Entry tags:

books, oops! had an opinion

I was browsing through Google Reader and came across this post which seems to be getting a lot of tut-tut's and whine aimed at it for being critical of a book for the content of a character. I have not read Shiver. I don't know if I will. My problem is actually with the response to the review.

This, where points #1 - #4 are basically grudge wank. Are these people for real? This is why critics can't have nice things; people who are just so put out by critics actually having something to say, and people listening, that they have to frame criticism as an attack on an author in an attempt to discredit their issues with a book. I am so sick of people saying, "Ugh, how dare they frame this as a review, it's just a rant!"

As an aside: I am sick of seeing any and all criticism defined as a rant. Do these people realize they are using a derailing tactic, a sexist tactic? No? Check yourself, guys. Rants denote a loss of emotional control used by people attempting to derail and discredit an argument— a critique is not necessarily a rant, and applying that label unless the author provided it themselves: DING DING DING, congratulations on derailing a discussion! Your prize pack of FAIL has arrived!

Anyway, the last time I checked, review could mean a lot of different things when it came to discussing books—I didn't realize only the "nice" people could claim the concept.

I am so tired of the YA Cult of Nice. HONESTLY SICK TO DEATH. The Rejectionist is bashing a book and the author? Women can write misogynistic tripe just as well as any man, because they were raised in a culture of it, and when someone points out, "hey, this seems a little problematic to me, let's unpack why!" and someone else comes along and goes, "You know what, you're just PICKING ON THE AUTHOR AND THE BOOK!" it's maddening. How else do we have these discussions without using examples, of finding the thread and pulling it apart, of examining why one reader feels this way and others don't? Or maybe critics should just shut up and sit down and never use any book as an example of anything problematic, lest they be accused of scapegoating.

I just feel like: the author knew what she was getting into when she decided to put her book out into the world; she doesn't need defending. If she's going to weep big fat tears over that review, if people reading that review actually think that is an attack on an author—! They've got to be joking, that was tame, and meanwhile people are accusing them of personal attacks and not being "professional" (which I find bogus as it is, it's just yet another way people conflate "nice" and "mean", where "mean" is "unprofessional"). Do people understand what an attack is? Honestly? Because the longer I criticize books and the more I read people attempting to discredit people like me, the more I simply thing that the YA world cannot handle criticism unless it is covered in bubble wrap.

This criticism of the YA Cult of Nice, brought to you by frustration and gallons upon gallons of utter contempt for how critics are treated in all corners of the book blogging community.