic. That's a fair point for debate. 

2. One unnamed person wrote a letter. I am not going to worry about what one person said in a letter. 

3. Discussing white gaze or harmful stereotypes or cashing in on human suffering isn't at all the same as discussing who is "allowed" to write about what. 


1. The author herself said it's a problem. "She also fretted in her afterword that perhaps someone "slightly browner" should've written this story instead. That comment alone created a groundswell of distrust amongst the book's Latinx critics, but Cummins had also previously written in 2015 that she thinks of herself as white and is uncomfortable talking about race."

2. The article quotes quite a few different sources with the criticism.

3. When white gaze is cited as a criticism in this case, it's talking about exactly who can write about what. 

We'll just have to disagree on these. No worries. 

 
3. When white gaze is cited as a criticism in this case, it's talking about exactly who can write about what.
The author pretty much says "who, what, when" can write right in what ilov80s bolded in font. If it didn't decry cancel culture so much, it might have spent that effort figuring out it was part of it. 

 
It's like a legal brief -- it throws all of its utensils into the sink. It says, in a way, "if not of literary merit, then not of authenticity merit, either." Do not buy therefore.   

 
Discussing white gaze or harmful stereotypes or cashing in on human suffering isn't at all the same as discussing who is "allowed" to write about what.
If a mexican wrote it and used the same "stereotypes" nobody would say a word. One of the common criticisms i have seen is that this reads like a telenovela. 

You know, mexican programming loaded with stereotypes.

 
If a mexican wrote it and used the same "stereotypes" nobody would say a word. One of the common criticisms i have seen is that this reads like a telenovela. 

You know, mexican programming loaded with stereotypes.
Yes and no. The backlash would have been much smaller and not made it into mainstream news. However, I am sure there would still be many LatinX critics/authors who might have expressed disappointment that this was the book that the publishing companies decided to push so hard similar to how say the Italian American Civil RIghts League protested The Godfather even though it was made by Italians. 

 
It's like a legal brief -- it throws all of its utensils into the sink. It says, in a way, "if not of literary merit, then not of authenticity merit, either." Do not buy therefore.   
I think a critic is failing if they aren't making recommendations based on artistic merit and authenticity as well as comparing them to similar works, pointing out places where it had been done better before, highlighting better examples. They should criticize the production companies and the access that is made for the art. The only critic/author I have seen said that she shouldn't have written about this topic was the author of the book herself. Everything else I have seen seems to be within the normal grounds of criticism. It being a massive success and potentially one of the best selling books of the year makes it certain to get some negative feedback. 

 
3. Discussing white gaze or harmful stereotypes or cashing in on human suffering isn't at all the same as discussing who is "allowed" to write about what. 
I see this completely opposite from the way you do. Raising the issue at all is exactly an issue of who is allowed and who is not. The only thing missing is a legal enforcement mechanism -- but social enforcement mechanisms are legion.

 
I see this completely opposite from the way you do. Raising the issue at all is exactly an issue of who is allowed and who is not. The only thing missing is a legal enforcement mechanism -- but social enforcement mechanisms are legion.
It says her book is an example of a white person using their perspective to profit off of suffering of another group that she doesn’t fully understand. It didn’t make any universal statements about who can write what. Anyway, I’ll check out now. I’m actually finishing a different novel written by a white person about Mexicans during the Revolution lol.

 
I think a critic is failing if they aren't making recommendations based on artistic merit and authenticity as well as comparing them to similar works, pointing out places where it had been done better before, highlighting better examples. They should criticize the production companies and the access that is made for the art. The only critic/author I have seen said that she shouldn't have written about this topic was the author of the book herself. Everything else I have seen seems to be within the normal grounds of criticism. It being a massive success and potentially one of the best selling books of the year makes it certain to get some negative feedback. 
Generally, we ask the literary critic to concentrate on the artistic merit of the work presented and not the means of distribution at hand unless there are better novels dealing with the same subject matter that have been stifled by the distribution machinations. Then -- and generally only then -- does it become his or her impetus to call this into the foreground. To discuss access is a murkier ground that cedes more to the critic than to literary merit. If the literary critic becomes business or sociopolitical critic, one is wearing a much different graduation tassel than a reviewer or literary critic writ large.

The question becomes what is the role of the critic? Do we want all-encompassing critics playing intellectual with the business and sociopolitical side. I'd say that this is something we decide on an ad hoc basis. To use an old example, would we entrust Harold Bloom be a publishing critic, too? The jury is out. What about Lionel Trilling? Probably.

But do we entrust more modern, activist critics to shape and bend the distribution machinations for their benefit, especially when they're arguing for identity politics and for simply authentic product as the best product. We have to keep in mind that critics that criticize distribution and access come at it from a typical agenda of elevation of the native or identity. That is what this reviewer does. He or she claims he or she knows "who and when" it is okay to write about matters outside the prism of this identity. 

In short, we're disagreeing about the role of the literary critic now and even what this literary critic is espousing. It's right there in what he or she says. Even if we grant the role of sociopolitical critic of distribution and access, we see this critic -- this particular one -- and his or her sociopolitical leaning for the naked eye.

It says, given the example of Latinx writers, NINA. 

 
General Malaise said:
Boy, you're not kidding.  This one is mind boggling to me.  Couple of Portland gals went down to Mexico, observed how they made their tortillas by hand, perfected the recipe, opened a food cart serving breakfast burritos to wild success, then got profiled by a local paper doing a review and all hell broke loose.  Screams of "cultural appropriation" were hurled their way, they received death threats and shut it all down out of fear.  

We live in confusing times.  Feel like there are people out there whose sole job is to find things to get outraged about and then scream about it until others are outraged too.  Life's too short, man.  Enjoy a good breakfast burrito when and where ever you can.  Who cares who makes it.  If it tastes great, it could be made by a giraffe and I'd be plenty thankful.
Where does this end? A chef buddy of mine trained under Emeril and cooked in France for a few years. Is he not allowed to serve French cuisine in his restaurant? Based on the outcry we've seen recently, it would seem like he can't.

What if I open a Texas BBQ joint in St. Louis? I can do authentic Texas BBQ, but I'm not from Texas.

Have you ever seen a gorgeous romance novelist? Are women who have never been swept off their feet by a Fabio looking dude allowed to write about romance?

Are novels going to have to be populated entirely of characters of the same gender, race and socio economic class as the author? If we keep going down this rabbit hole, will said romance novelist even be able to write a male lead because she's not male? But then can she write about two women in a romance if she is not a lesbian?

These sounds ridiculous, but watch and wait. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
1. The author herself said it's a problem. "She also fretted in her afterword that perhaps someone "slightly browner" should've written this story instead. That comment alone created a groundswell of distrust amongst the book's Latinx critics, but Cummins had also previously written in 2015 that she thinks of herself as white and is uncomfortable talking about race."

2. The article quotes quite a few different sources with the criticism.

3. When white gaze is cited as a criticism in this case, it's talking about exactly who can write about what. 

We'll just have to disagree on these. No worries. 
“Slightly browner?”  What is wrong with people?  She’s a writer for crying out loud.  Say what you mean.  Of all the half-baked statements tossed around in this “controversy” that one has to take the cake.

 
“Slightly browner?”  What is wrong with people?  She’s a writer for crying out loud.  Say what you mean.  Of all the half-baked statements tossed around in this “controversy” that one has to take the cake.
If I ever write a book I'm going to the spray tan place first.

 
is it a coincidence that cancel culture (or handslap Puritanism, as i like to call it) is most prevalent in the "those who can't, teach" professions of academia and criticism?


The vast majority of reviews I’ve read that were negative focused on that the author didn’t know what she was talking about, the novel was poorly researched, she didn’t get the culture,  the book was overly violent and sensationalized and the culture of publishing today. The bulk of the criticism around this isn’t about canceling an author or about a white woman not being able to write about certain subjects. The negative reviews often go out of their way saying there is nothing wrong with non-Mexicans writing about Mexicans. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the approach Oprah is taking. She said she’s not taking it off her booklist and instead wants to have a discussion group with people who liked the book, hated the book and everything inbetween.
does Ofrah have a movie club?

would lurve to get on the panel for "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" and "The Irishman"  :popcorn:

 
I like the approach Oprah is taking. She said she’s not taking it off her booklist and instead wants to have a discussion group with people who liked the book, hated the book and everything inbetween.
I think that's a very moderate and appreciated approach. 

 
The vast majority of reviews I’ve read that were negative focused on that the author didn’t know what she was talking about, the novel was poorly researched, she didn’t get the culture,  the book was overly violent and sensationalized and the culture of publishing today. The bulk of the criticism around this isn’t about canceling an author or about a white woman not being able to write about certain subjects. The negative reviews often go out of their way saying there is nothing wrong with non-Mexicans writing about Mexicans. 
That's absolutely what they should be focused on; that op-ed Joe pasted was not that. 

 
That's absolutely what they should be focused on; that op-ed Joe pasted was not that. 
These kinds of stories are easy fodder for predictable stories which is why I don’t even like seeing the phrase cancel culture used because it initiates a certain conversation. I didn’t even read the mashable article closely because I’ve read like a dozen or so actual reviews- including some of the ones referenced in the mashable article. There’s lots of really interesting discussions to be had around this imo. I am curious what some of these critics feel about something like Power and the Glory by Graham Greene. He’s a Brit who wrote about a Mexican during the revolution. The one difference I see from him and this author is he has a background as a reporter and lived in Mexico for half a year researching for the book.

 
These kinds of stories are easy fodder for predictable stories which is why I don’t even like seeing the phrase cancel culture used because it initiates a certain conversation. I didn’t even read the mashable article closely because I’ve read like a dozen or so actual reviews- including some of the ones referenced in the mashable article. There’s lots of really interesting discussions to be had around this imo. I am curious what some of these critics feel about something like Power and the Glory by Graham Greene. He’s a Brit who wrote about a Mexican during the revolution. The one difference I see from him and this author is he has a background as a reporter and lived in Mexico for half a year researching for the book.
We should have Joe Rogan in here shouting "women don't invent stuff", i guess. Even with my talent for labels, i cant come up with the right word to describe the HumanResourcesization of modern culture, which began in feminization and has been embraced by emerging cultures. Lowering the bar used to be a kindness, an encouragement. Now, it's become a way of life. Culture suffers when money and sentiment rule it. Culture is suffering badly these days.

 
We should have Joe Rogan in here shouting "women don't invent stuff", i guess. Even with my talent for labels, i cant come up with the right word to describe the HumanResourcesization of modern culture, which began in feminization and has been embraced by emerging cultures. Lowering the bar used to be a kindness, an encouragement. Now, it's become a way of life. Culture suffers when money and sentiment rule it. Culture is suffering badly these days.
You might need to unpack that one more someday for me. 

 
I like the approach Oprah is taking. She said she’s not taking it off her booklist and instead wants to have a discussion group with people who liked the book, hated the book and everything inbetween.
A couple of thoughts.

1. Isn't this pretty much the standard procedure for every book on her list?

2. This is still 100% on the path of "promote and sell a ton of books". Probably even more so know that it drives more interest. Are people ok with that too?

 
These kinds of stories are easy fodder for predictable stories which is why I don’t even like seeing the phrase cancel culture used because it initiates a certain conversation. I didn’t even read the mashable article closely because I’ve read like a dozen or so actual reviews- including some of the ones referenced in the mashable article. There’s lots of really interesting discussions to be had around this imo. I am curious what some of these critics feel about something like Power and the Glory by Graham Greene. He’s a Brit who wrote about a Mexican during the revolution. The one difference I see from him and this author is he has a background as a reporter and lived in Mexico for half a year researching for the book.
I think our hangup is about the Mashable article rather than the reviews it discusses. I think it's fair for both of us to have our reactions to it. I'm really not invested in it other than what has been posted in this thread. I think it's a comprehension issue on both our parts in some way. Outside of that op-ed, I further get what you're saying but I think we part ways there. That's a discussion for another day. I'm willing to have it, but we'd likely walk away licking wounds or salt or something. 

Greene is a lion. I'm thinking I'd give him a pass. YMMV. 

eta* That was all typed to Tammi Terrell and Marvin Gaye duets. They're sublime. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top