TEST
It’s the worst possible time to release a book that glorifies the police force – not that there was or will ever be a good time for that, for all obvious reasons – but that is, unfortunately, what TJ Klune’s The Extraordinaries does. The author has apologized for not thinking ahead and ridding the book of its propaganda, even though they had a sensitivity reader. Without the cop propaganda, The Extraordinaries would have received a B+. With it, it flounders into D territory.
It’s a shame, because were his father not a police officer whom he worships without question, teenagers could have really related to Klune’s hero. Sixteen-year-old Nick Bell is a fanfiction-writing member of the Extradordinaire fandom (basically, a Real Person Fanfiction fandom for the superheroes that live in Bell’s hometown) – writing specifically about the all-American StarShadow. Nick has a huge crush on the superhero; a growing teenager who has a loving though overweening dad, he’s still trying to figure out how to live his life in the wake of his mother’s death and deal with the anxiety and panic he’s suffering from as a result. He also happens to be the most popular writer in the ShadowStar side of the fandom.
Nick has several rivals for his affection. Seth, his friend and possibly his true love, and Owen, with whom he has a flirtatious relationship. He must figure out what real love is while training to become a member of the team he idolizes – and discovers that life on a superteam is much harder than he’d thought it might be.
The Extraordinaries would be a fine book were it about a teenager who wants to be a superhero but must live up to the high expectations of the team. But yeah – our hero’s father is a dad, he idolizes his dad and thanks to his limited point of view, is on his side when he’s accused of abuse. His father punched an arrestee who mocked his dead wife. Police brutality is not okay, and teenagers are not likely to enjoy seeing a hero excuse his dad’s actions. Worse, there is actually a police brutality joke thrown into the middle of the story by Nick. This is not cool, to say the least, and an incredibly thoughtless move on the part of the author.
The worst thing about the situation is that The Extraordinaries could have been so incredibly cool. The world-building is good. The supporting characters are unique and fun and offer representation for folks with ADHD. But as it is, the book doesn’t work.
T.J. Klune has declared their intent to change the next book in the series, promising that Nick will have a light bulb moment about police brutality and come to realize that his father isn’t always right and that such violence severely affects others. But it’s far too late to fix the premise as it stands, and too late to save The Extraordinaries.
Buy it at: Amazon, Audible, or your local independent bookstore
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: D
Book Type: Young Adult
Sensuality: Kisses
Review Date: 12/09/20
Publication Date: 07/2020
Recent Comments …
Yep
This sounds delightful! I’m grabbing it, thanks
excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.
I don’t think anyone expects you to post UK prices – it’s just a shame that such a great sale…
I’m sorry about that. We don’t have any way to post British prices as an American based site.
I have several of her books on my TBR and after reading this am moving them up the pile.
Lisa Fernandes is a writer, reviewer and recapper who lives somewhere on the East Coast. Formerly employed by Firefox.org and Next Projection, she also currently contributes to Women Write About Comics. Read her blog at http://thatbouviergirl.blogspot.com/, follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/thatbouviergirl or contribute to her Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/MissyvsEvilDead or her Ko-Fi at ko-fi.com/missmelbouvier
Related Reviews
My perspective on qualified immunity and “defunding the police.”
This is about police and dogs, not people, which I want to say up front I don’t think are equivalent, but it helps me make a point. Police shoot at least 25 dogs a day in the US. Several groups in the US keeping track of the shootings have evidence that the real number is many times that. These are not, as we may like to think, dangerous dogs attacking police. Many are the usual–family pets doing what they do naturally–bark at an unknown person. The victims include dogs like chihuahuas as well as the larger breeds. People, including kids, have been hit by bullets.
I found out about this years ago, and after research of my own sat my family down and discussed how we could handle having to call the police since we owned a “watch dog.” Our dog has never been aggressive to people, but he is part German shepherd and he barks aggressively at strange people, and plastic bags blowing across our cul-de-sac. Since police have been known to shoot any dog that scares them, I wanted to have a plan. Don’t call the police unless absolutely necessary, and lock the dogs up if at all possible first.
Qualified immunity means police officers rarely, if ever, face consequences. Quotes are from the linked article.
…
“Even in the absence of an actual threat, the perception of a threat is enough for qualified immunity to kick in and for the cop to be let off the hook for behavior that would get the rest of us jailed for life.”
“As journalist Radley Balko points out, “In too much of policing today, officer safety has become the highest priority. It trumps the rights and safety of suspects. It trumps the rights and safety of bystanders. It’s so important, in fact, that an officer’s subjective fear of a minor wound from a dog bite is enough to justify using potentially lethal force.”
…
This deals with dogs, but it also gives us insight into the mindset of how the police deal with people.
…
“These dog killings are, as Balko recognizes, “a side effect of the new SWAT, paramilitary focus in many police departments, which has supplanted the idea of being an ‘officer of the peace.’”
“Thus, whether you’re talking about police shooting dogs or citizens, the mindset is the same: a rush to violence, abuse of power, fear for officer safety, poor training in how to de-escalate a situation, and general carelessness.”
…
If you don’t like the term “defunding the police,” them perhaps we should say, “demilitarize” them.
…
“As dog behavior counselor Brian Kilcommons noted, officers’ inclination to “take command and take control” can cause them to antagonize dogs unnecessarily. Officers “need to realize they’re there to neutralize, not control… If they have enough money to militarize the police with Humvees, they have enough money to train them not to kill family members. And pets are considered family.”
After all, as the Washington Post points out, while “postal workers regularly encounter both vicious and gregarious dogs on their daily rounds… letter carriers don’t kill dogs, even though they are bitten by the thousands every year. Instead, the Postal Service offers its employees training on how to avoid bites.” Journalist Dale Chappell adds, “Using live dogs, handlers and trainers put postal workers through scenarios to teach them how to read a dog’s behavior and calm a dog, or fend it off, if necessary. Meter readers also have benefited from the same training, drastically reducing incidents of dog bites.”
https://www.overtoncountynews.com/lifestyles/don-t-shoot-the-dogs-the-growing-epidemic-of-cops-shooting-family-dogs/article_98757e76-318f-11ea-8d4f-e35f8b517936.html
I strongly agree with demilitarizing the police. This article influenced me strongly when it came out. I also believe that America’s obsession with owning guns has led to a virtual cold war with the populace–when anyone can own an automatic handgun, neither the police nor citizens ever really know what they face. Lastly, the police must completely change their approach to crowd control. Protest is inherently American and large gatherings of people should be accepted rather than seen as a threat.
I think the Second Amendment has a lot to answer for along with the stupidity and weakness of politicians of all parties. The number of guns in the US is so dreadfully shocking that I can’t comprehend it nor can most people who don’t live in America. My friends here in the UK are no longer surprised when there is a school shooting, a cop killing an innocent by-stander or even something like Waco. Trigger happy cops and trigger happy perps are as bad as each other. Defunding the police is not, IMO, the answer as serious money needs to be spent on reforming forces, choosing capable police leaders and trainers, recruiting intelligent people who are capable of controlling their emotions on the job and defeating the damned NRA. It won’t happen in my lifetime; too bad.
I think it’s the wrong-headed interpretation of the Second Amendment that’s to blame. There is good reason to believe that the current interpretation that allows unfettered ownership of guns is not what was intended and does not represent a “well regulated militia.”
This is a great discussion. Thank you so much for your insights. I hope it continues and, as it does, we all refrain from being criticizing the beliefs of others. There are plenty of places on the internet for those sorts of arguments. It’s my goal that at AAR, everyone feels welcome to say what they think is the deal. We don’t all share the same values, world views, etc…. and, here, that’s allowed.
What an interesting and thought-provoking discussion you’ve had here! I wish I could participate more but I struggle with words so much even in my own language and expressing myself in English is even harder.
I did have this thought though:
I believe that it’s an important part of growing up to understand that loving someone – being it familial love or romantic love or love between friends or what have you – doesn’t mean that you have to blindly defend everything they say or do. That you can love a person just as much as before and be ready and willing to stand by them through thick and thin and still acknowledge what they did or said was wrong and that consequences must be faced.
Sounds to me that there was an opportunity missed with this book to examine this theme.
An excellent comment – and your English is wonderful!
Thank you – I’m glad you think so! :)
38 years on this planet and it still sometimes takes me by surprise how fast everything on the Internet happens. When I read this review of yours there were only a few comments. By the time I’d processed the information from the review, figured out what I think and what I want to say and how to put it into words, this whole huge discussion had happened here. It was definitely one of the times when having a brain that works the way it does (I am autistic) was more frustrating than usual, but I am glad I was able to participate at least a little. And reading what other people have said (and say as the discussion continues) has certainly given me a lot to think about which is wonderful. This is a very important topic.
(I apologize that this comment contributes nothing to the actual conversation. I just felt it would’ve been terribly rude to leave such kind words without an answer.)
I read TJ Klune’s book, The House in the Cerulean Sea, and it was exactly what I needed for these times. It was a gentle story about kids and nurturing and good people. It was a beautiful world. If this book seems like it might be problematic, please read The House in the Cerulean Sea.
I picked up this book on the strength of THITCS and that’s my exact rec for people who want more of Klune.
“His father punched an arrestee who mocked his dead wife. Police brutality is not okay, and teenagers are not likely to enjoy seeing a hero excuse his dad’s actions. Worse, there is actually a police brutality joke thrown into the middle of the story by Nick.”
The joke sounds like an awful idea, under any circumstances. And I dislike books where the “hero” hits out as his go-to reaction. In this book, I would expect the father, as a police officer, to be reprimanded possibly. Maybe event put on administrative leave pending a psych evaluation.
But I’m genuinely curious about something, based on the way you wrote your review. The father hits out because the arrestee disparages the father’s dead wife. If the father had not been a police officer–if the father had been a rodeo cowboy or a rancher, a wrestler, a motorcycle club member—would your rating still be a D?
This is my question, as well.
I can’t speak for Lisa, but wouldn’t the circumstances be different if the hero was a rodeo cowboy or a rancher, a wrestler, or a motorcycle club member? Most importantly because, unless one of those heroes had made a citizen’s arrest, there would not be an arrestee involved. Yes, I agree that in many romances—especially featuring tough alpha heroes—a punch or two may be thrown between said hero and another guy, but when that happens one of those men is not in the custody of the other and both guys usually get some punches in. The imbalance of power and the inability of the arrestee to defend himself are what makes the scene in this book so appalling.
I haven’t read the book and I agree with you about this case. I do wonder, though, about Lisa’s assertion that we can’t venerate cops… at all. I’m always uncomfortable with grouping all of a group together and calling them evil. I definitely could still read a book featuring a police person who used their power for good.
“I’m always uncomfortable with grouping all of a group together and calling them evil.”
Same here, Dabney. I’m glad I wasn’t the first person to make a comment to this effect on the controversial issues surrounding police work. We do, unfortunately, live in a world where police are needed. For all the cries of “Defund the police,” I’m sorry, but social workers can’t solve everything. They could definitely be employed more often and teach de-escalation techniques, but they aren’t an adequate complete substitute for police as some people are suggesting in certain circles. There has to be a balance.
Personally, I think too much of police work has moved away from the neighborhood cop on the beat model to paramilitary, which is not a good thing. Plus, society has become more and more of a nanny state in certain ways, particularly in regard to things being licensed and regulated to death, which makes for more and more jailable offenses. Decriminalizing all acts committed in private between and among consenting adults (prostitution, recreational drug use, etc.) would go a long way to emptying our jails of nonviolent offenders. Portugal, I understand, has had quite a bit of success not punishing adult recreational drug users. And approximately half the world (last I checked) does not jail or fine adults who exchange sex for money. So my ideas are not without working precedent. When the USA, which is supposedly the land of the free and home of the brave, has the highest incarceration rate in the world, that means something is seriously wrong with the systems and laws as they exist. Police are part of that system, but a lot of times, they are the result rather than the cause of these problems.
On the other hand, police deal with humanity at its absolute worst as part of their job description. This isn’t an argument to defend police who abuse their power and suspects, but there is a lot of ugliness they have to deal with on a day to day basis that most of us here at AAR are probably fortunate enough to be sheltered from. And don’t get me started on how many police are largely helpless to enact change from within. If you don’t believe me, ask Frank Serpico…
I’m sure some people could. Unfortunately, with the world being as it is at the moment, I doubt young readers want to hear about doo-gooding police officers.
It’s important to note that Klune has apologized for the lack of nuance with this character in the book on the blog, and gone on to shelve a book featuring an abusive police character in an upcoming release:
http://www.tjklunebooks.com/new-blog/2020/7/29/a-message-about-the-extraordinaries
To me, it doesn’t, though, matter about what young readers want to hear about. (And many young readers are conservative.) I think a grade has to exist outside of the culture in some ways.
That argument would lead to no one wants to read a book about a politician–they’re less liked than the police. But many politicians are heroes and books about them are still being published and enjoyed.
…Dabney, this is a YA book directed at teenagers. That’s what I factored that in when I graded the book. Some adults will read YA, true, but the majority of people who will be reading this book are young people. It’s teenagers who raised the alarm about the content in it in the first place.
I know a bunch of young people who are interested in being police, fire fighters, ROTC, Marines, Coast Guard, etc….
Not all YA readers are the same. There is no monolithic culture at any age.
That said, you are exactly right that young people are far more–as they always have been–liberal than the older generations in general.
You may indeed, and that’s fine. But I know many kids who fall within the age range of who’ve been out protesting every night all summer. It’s a nuanced subject. I was, perhaps, not nuanced – but many book reviews, similarly, are not.
I just thought it was odd to say “I don’t care what young readers want to read about” when I’m reviewing a YA book!
I couldn’t agree more. Book reviews are unique and reflect the values of the reviewer. I’ve really enjoyed both reading this one and reading responses to it. Thank you.
Thanks for posting the author’s thoughts on this. I read them and am frankly concerned with some of Klune’s conclusions. For example, “Aaron was briefly suspended and then demoted down to patrol officer, but it wasn’t enough. Officers who act violently toward civilians should lose their jobs and face charges, end of story.”
Well, that might be ideal but is in no way reflective of reality. Because of the systemic problems we have been discussing on this forum, police, unfortunately, have the power to get away with a lot. Granted, this novel is sort of in the fanciful realm anyway (the way I understood the description; it’s about superheroes, right?), but wouldn’t the officer losing his job hit a false note (i.e. feel completely unrealistic even within the confines of the genre)? I don’t know. Just something to think about.
Also, “And in case you need to know what side that is, I’m the author and these are my words: I do not condone police violence, and I fully support defunding the police.”
Here’s my question, what does Klune believe these defunded police should be replaced with? While I agree drastic reforms are necessary (see my post above), too many would-be reformers do not lay out specific plans to offer an adequate replacement for the system they decry. I’ve really only heard some vague ideas about employing more social workers, but like I’ve said before, they’re not equipped to deal with everything.
This reminds me of when mental hospitals around the country were closed because of abuse, forcible treatment, and other scandals. While it is certainly a good thing that people can no longer be committed for dubious diagnoses like “hysteria,” what about people who suffer from terrible mental illness that makes them unable to function in daily life? The noble, sweeping reforms didn’t really address that beyond “immediate danger to self or others.” Too often, this means that someone with a violent, psychotic outburst (often times because they have hit the brink due to going without any mental health care for so long) is taken to the hospital and then put back on the street within hours without adequate follow-up or a place for them to go. Or put in jail, which doesn’t solve their medical problem. Likewise, we can’t just “defund the police” without a sustainable follow-up plan in case that actually happens.
Personally, I think that if there is any division of the police that needs to be defunded, it’s vice cops. Frankly, I think it’s sick and wrong when police- who should be working to stop violent crime- set up drug and prostitution stings. I remember feeling sick to my stomach when I saw a documentary that followed this female police officer disguised as a prostitute who gloated as she lured forty johns to a motel and arrested them. Oh, yeah, I can sleep really well at night knowing that forty sad, lonely, entrapped men are rotting in jail at taxpayer expense with ruinous criminal records when those cells should instead be filled with violent criminals like, you know, murderers and bank robbers and the like? Ugh… Rant over.
The book is about an idealized world where superheros, police and average citizens work together to fight crime. The reason why Klune declaimed the book is because they feel it doesn’t reflect reality properly the mood of the moment, less than they perfectly want to replicate what would happen to an officer in such a situation. I doubt their main concern is reflecting reality here.
I’m not going to wonder what Klune’s personal motives for doing what they’ve done with the book and to declaim their own work. That’s their choice to do so.
The simplest answer is the one I truck with – for nonviolent crimes, send in medical personnel and counseling services. For violent crime, retrain the police to handle high-pressure situations. Cut the level of budget and personnel and put the funding into social programs that decrease crime levels and increase human happiness. The repeated problem here is ludicrously high amounts of excessive force used during arrests because police officers are forced to meet a ridiculously high quota of arrests to justify the astronomical size of their budgets. In my opinion, of course.
(And the racism involved, of course) (Can’t forget that).
“The book is about an idealized world where superheros, police and average citizens work together to fight crime. The reason why Klune declaimed the book is because they feel it doesn’t reflect reality properly the mood of the moment, less than they perfectly want to replicate what would happen to an officer in such a situation. I doubt their main concern is reflecting reality here.”
Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn’t sure about the plot based on many of the descriptions I read. (My reading comprehension skills suck from time to time.) In that case, yes, I definitely understand Klune’s comments a lot better.
As for real life crime, it sounds like you and I share a lot of the same ideas. Medical personnel and counseling services for those who need it, police for high-pressure situations that can’t be solved otherwise. Arrest and ticket quotas are absolutely tyrannical.
It’s all right!
Sadly, there isn’t any interest at the vast majority of government to spend on trained non-police for these things. Additionally, there is nothing EMTs like less than getting called into legal disputes.
So I don’t realistically see a world where we bring in medical and/or trained counselors into legal confrontations. I am a huge believer in retraining the police as well as in investing in conflict resolution experts to handle fraught confrontations. But in a US where municipal budgets are cut to the bone, I haven’t much hope in investment in new professionals.
In a major city near where I live, the police department began retraining how they’d handle conflicts and arrests and police/citizen violence is way down as is the public’s perception of the police. It hasn’t solved the problem but it’s made me hopeful that police budgets can be redirected to a force that protects all the community it serves.
Yeah, it’s a tough conundrum, isn’t it? The more I comment here and think about it, the more I think we’re at the brink. So many things are beyond fixable at this point…
I had a longer reply ready to go last night but decided to sit on it. Now, instead, I’ll just say the following:
Lisa’s first sentence begins “It’s the worst possible time to release a book that glorifies the police force – not that there was or will ever be a good time for that, for all obvious reasons –”
I should have picked up on that bias right away. To Lisa, the police are the Bad Guys. She doesn’t even need to explain, right, because it’s “obvious”.
To be clear, I agree that police departments have their share of issues and should not be glorified.
But I also believe the majority of cops strive to do a good job at keeping the peace and protecting citizens in a lawful manner.
Countless times, every day, officers around the U.S. risk their lives to prevent a shooting, a suicide, an assault, a mugging, a burglary, a kidnapping. You just won’t see these thousands of positive actions on your national news.
BTW, in my city, a young cop was recently killed when he responded to a call about a shooting. As he searched for a victim at the location, the perp appeared and shot him dead. I did not see this on the national news. For obvious reasons.
Maybe Klune’s book does unreasonably glorify police, I’ll never know. But since the reviewer already has a bias, I’m not taking her word for it.
******
I also want to say that in Klune’s apology statement, which you can read here (and in which he apologizes for releasing a book that portrays cops positively, I’m not making that up), he says “I do not condone police violence, and I fully support defunding the police.”
Not sure why Klune wasted his time writing a novel “glorifying” a profession he apparently loathes.
Well stated, stl-reader. At the risk of igniting a firestorm, I recently read a rather damning article about the crime rates in major cities versus police on civilian violence. Dr. Walter E. Williams, economics professor at George Mason University, outlines some shocking statistics here: http://walterewilliams.com/the-true-plight-of-black-americans/.
Yes, there are problems with police departments, as you say, but there are other issues being swept under the rug. For example, the extraordinary amounts of gang violence in certain major cities and lousy public school education systems that make a lot of these criminals unemployable to begin with.
I’m sad to say things look like they’re heading to the point of no return. Trying to fix this little thing or that little thing seems about as effective as picking snowflakes out of an avalanche…
We are talking about police brutality. We are talking about violence committed by people who are supposed to protect citizens shooting or choking Black people to death. Jacob Blake was shot in the back. He was not armed, not part of a gang. You want to move the discussion to another field, changing the focus away from the police.
Thank you very much for saying this.
Thank you for *your* comments.
“You want to move the discussion to another field, changing the focus away from the police.”
Yes, I 100% agree police brutality is a big problem. But it is sadly one of many interconnected major problems that are not easily solved. Like I said, picking snowflakes out of an avalanche. I’m terribly, terribly discouraged about so many things…
One way to solve problems is to focus on them rather than derailing. Maybe ask yourself why you’re so excited to have an opportunity to talk about something else that distracts from the topic at hand, which is, again, police brutality.
I agree that focusing on problems is a good way to solve them. But it doesn’t work for me when so many of those problems are inextricably connected and intertwined. I think we both agree things are a tangled mess, to say the least.
When people have been protesting on the streets for months because of one specific problem, maybe we should focus on that.
Woah, why are we getting into the “but black communities are riddled with crime?” fallacy stuff when the discussion is about racial profiling and police violence?
Also I do not need to hear white economics experts (?!?) of all things go on about what’s happening in communities they’re not even a part of.
Let’s stay on-topic, please.
I was more referring to the fact that we’re on roughly the fourth month of anti-police protests in most major cities sparked by brutality connected to several major incidents of violent crime and we’ve had police officers inundate people protesting peacefully with teargas.
The trouble with “but but most police officers are good people!” thinking is that it does not properly act to punish those involved Funny how those ‘bad apples’ are never adequately punished, and the “good apples” never stand up and make noise about them.
If you think that didn’t receive coverage – local or otherwise – than you’re not looking on the right websites.
I linked that apology above. I invite you to check out Goodreads, where multiple young readers have called out the material for what it is. Or read it yourself. I’ve never said I’m a monolith, and I’m always in favor of paying authors.
I should alert you to the fact that you clearly have your own biases, as someone who failed to bother to properly read the first sentence of a review you’re complaining about before trying the “gotcha!” fallacy.
“Funny how those ‘bad apples’ are never adequately punished, and the “good apples” never stand up and make noise about them.”
I’m sorry to say there’s something called the “blue line of silence,” which unfortunately makes it darn near impossible for “good apples” to bring “bad apples” to justice. Frank Serpico, now in his 80s, still writes articles about this sort of thing. Just for refreshers, this is the cop who took on police corruption and got shot in the face for it. He ended up living abroad for years until things cooled down.
I think of it like this. Most Americans are good people, even though the US military does some terrible things to people living abroad. I know of Americans who have been attacked overseas just for being Americans (because to a lot of people, American = bad) or were advised to pretend to be Canadians during politically tense times. It’s not an exact comparison by any means, but what if somebody said to an American, “If you were a good person, you’d do something to stop the meddling US military from bombing poor Afghani goatherders!” Of course, that makes no sense. Your average American can’t do jack tar about high level, systemic corruption of that magnitude any more than an average neighborhood cop can reform the system he inhabits. And a lot of these young, working class guys have families to support. They can’t risk taking a bullet to the face like Serpico for speaking out.
And you’ve just explained why people are protesting. If the “blue line of silence” remains intact, things will never get better for either the “good apples” or the people protesting – people want to enact change, and protest is a way to do it. Just going “oh well, gotta feed my kids, must ignore all of these people dying on my watch” helps no one. It’s nice to have faith in the goodness of others but it’s hard to maintain that faith when the cycle repeats, generation after generation.
I agree peaceful protest is a laudable thing. Protests have enacted positive change in many areas (getting rid of segregation, getting rid of the military draft, etc.) But I am rather sick and tired of seeing cities literally on fire from riots, vandalism, and looting rather than protests. Yeah, yeah. I’ve heard it’s a few bad apples and there have been some arrests that shouldn’t reflect on the peaceful protesters. But why am I still hearing about broken shop windows and dumpster fires with ineffectual mayors sitting back and letting their cities fall to ruin? Combine that with cries of “defund the police,” and what am I supposed to think?
“Just going ‘oh well, gotta feed my kids, must ignore all of these people dying on my watch’ helps no one.” You’re right. But that’s the way things often go, whether we like it or not. I admit without reservation that I am a big coward with enough problems of my own. And frankly, so are a lot of people. I’ve taken a lot of Joey Diaz’s advice to heart, “You’ve just got to live as best you can in the system you’re given” as well as George Carlin’s, “Have no stake in the outcome. Enjoy the front row ticket to the freak show.” Sad and pathetic, I know.
On a parting note, I’m reminded of something a fireman told me about a lot of the current situation. There’s a name for it among cops, fireman, teachers, paramedics, and pretty much anybody else who has to deal with the sad and sordid day-to-day issues we’re finally seeing in the mainstream: “compassion fatigue.” There simply comes a point where people who started off as starry-eyed idealists get ground down a little day by day by problems and corruption that never get any closer to being solved to the point where it just becomes, “Gotta feed my kids. The heck with everything and everybody else because dang it, I tried. And it’s useless. Things never get any better. And I’m so damn tired.”
I guess I started off that way too, as one of those “I’m going to change the world for the better!” starry-eyed idealist types, long before writing erotica was even a consideration. Some days, I still have moments like that, but it’s fading fast. The world, with all its entwined issues bound to hit an explosion point, feels like it’s closing in. So, forgive me if it sounds like I’m derailing conversations by bringing all these other topics into the mix. Because, frankly, they are in the mix, and good luck separating them into completely separate issues. The world is, for lack of a better term, a certifiable mess.
For now, I’m done with this thread. It’s been interesting, enlightening, and thought-provoking. But I know when it’s too emotionally exhausting and depressing for me to continue, and it’s time for me to take my leave. There’s an MM scene of two characters making out on the couch while watching a softcore porno that I need to get back to writing. Yeah, it’s just silly smut. But I like to think it will bring some sad, lonely reader a smile and a glimmer of happiness, a little break from all these tough issues driving the world into the ground. Right now, I think it’s the best way I can help- small, silly, and frivolous as it is.
Signing off with warm regards,
Nan De Plume
I don’t know how to tell you that a lot of the fires and looting you’re seeing happen have been committed by agitators using the protest situation as a reason to stoke anti-protester sentiment and/or foolish people looking for attention on social media. This has both been proven by the video footage taken by protesters on the street later posted to their social media and by witness testimonies. I’ve seen footage of protesters shouting at and sometimes literally physically preventing people from throwing incendiary devices. Perhaps you should avoid getting your news from certain media outlets. It’s like saying CHAZ and CHOP are lawless warzones filled with violence when the only charges that the police could come up to press against protesters occupying the area were related to graffiti sprayed on walls.
I think that’s where you and the protesters divide. They’re in it for the fight, and you – perhaps understandably on your part – are just done with the fight. But that doesn’t mean either party is wrong.
Ultimately, it’s easy to feel hopeless. But we do experience incremental improvements through action as time goes on. If we did not, LGBTQ folks couldn’t marry. I’d be drinking out of a different water fountain as a Black person.
And as for the “BUT BUT DOES LISA HAVE ANTI-POLICE BIAS AND DOES THAT INTERFERE WITH HER ABILITY TO REVIEW FICTION?!” I have given several B and A reviews to romances with cop heroes and heroines. I review YA in a different way than I review general and/or romance fiction.
Thanks so much for your input Lisa, you’ve articulately so perfecty the major problems with romanticizing the police force at this point in time. It is also interesting that the ‘it’s only a few bad apples’ argument is always brought up in relation to police brutality, but when it comes to protests, people are so quick to pounce on the looting. This can lead (perhaps inadvertently) to a false equivalence; namely that the lives of black people can somehow be equated with the loss of buildings or businesses.
„I’m always uncomfortable with grouping all of a group together and calling them evil.“
This is something that has come up before, and it sounds to me like you are looking at it differently than the activists who are criticizing the police (or Republicans ;) ). It isn’t about painting all cops with the same brush and calling every single cop evil, but if an institution (not sure that is the right word?) like the police is completely failing the people it’s supposed to be serving, it isn’t enough to just pick out a few perpetrators. That is what is meant by the problem being a systemic problem – the way the police is set up makes it easy for cops to abuse their power, and at this moment in time a book about the police that doesn’t deal with police brutality is pretty much propaganda. It all depends on the context, but there is also the question of necessity- is this the book we need right now? Do we need stories with cops as heroes?
I don’t know how to best phrase what I mean, but every time you say some like the above, it invites comments that derail the conversation. I get the feeling you sincerely have the best intentions, but it’s like saying „All lives matter“ in response to „Black lives matter“ – sure they do, but that’s not the point. Of course there are some cops that are good, but that’s not the point. When people criticize the police, it’s not about the individual cops, but the fact that they are part of an abusive system.
Sure, there are many who believe the police are irredeemably bad. But only 15% of Americans support defunding the police. The majority do support reforming the police but tossing them out of hand is not popular.
I look at it like this. I am profoundly anti-gun. But I can read a book and even enjoy it if a lead is a gun owner I can respect.
There is, however, strong unilateral support for changing the way police conduct their jobs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/abolish-police-gallup-poll/
I completely agree. And police unions must change.
But changing the way police interact with society and believing that all police need to go are two very different things. Most everyone supports the former while most do not the latter.
That’s where nuance comes in. Nuance doesn’t exist, tragically, when people are suffering, which is why the language of the protest is the way it is. People who are protesting are yearning for justice and redress. Actually puzzling out how something like that would work would come later.
While some people mean “getting rid of the police” when they say,”defund,” in truth it is a lot more complex than that. The majority of what I’ve read about defunding the police deals with diverting additional funds into community programs like fair housing, homlessness, food insecurity, good schools, job creation, accessible healthcare, etc. One reporter made the point that “defunding police” looks a lot like suburban America, where, due to some degree of economic security, police forces are not militarized.
It should also be noted that becoming a social worker or a therapist takes 4 to 6 years of college. It is unreasonable to think police can be trained to handle crisis intervention as well as the professionals can. This is another “defund the police” goal, to divert funds from police militarization to hiring social workers to accompany cops on domestic calls and crisis intervention.
This is another of my soap boxes–police should be required to get a degree and a lot more training than is now required. It takes more time to be a licensed cosmetologist than a policeman. That in no way is a diss at cosmetologists, btw, just an example. Any profession that holds the life and health of people in their hands should be he held to high standards. Becoming a licensed cop should require at least an Associate Degree and regular re-certification at a minimum. And there needs to be a better way of screening out bullies, who seem to like careers that give them control over other people.
“co-sign”
Excellent comment!
I agree with a lot of what your post says, particularly about systemic problems. (I have a couple of posts on this above.) But I disagree with these lines, “It all depends on the context, but there is also the question of necessity- is this the book we need right now? Do we need stories with cops as heroes?”
In regard to the idea of “necessity” in entertainment, I am reminded of Ayn Rand’s criticism of the term, in which she said something like, “By that argument, what does man need beyond a club, a cave, and a bearskin?”
Now, should there be stories with cops as heroes? I say, “why not?” For me, everything is about context. As for need, I suppose there are a lot of people who would see my adult work and argue, “Does there really need to be a series about three robber lovers who spank each other back at the hideout?” Well, not really. But some people want to read it.
Sorry if I’m getting picky about grammar and semantics. But as an author, this is an important issue to me. I always get a little worried when critics say things like, “Does this book need to exist?” Well, I don’t think any book needs to exist. But the fact remains, it does. And people can choose whether or not they want to read it.
You have to think of the target audience here. Erotica and YA are totally different markets, and teenagers who raised the alarm about this book are unlikely to be the kind of people reading your stories.
When the author says they regret a book’s existence, I think it’s important to believe the author.
And that is why book reviews exist in general.
Yes, I definitely agree with you about target audience. YA is an iffy area, especially considering so many adults read it, plus the target audience is so broad (12-18 is a huge developmental age range, and yet they are all classified as YA books).
But my comment specifically referred to the argument that certain books are not needed vs wanted or unwanted vs shouldn’t be. I say this argument applies regardless of the type of literature being discussed. It’s just idea of Is this book needed? that rubbed me the wrong way for reasons that I laid out in my comment. Plus, I have seen similar arguments applied to literature clearly written for adults, so it was more of a general concern of mine.
“When the author says they regret a book’s existence, I think it’s important to believe the author.”
Klune may be sincere in regret, but I don’t know the author so I have no way of knowing for certain. I am skeptical, not of Klune so much, but when I see a pattern of authors in various genres suddenly regretting work they’ve published as soon as people criticize it on the internet. There’s a lot of diplomatic damage control that goes on with a lot of authors these days. Some is sincere; some is frantic butt-covering.
“And that is why book reviews exist in general.”
Yes, of course. And I think you and the other reviewers at AAR do a great job at actually reviewing and laying out your concerns rather than blasting firestorm remarks on certain social media platforms. Please keep up the good work.
As I’ve said before, I vetted Lisa’s review and I think it’s a good one. I don’t have to agree with its premise to believe that discussions such as these as well as Lisa’s insights improve us all.
I’m glad we’ve been able to have an open dialogue here at AAR. :)
It’s less “does this book need to exist” versus “do teenagers, at this time and place, really want to read a book like this?”
I’m going to judge the author at their word here, and not the word you think they’re giving because you believe they’ve been pressured into giving it.
„Klune may be sincere in regret, but I don’t know the author so I have no way of knowing for certain. I am skeptical, not of Klune so much, but when I see a pattern of authors in various genres suddenly regretting work they’ve published as soon as people criticize it on the internet. There’s a lot of diplomatic damage control that goes on with a lot of authors these days. Some is sincere; some is frantic butt-covering.“
This is complete speculation on your part. I hope I can manage to put this in a way that isn’t violating the policy here, but this is a very disingenuous way of taking part in a discussion. This is a discussion of this particular book, this particular author, this particular topic. It’s not about a pattern of other authors doing „diplomatic damage control“, which is a statement you make without any proof, but you cleverly make it seem like Klune is doing that while pretending to say the opposite.
“but you cleverly make it seem like Klune is doing that while pretending to say the opposite.”
I speculate about a lot of things. The chronic affliction of a skeptic, I suppose. :) But if Klune feels regret for writing The Extraordinaires, fine. It is quite possible, and I have no trouble taking that at face value.
“It’s not about a pattern of other authors doing „diplomatic damage control“, which is a statement you make without any proof…”
You’re correct that I don’t have any proof beyond my own observations. But I do know a lot of people in real life, the kind who will take you into their confidence in whispers over the counter at their small business, who will confess all kinds of “damage control” measures to that effect. The kind who will say to me, “Look, you and I know (insert policy here) is bull—-, but I have to do it. You know?” So, concrete evidence? No. But that’s because many people live in fear.
Or, maybe, some people mess up, and when people point it out to them, are capable to admit it. But that’s not the point, the point is you are once again trying to move the discussion to a subject you’re more comfortable with.
“Or, maybe, some people mess up, and when people point it out to them, are capable to admit it.”
That’s certainly true. And good for Klune, if that’s the case. Let’s hope it is. But for me, it’s like the old saying, “Having worked in the kitchen, I know better than to eat in the restaurant.” Only in my case it’s more, “Having worked in sales, I know better to take anything someone selling a product says at face value.”
Really though, whether I believe Klune or not shouldn’t matter. Klune has made a statement, and so have I. I’d rather leave the matter there.
„And that is why book reviews exist in general.“
I couldn’t agree more with this. And I think it is a question worth asking, especially if we’re talking about traditional publishing, where there are a limited number of spots available. (But really, it applies to all kinds of writing. )There is maybe no question of necessity for an author to write a book, but as a reader my question is, Do I need to read this? And reviews and criticism are a means to find an answer to that question.
And speaking as a bookseller, I always ask, Do I need to order this and display it – space is limited, after all.
Like even when the author themself is saying “no, made an error” you have to factor that stuff in.
Also thank you for your comments on this thread!
I just want to say, I think this is a particularly important & valid observation.
I see what you’re saying, DiscoDollyDeb, but then I would have to see the full context. Is the arrestee formally under arrest at the time, for example, or is this prior to being arrested? TBH, I would need to more context by which to judge.
Without more context, I still question the rating drop from B+ to D. Obviously, everyone isn’t going to agree.
I don’t know that I’d question it–obviously I didn’t–but it’s not a call I think I’d have made with my limited knowledge of the book.
Let me clarify: I was responding to a specific question that perhaps I misinterpreted. The question seemed to be asking if the book’s grade would have been lowered if the father were not a cop and had taken a swing at a person who insulted his late wife. I was addressing the fact that it makes a difference that the father is indeed a cop and, in the course of performing his job, physically attacked a person who (if I’m reading Lisa’s review correctly) was under arrest and in his (the father’s) custody. I was not addressing whether the grade should have been lowered based solely on the fact that the father is a cop. I’ve read lots of romances with LEO heroes and supporting characters, but I don’t recall any of them presenting physical assault of a detainee as a positive thing.
You’ve interpreted the review correctly, not to worry.
He was under arrest and then struck the person, but to be frank, even if he wasn’t under arrest the fact that he loses his temper that way and yet is venerated for it is uncomfortable, and Klune recognized that in a recent blog post. Otherwise, I’m going to let my review and the grade stand and avoid participating in its interrogation.
I completely think you should let your review and your grade stand! Every reviewer reviews the world through her lens. And we are all made better by seeing the lens of others. I am grateful for this conversation–and your review–because it’s given me something to consider.
You’re absolutely correct, and this was in part my reasoning for the grade.