Crude and Clueless? If so, I’m sorry.
The column I wrote on Friday that, among other things, listed serious and silly suggestions for a series AAR is planning on heroines raised the ire of many. Readers felt the list was, just to mention a few flaws, misogynistic, guilty of gross stereotyping, and offensive. They asked if AAR has changed its “netiquette” policy (the answer is no) and if we planned to continue to use “hateful” and “shaming” language. Several have requested we apologize.
I am not speaking here for AAR–I write these words on my own. I would reiterate I am proud of our staff. These women spend the hours they do reading and writing because they love romance and want to share their love and insights with the world. They’re an impressive bunch and I am privileged, upon occasions (such as Friday’s column), to speak for the group.
That’s not what I’m doing here. This is just me.
If you were appalled by what I wrote, I apologize. If you felt my language was an attack or an insult, I’m sorry. It’s clear to me I didn’t give the words I typed enough thought. Nor did I do a good job of explaining where the suggestions I wrote came from or how unlikely it is AAR would pick a title worthy of South Park.
Furthermore, though I opted, after a brief foray into the comment stream, not to remain part of the discussion there, I have read all of the comments (as well as those in the forums) and I am thinking about them. I’ve learned from what’s been said and I plan to, simply, do better next time.
Now there’s a real possibility I will fail at the above goal. Not because I don’t care about the issues raised. I do. But I care equally about freedom of speech and what that freedom means to me is often unpopular.
I’m betting AAR, however, will do a better job. My inbox is overflowing with thoughtful commentary from the staff, all of whom are thinking hard about how to say what we want to say in a way that is inclusive and aware. Their suggestions and insights are compassionate and nuanced. I promise you, those women rock.
We have yet to find the right name for our column. Captivating or Contemptible? has supporters but others feel that there are heroines such as Amy, the female protagonist of Gone Girl, who are both of those things. Today we’ve been considering Nonpareil or No Way? I think the title is still a work in progress.
Incomparable or icky? Best ever or big bummer? Splendid or scummy?
What do you suggest?
Dabney Grinnan
Could I vote for Diamond or Dud, as the title. My preference is to avoid pejorative slang like skank or douchebag etc in the title. It appears the consensus is that a binary system is limiting and I thought Eggletina’s post explained that well. That said, I thought the purpose of the discussion was to consider some “”favourite”” heroes (previous topic) /heroines(future discussion) and to hear people’s opinions on whether, on the balance of positive and negatives character traits and actions whether he/she is a keeper (diamond) or a non-keeper (dud). For example I don’t mind if a heroine does something foolish (we are all guilty of occasional foolish actions) but if she keeps doing foolish things she goes into the area of TSTL and,for me as a reader, that is a deal breaker and I consider her a dud. Some female protagonists I would like to see discussed include Eve Dallas (In Death series), Elizabeth Bennet (Pride and Prejudice), any Jane Austen heroine, any Georgette Heyer heroine, heroines from SEP books, Jennifer Crusie heroines, Claire (Outlander), Scarlett O’Hara, Bronte heroines…..the list goes on. Bring it on!
it seems to me that some are hyper sensitive. Attempting to be respectful to all will, imo, stiffle discussion on hero/heroine characteristics.
I think many are *sensitive* to demeaning language. I think *sensitivity* is helpful. The word “”hyper”” though is a perception and not one I share.
Attempting to be respective in my experiences increases respect and diversity. Nothing has stifled discussion more than the hateful words used. It has brought discussion about characters virtually to a halt, as you can see from the last couple of blogs, and I can’t see productive character analysis occurring under the terms that the AAR staff has been using. I, for one, welcome productive character analysis, as long as it is not rooted in dehumanizing terms.
“”respectful”” – not “”respective””! I wish there was an edit feature on the blogs :)
Sue,
Thank you for all of your comments. You are not alone in your position.
I am saddened that there seem to be lots of women out there who don’t see themselves as feminists. What is a feminist but a person who wants equality for all? How can anyone be opposed to or ashamed of that?
Is that what feminism is? I’ve found that political Femists reject women who don’t embrace their liberal political beliefs which is why some women reject being labeled as feminists.
I feel like you’re trolling….if not I apologize.
Regarding your last comment: Do you mean “”radical feminism””? Because “”political feminism”” is a theory mostly about gender relations that are impacted by public policies.
I reject other peoples political beliefs everyday…..most people loyal to one party or another do, but it doesn’t mean it’s a feminist or anti-feminist reaction. There are Christian, Muslim, Republican and Libertarian (some of them men) who refer to themselves as feminists. It’s not just a Liberal thought…..it spans all walks and this is why:
Feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to men. (wiki)
What’s not to like about that?
First i’m not trolling only pointing out why some reject the label feminist. I blame those who claim to be Feminist leaders for making the word Feminist a negative for some.
AAR – why don’t you have the guts to apologize without conditions? An apology that begins with “”If”” is a copout. “”If you were appalled,”” “”If you felt my language was an attack,”” imply that you don’t believe they were appalling. Maybe you don’t, in which case that’s disappointing.
A more persuasive apology is straightforward: I am sorry for the words I wrote. They offended. (And there is no question that they offended many.)
Agreed completely. This is basically “”I’m sorry you were offended””, not “”I’m sorry I posted something that on reflection I realise was problematic””, and therefore to me, the apology is worthless.
Because sexist terms were used to describe women. Feminism can and often is a logical response.
Not all think skank is a sexist term. Its a slang term yes.
It can also be both positive and negative depending on if one likes promiscuity or doen’t like it.
Well if this was a feminst romance blog I would be more understable about the outrage over the word Skank.
Kinda glad I don’t link my Goodreads page because my shelves are quite descriptive when it comes to describing heroine behavior and I’m sure many here won’t approve of it.
“”Skank”” is a word applied to women to imply promiscuity and to suggest that promiscuity is ugly. Words that are feminized and applied to women only and used simultaneously to denigrate are sexist terms. The way that the blog was set up was to contrast good women from bad women and “”skank”” was clearly used as a bad term. I think we’ve covered this pretty exhaustively now in a couple of blogs.
Some people may well feel content to use derogatory terms to insult women, but clearly many here are not – hence the debate.
For some readers promiscuity in heroines is ugly and so the word skank is their opinion of that.
what word should have been used instead? Perhaps posters should have offered alternatives instead of demanding an apology. but that’s just my opinion.
“”Skank”” means more than just promiscuity though. The word combines promiscuity with dirtiness, and that makes it particularly insulting to women. To me there is also class baiting in the term, as well as misogyny.
What word should have been used instead? Perhaps words not meant to alienate or insult – there are an abundance of them in the English language.
Should posters offer an alternative? Some did and their proposals seemed fine. My proposed alternative was to do away with the gimmicky binary construction that reduces characters to one-dimensional stereotypes, perhaps just choose a character’s name. I don’t really care though about titles, unless they are offensive and rude. Again, all of this has already been hashed out in both blogs.
Some posters wanted an apology. Not all did though. I don’t have an interest in an apology, just a more respectful way for moving forward, which I actually think could happen given the large number of posters making their voices heard.
Oh, jeepers- now we have beaten this horse to death. Let’s just get on with it, whatever you call it, and see if we can over-analyze it and repeat ourselves ad nauseum until the next mad thing hits the fan. Reading romance used to be so simple….
It’s easy to apologize for making people feel uncomfortable.
You’re very humble and I admire that!
Hugs!
Um..how would you even know? Unless I missed something,the “”particular blog series”” on heroines hasn’t even started running yet.
Frankly, I enjoy the mix of raw enthusiasm and willingness to reexamine “”classic”” books and genre sacred cows I find regularly at AAR and I’m looking forward to seeing what the series ends up being.
I already responded to this question above, but again, my reference was to the series that has been posted since July. The female version has not yet started, as we all know, but is intended to be a continuation/elaboration, more or less, of what has already been started, according to Friday’s blog. My point about the use of derogatory and simplistic titles to describe female characters is that they are derogatory and simplistic – not a reclaiming or subversion of patriarchy, as they were presented to us on Friday. Will they be in the future? Who knows! I haven’t seen evidence yet that is happening, based on the cavalier use of “”douchebag”” and other terms in the series, but it would be nice to see, if there are in fact posters intent on still using such terminology. Maybe though we’ll move to a different space and find other ways to debate contradictory and complex characters.
“”Raw enthusiasm”” from last Friday’s “”sister or skank”” blog is one way to put it :) I probably would describe the rawness in less glowing terms.
Still not seeing what the big deal is, but then I consider myself to having a rather broad sense of humor. I’ve noted that some didn’t quite see the context for the humor. Oh well, I guess. If you were offended yet consider yourself fairly broad-humored, play Cards Against Humanity without getting pissed or offended and get back with me.
Quite frankly, I didn’t read anything in the aforementioned article that I haven’t heard come out of a many a woman’s own mouth which could’ve been said in jest or dead on seriousness. I had come across the Dreamboat or Douchebag articles and no one seemed to get upset over it until Rhett Butler’s status came into question and I never felt it was because of the term douchebag, but simply the implication that he could’ve been considered flirting with that status. Even so, there wasn’t this level of upset either way anyone cares to slice it.
So, in the spirit of pissing people off:
Cathy from Wuthering Heights is a Twit!
She will always be a Twit, and nothing about that will ever change! No movie, no actress, no clever re-writes or imaginings.
Ha!
P.S. Why the term ‘Twit’? Because it exemplifies her perfectly and I enjoy calling her a ‘Twit’ because it applies so perfectly. All other terms are either too tame or do not apply.
Ha!
Shiloh : Thank you for a great big laugh this post made my day. Totally second it.
Dabney:I would go for Darling or Diva to start with. Love to read all your posts even if I don’t agree with all. I didn’t love all the Heroines you’d like to have to dinner but it was fun how about a dinner for Heroes.
Happy reading!!!!!
I have been thinking about the heroes dinner. I have a much harder time imagining all men at my dinner table. I’ve been considering an in between–a group of couples I’d like to have over for dinner.
I loathe Catherine from Wuthering Heights. She is so absurdly self-absorbed. I see her as more of a “”Brat.””
But Catherine Earnshaw is such an embodiment of the wild, passionate, iconoclasm of the Romantic movement. At the same time she yearns for social mobility, reducing both men in her life to shells of themselves out of love for her. I would say she is a perfect example of a complicated character, not easily pigeon-holed and reduced to one word. Such a great book to teach because she gets readers really fired up!
I’m late to the party, but for the record:
I’m not a fan of dichotomies either. A person (or character) can be someone in the middle of the spectrum, but focusing on the label pushes him or her to the outer end without considering their other qualities and actions. Humans are complex, multi-faceted creatures and often with conflicting or competing desires and a plethora of reasons and motivations for acting upon them. If someone has a long history of a particular frowned upon behavior then perhaps the label may hold true, but oftentimes labels get applied for one particular instance or a set of circumstances that has been building over a long time and far more complex that a reductive label will ever allow. Plus, I prefer shades of gray in my characters. If a character is painted in broad brushstrokes and the characterization very black and white, I’m likely to become very frustrated with the story or not even finish it. What we’re really doing with labels is judging behavior and giving those behaviors weight. If we’re analyzing character traits, I think more useful examples might be something like comparing:
heroines of agency with those who persevere or
heroines ahead of their time with conventional heroines etc.
I’m sure someone clever could do a much better job at the phrasing or think of more comparisons along that nature.
Why apologize? Did same “”I am offended”” posters become offended over the Rhett Butler Dreamboat or Douchebag thread title? In the romance interweb I’m seeing heroes called manho’s, is that not slut shaming yet call a heroine a skank and its scandal and offense.
I don’t always agree with what Dabney opines but I saw nothing offensive in the thread for which she apologized. It was light hearted and not too serious.
Frankly I like how SmartBitches has taken a word used as an epithet and made a joke out of it.
Erika…””Did same “I am offended” posters become offended over the Rhett Butler Dreamboat or Douchebag thread title? In the romance interweb I’m seeing heroes called manho’s, is that not slut shaming yet call a heroine a skank and its scandal and offense.””
Erika – Yes, I and others found the “”douchebag”” references offensive to men and to women, and we had a lengthy debate there on the “”Rhett”” blog and on later too on the “”Jamie Fraser”” blog. There is actually a bit of a history to this ongoing debate. Go back and scroll down to read if you are interested in that conversation.
Ah, but the discussion did not lead to an apology.
I rather like exploring what character actions are triggers. One thing I like about Goodreads is the shelf names. I’m sure those who are easily offended would like to ban them if they could. For me, its helpful buying guide.
I don’t know if an apology was an expectation though, or at least with me it’s not. I’m just more hopeful instead that dialogue and debate increases rather than decreases respect. If others had an expectation for apologies I can’t really speak that.
Banning an individual person’s library titles? Has anyone ever suggested wanting to ban anything here at AAR? I think all of these discussions were about expressing thoughts, not about “”banning.”” If there is something going on though on Goodreads on that issue, I’m not cognizant of it since I only use it that site to organize my own books and read and post reviews.
I’m not sure dialogue can increase respect but it can make one think.
Too bad Dabney apologized. It was unnecessary imo. The thread did as intended which was made many think.
I see the word feminism used alot by posters here. This is a romance blog not a feminist blog. I write that because I don’t see the word feminist in the blog title so I’m puzzled why posters use the word feminist in their reaction to the thread about Sister or Skank.
This post is addressed not to Dabney, but to blog itself and the community.
I’m willing to accept your apology and even move on from it, but I’m not willing to feel sorry for this blog or the fact I was upset by the post Friday. That post was vulgar, rude and offensive. The blog was then called out on it. Actions have consequences. People have freedom of speech, but they aren’t free from the consequences of speech.
I personally didn’t find it funny and it wasn’t labeled funny. We weren’t in on the “”joke””. Teenage boys sometimes find snapping girl’s bra straps or slapping girls on the butt funny, regardless of how the girl feels. Sometimes if she complains they find it funnier. That’s how I view what happened with that post. The question is should this blog want to be one of these teenage boys or show a little more maturity and sensitivity to the posters and readers?
The twitter stuff should be handled on twitter. I wasn’t on twitter and was unaware of what happened.
I have to agree, Emily, with all you’ve posted.
I didn’t see any context to mark last Friday’s writing as a joke and so I’m finding the joke references a little strange coming after-the-fact.
But I also did not know anything about Twitter conversations and was puzzled by references to personal hostility toward Dabney. I only read the blog responses here at AAR and they all seemed directed at repudiating the proposed language of the new series, not attacks at any reviewer. I’m not on Twitter but I can imagine that personal attacks are unregulated (another good reason to avoid it in the future!).
Very well said, Emily. Thank you.
I think the binary thing is problematic–most short takes on something are. I, both personally and as a critic, find the idea of “”one strike and you’re out”” baffling. One thing I’ve gotten out of the great–and I do think it’s great–conversation Friday’s column has generated–is how hard it is to explore a character in ways that go deeply enough so that exploration resonates as true. It is my hope that, though the titles of our hero and heroine columns are binary, the exploration about the characters isn’t.
Which is the purpose of the blog format since it invites discussion in my opinion. I think in my comments on Rhett Butler, I stated I believed he had both good and bad aspects to his character and explained why I thought that. There is certainly the opportunity to go beyond a good vs. bad binary characterization. I do not believe anyone has had their views censored on this site and I think that the title controversy has actually produced some very interesting and enlightened debate.
Well, since the first blog in dissecting female characters has yet to be written, that is a premature judgment to make (IMO). I am guessing you do not like binary comparisons in general, but I think that the discussions as per the male characters has been more nuanced than that. For example in the Jamie discussion, many were unable to get past the beating in the first book to see if there was a possibility of redemption. While many (myself included) had the long view and took into account the setting/time, etc. before judging Jamie as worthy of hero status.
What specifically would you like to see in terms of a blog that does a character analysis?
Mary – My judgment was in response to the terms used to date and the title of the most recent proposed series.
Binaries in general are pretty simplistic ways to analyze something. That’s not to say that simplistic representations do not exist in writing, but hopefully we’ll be looking at more complex pieces of writing and characters, and so I’m surmising that it will be difficult for me to view complex characters as strictly good or strictly bad but probably somewhere in the middle. I wonder if a binary title encourages readers to align themselves with one camp over another, or does it push readers to move beyond the title? I do think some good discussions of the books exist within the blogs, but I think that happens despite the title.
Oh, and I just want to add before I leave for the night that if the title is not offensive and humiliating, I don’t feel that invested in it and many proposed above are fine for me. My objection was specifically speaking to what I view as denigrating terms used. I will participate regardless because I like discussing books and characters.
“”Binaries in general are pretty simplistic ways to analyze something…. it will be difficult for me to view complex characters as strictly good or strictly bad but probably somewhere in the middle. I wonder if a binary title encourages readers to align themselves with one camp over another, or does it push readers to move beyond the title? I do think some good discussions of the books exist within the blogs, but I think that happens despite the title.””
This exactly. And the titles are just what caused the upset. Why is AAR so set on alliteration for it’s own sake if it offends a portion of its readers? And why is more emphasis being placed on the title than the discussion itself? Having a title that more accurately reflects what is being discussed seems a way to go. I don’t see the avoidance of offending people as a restriction on the freedom of speech or merely political correctness at all. How about something simple like plain ole “”Keeper?”” (with a question mark) for a title for both men and women characters? The feature stays the same and the only loss is the attachment to alliteration which seems to be driving much of this. If an author “”forces”” alliteration in text or if a book has an unfortunate title, wouldn’t a reviewer point that out?
Thanks Dabney.
I respect people who care enough to apologize and people who accept apologies when offered. These columns and comments raised interesting issues and food for thought, and each has a right to her/his own. Love this site! I’d go with Clever or Clueless or Beauty or Beast.
Sounds to me like you ought to go read that site instead.
Or why not both, Lisa? Or many sites? One can learn lots from reading lots! What is the point you are making here other than to be rude?
That if you feel deep discord and think AAR isn’t intellectual enough for you, then move on. If you want to change the site, volunteer like Dabney does and make content you think is worthier. I happen to have found these discussions intellectual (and I don’t feel the need to throw around my academic credentials to make my opinions seem more important).
Well, Lisa, I do frequently contribute and “”volunteer”” ideas that I think are worthy. I do not think any reader or blogger or reviewer needs to leave based on disagreements, and I am hopeful still that debate can move us to a more respectful way of discussing fiction and responding to each other. Perhaps needless to say, but I do not think readers should tell other readers to “”move on”” based on disagreement.
From the handful of AAR Staff responding today, finally, it sounds as if there is a bit of a sour feeling about feminism in general. I take it from reading the above posts that the “”joke”” is that sexism is funny. That does explain then the deep discord between current staff and some readers, and if so, I don’t really see an easy resolution to this debate.
I read the “”Smart Bitches”” site where the women there are doing some interrogative thinking around stereotypes of women and female characters. I do not see that kind of intellectual work going on here though at AAR among the staff, which is concerning if the blog series was intended to be any type of reclaiming of derogatory words to describe people.
I’m with you….sexism is not funny. And I’ll add this: Feminism has little to do with political correctness it is about equality for women. It’s about fairness. I am baffled that women equate feminism with liberal politics and misandry.
Yesterday’s post was denigrating…..a total backfire.
Yes, Leslie, agreed! When the label “”political correctness”” is slapped on or women who repudiate sexism are accused of being “”shrill,”” “”angry,”” or “”humorless,”” it’s an attempt to shut down debate and shame feminists for talking back. I view hate language as shrill, angry and humorless, not the repudiation of it.
I read the “Smart Bitches” site where the women there are doing some interrogative thinking around stereotypes of women and female characters. I do not see that kind of intellectual work going on here though at AAR among the staff, which is concerning if the blog series was intended to be any type of reclaiming of derogatory words to describe people.
And that site is a good example of women taking sexist pejoratives and reclaiming them. I am probably about as feminist as they come, but I also know how difficult it is to eradicate words from the vocabulary at large. Appropriation is therefore a worthwhile alternative in my opinion. From previous discussions between us, you seem to disagree with this, but even feminists do not always agree with one another. :0)
@Mary – Appropriation might be a viable project and it’s an intriguing and complicated one (and one that I see not turn out well quite often). Having said that, where here at AAR do you see this work being done? Simply throwing out ugly words without contextualizing sexist use of them is not subversive, which is how I view the “”Sister or Skank”” blog from Friday or the cavalier use of “”douchebag”” in earlier blogs. If you create a blog that pits “”skank”” or any other dehumanizing term against one that society condones, that is not being subversive or reclaiming sexist insults to women. If you look at what “”Smart Bitches”” is doing, you might see effort to appropriate sexist terms and ideologies. If that is the goal of the AAR series, more needs to be written to make that clearer. Hopefully the criticism posted here at least gives bloggers some pause and desire to reconsider how words are used, or at least how more helpful context is needed. I don’t see the criticism here though as an attack against any person but rather an attack against the way in which language and ideas are presented. I hope that distinction is clearer.
I see the entire site as a feminist endeavor as it attempts the reclamation of of a genre that has been denigrated precisely because it is of and for women. We are just going to have to agree to disagree as far as douchebag is concerned, because I do see it as an appropriation and I am not sure we could create a sterile vocabulary if we tried. One blog does not an entire site make and I believe that Dabney has worn that hair shirt long enough.
That being said, feminists are not a lockstep group. I regularly read such blogs as XOJane, Feministing and Jezebel. From time to time the subject of romance novels come up and the debate is always lively – with some dismissing the entire genre as inferior literature while other make recommendations of their favorite books. Even feminists can have ingrained ideas that are hard to get rid of (the old “”romance is literature not Literature”” debate). I believe AAR has done a wonderful job of bringing romance “”out of the closet”” so to speak.
Yes, I am in agreement with you over the work being done on Smart Bitches. It’s interesting and intriguing and worth considering. The same work is not being done here on this particular blog series. I don’t view the comments that I’ve seen here directed at Dabney. I do not see the binary set up of good/bad as provocative, subversive, recuperative or reclaiming. Going forward I hope we find more respectful ways to debate complex and controversial characters as that is a conversation worth having, I think!
“”feminists do not always agree with one another””
That is for sure! :)
This popped up before I posted before, so I will just have to say, “”hear, hear!””
I was kind of surprised by the vitriol myself. It was obviously in jest. For what it’s worth I favor “”Keeper or Kick-Her-to-the-Curb””, not because of a lack of denigrating terms, but because sometimes those so called denigrating descriptions might be part of WHY I’d vote keeper, sometimes only a bitch or a shrew will do.
I couldn’t say it better than Maria. Sometime ago there was a post by Pat about M/M romances that received similar hateful responses and she didn’t apologize nor explained and she did well.
What the romance world needs is less of these women’s studies debates and more political incorrectness as well as people who are unapologetic with their language. All the stereotypes about feminists being shrill and devoid of humor were on full display here yesterday. What I saw as a light hearted take on fictional characters in a genre that regularity refers to “”moist feminine arousals,”” and “”aching cocks”” with all due seriousness, was turned into a battle for the right to judge all of human kind for the use of nonsensical, and yes humorous names, regardless of intent. I would welcome romance blogs that did not feel the need to apologize where no offense was intended and who ignored attempts to reshape language to reflect one political viewpoint. I felt the column yesterday was a real breath of fresh air as I am tired of feminist discourse controlling all the language used to discuss romance. It leads to a very closed in and claustrophobic feeling, when one has to watch every single word for fear of offense. Also it makes all discussions in romance blog land sound drearily depressing in their sameness.
Maria, I am far from being a feminist. What I am is a mother who has had to be the a pillar of strength for my 21 yr old daughter who has been called these awful names for the last two years by both genders while she herself supported her best friend who was raped. What I am is friend who still grieves (30 years later) over the suicide of my closest friends. Why did she kill herself? Because at the age of 19 she could no longer take hearing the words “”Metis slut/cunt”” and other such deplorable words, just because she was an Aboriginal Canadian. What I also am, is grateful that my daughter and her friend have a huge support network who know the difference between right from wrong. If that makes me (us) sound humourless, I (we) can live with that.
Sue, you’re a woman supporting other women. How does that make you far from being a feminist?
Well said, Maria. I’m also speaking for myself rather than AAR here when I say that the kind of things posted here and elsewhere on Friday were exactly what gets feminism, romance and women a bad name.
I found your assertion, Caz, to be a bit backwards. Feminism has a “”bad name”” among *some in society BECAUSE it repudiates sexist terms. Staying silent satisfies those in society that want the status quo but feminism only exists if it challenges the status quo. As a feminist, I’m perfectly fine having a “”bad name”” given what the alternative is.
One thing that gives women a “”bad name”” is attacking other women using sexist language to do so.
Well, feminists have always been accused of lacking a sense of humor. So if feminists protest insulting terms, we are deemed humorless. If that is someone’s sense of humor, then I suppose I’m okay being humorless. However, I do reject the very premise that offensive jokes are funny, if the column was meant to be a joke. It was never really clarified what the purpose was.
What about “”Diamond or Dud””?
I was going to chime in to say I like “”Captivating or Contemptible?”” (especially since the discussions surrounding characters who are a bit of both should be excellent), but I think Sheri’s suggestion of “”Diamond or Dud?”” sounds catchier.
“”But I care equally about freedom of speech and what that freedom means to me is often unpopular.”” Exactly!
It’s okay Dabney, I think all of us have been guilty of saying something that may have given offense when none was intended. :)
I for one am looking forward to the column that must not be named :P
Agree and look forward to the column.
HeatherB
JMHO, but I think this was a classic case of taking offense when none was offended.
Dabney – to write a piece like this after what you’ve been through exemplifies the grace and class everyone at AAR sees from your regularly. Perhaps you could have been more obvious that many of these suggestions were in jest, but I reject what many people have said, which is that some words may not even be used jokingly by the groups that they slur. Subversive reclaiming of hostile language is a long tradition. It is part of how we rob it of its power.
I don’t have the same views of the vitriolic and toxic words you were subjected to. I am fascinated that people so motivated to defend Womankind in the abstract don’t seem to feel that way about an actual living woman.
I have to second what Caroline said. It was stunning to read people defending fictional characters and discussing how appalled they were that these columns “”judge”” said characters as they themselves heaped judgement and condemnation on living people. Ah, irony, you can be such a (word that shall not be used in deference to the delicate.)
How do you both come to this conclusion about what readers do in “”real life””? For my part, I teach Women’s Studies and Literature and mentor young women on my campus. I don’t separate my theories from my practices. I’m curious though how you have reached these ideas about people posting that you presumably don’t know?
To clarify, the judging of a real person that I was referring to in my post was how Dabney was being trashed on Twitter.
In regards to defending of fictional characters I was referencing remarks such as “”Instead what I am seeing are denigrating, dehumanizing terms used freely and loosely to reduce characters to one-dimensions and to denigrate them.” or “”If you are going down this rotten road of shaming a hero/heroine then AAR best include/discuss novels that feature a h/h that is not white.””
In that sense it would seem people find it wrong for us to “”trash”” a written character, someone who is not real but the creation of another, but feel quite comfortable taking shots at a living Dabney. Heroes and heroines can’t feel ashamed, be hurt in any way or be dehumanized. They aren’t human. Dabney and the rest of the staff here is, whatever you may think of us.
Okay, I did not get the “”Twitter”” reference since that was not mentioned and since I have no knowledge of those conversations I cannot comment on them.
As far as “”trashing”” characters, I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “”trash,”” but I’m pretty comfortable interrogating characters from all angles and, along those lines, I’m comfortable too critiquing authors’ writing since this is all public work for public consumption. However, Maggie, you quoted me above and conflated my views about denigrating use of writing with attacks on Dabney on Twitter and there is no relationship between the two – ideas expressed or medium used. I’m not on Twitter, I do not engage in personal attacks against anyone, and I stand by my writing on the ideas expressed here. Hope that helps!
This is really telling, and what made it so baffling to me. I’ve always felt fiction was a space to explore or think about things in ways that might not necessarily be appropriate in civilized society, that you can do it day things in that space that you maybe ought not to do towards real people. I’ve often felt that maybe that idea might contribute to social mores that I rail against in real life, but I’ve never felt it gave me a license to treat real humans poorly.
Well, I do think you’ve partially hit on one of the issues in creating binaries around complex characters, which is that if you are analyzing complex characters that pull readers in many directions, clear dichotomies of good and bad don’t really work that well as a strategy. Still, the discussion about what makes a character (male or female) controversial should be interesting. I suppose I don’t feel drawn to any of the titles since I’m hopeful that the conversations are more complex than the title allows. If AAR ends up choosing interesting fictional works and characters, I’m sure I’ll be somewhere in the middle and won’t be able to sum up my opinion in one word :)
I personally hate the freedom of speech take on this debate though because you, Dabney, wrote what you wanted (or what the collaborative AAR staff wanted), and you put it out there for the many, many AAR readers to read. You were allowed that space here. As readers you received sincere responses, indignant as many were. I would characterize what I read on Friday as “”hate speech,”” which is allowed under the First Amendment. So are rebuttals. So, freedom of speech worked for everyone, I would say.