the ask@AAR: What’s your favorite thing about AAR?
What’s your favorite thing about AAR? I ask not because, as my mom would say, I’m fishing for compliments but because as we figure out how to survive and move forward, I’m wondering what are the things here you can’t live without. Is it the reviews? The blogs? The Steals and Deals? The community? We want to know.
Thanks!
I’d join in the discussion except that everyone else has said it better than I could. However, I do want to add my thanks to Dabney and Caz and everyone else who works so hard to make AAR such a useful and supportive interactive community.
First and foremost thanks for the labor of love keeping the site going. I enjoy reviews (especially the long history of reviews), search feature, and ability to comment. I dip in and out of romance, and this site is my go to for staying current even when I’m not reading as much of it. I’ve also felt comfortable and welcome here as a poster. I can’t claim that for various and sundry reasons for other romance sites I’ve visited.
There are lots of insightful comments here once again. Elaine S’s list is great, and as someone incapable of saying anything concisely, I appreciate the way it so elegantly encapsulates so many important matters.
I am hopeless at picking just one from several options I appreciate for different reasons, but okay, let’s see. I check Steals and Deals every day even if it’s the only thing I do on the computer. When my pain and energy levels allow for a longer stay on the computer, one of the things I always do is check the reviews and read the ones that seem even remotely like something that might interest me, along with the blog posts and the discussions they have generated. My ability to participate in the discussions varies, but I always make sure to read them at some point. Whenever I’m considering buying a romance novel I use Power Search to check if you have reviewed the book. Your reviews give me the type of information I feel like I can’t get from other places.
So what’s the conclusion? Steals and Deals is the feature I use most often, and thanks to it I’ve been able to buy more romance novels. The reviews, old and new, are super helpful and Power Search is a kick-ass tool for finding them. Thanks to AAR I don’t feel like I’m groping so badly in the dark when it comes to this genre anymore. But I think it’s the discussions that I’d miss the most if they disappeared. They are special in many ways, and I find them so interesting, and have learned so much from them. Even when I don’t have the energy to try to put my thoughts into words in English, I always ponder about the themes that are being discussed.
I agree with much of the love that has been expressed. Lots of folks have focused on reviews – which I love if it is about a book I’m likely to read. I particularly like the ability to leave comments on reviews – both when written and later as I have time to read the books reviewed. Like many newbies, I’ve used the Top 100 polls, the annual reader polls, and the reviews to find great things to read. Still do. But few of the reviews have comments to go along with them, and are therefore only one person’s opinion at a particular point in time; as are the polls (reflective of readers at a particular point in time). All fun and useful stuff.
But (for me) the blog is actually the most important part of the site. (Also, I can easily see the blog being a vehicle for reviews as well as general conversations.) I echo chrisreader below who points out the ability to respond to specific comments/commenters. The vast majority of the “community interaction” happens within the blog posts these days. That is really the core of the site for me.
My favourite one is your Top 100 list. I’m not the only one who tries to read all the books in that list.
Next to that, your reviews. Each book you give an A, it’s a novel I’m going to see if it’s something I could be interested in. Each month, I can chose my next readings among 10-15 books.
I loved the annual poll you used to have, but I understand that it is very complicated with so many books each year.
I totally agree with everything you said, Bona.
It is my hope we can do a Top 100 poll again. The last time we did it, we almost got kicked off the internet. But I think it’s really useful to readers.
I agree with just about everyone who has commented. I love the detailed reviews. Whether I agree with them or not, they tell me enough for me to be able to see if I will enjoy the book or not. I didn’t start reading romance until I was 66, and this site was my main guide into unknown territory.
And I love the discussion, especially because people disagree. This is one of the few places outside my family where I’m comfortable sticking up my head to disagree with people.
Thank you.
My favourite element of AAR is definitely the reviews. They are always so detailed and well-written, and they give you a clear idea of what to expect. I first read a romance novel when I was 16, but I had no idea where to find good romance authors. Two years later, I stumbled about AAR and have never looked back. The power search feature was (and still is) a god-sent, as it enables me to pinpoint the precise genre I want and also to sort relevant reviews by their grades. Thanks to AAR, I have discovered authors like Sherry Thomas, Katharine Ashe, Julie Anne Long, Mary Balogh, Mary Jo Putney, Judith Ivory, Laura Kinsale and so many more.
I really like this blog. I enjoy the topics and the conversations in the comments. It has helped me open my mind to new understandings and expanded my reading genre range.
Thanks!
I wholeheartedly agree with much of what has been said already, so I will just emphasize two things that are more specific to me. First, as a relative newcomer to romance and this site, I was pulled in by the thoughtful, detailed reviews. AAR is a treasure trove for a newbie who is struggling to separate the wheat from the chaff in romancelandia. How many reviews do you have in your archives? It took me awhile to realize that it is a huge number, they are searchable, and there are comments in addition to the reviews. It would be helpful if you had a welcome section on your homescreen to give visitors an introduction to the site and the riches to be found. My second favorite thing about AAR is the generosity of spirit, which Elaine S so beautifully elucidated, and which starts with the leadership of Dabney and Caz, and extends to all the reviewers and commenters who seem to be as interested in what others have to say as in having their own say.
It’s almost 15,000!
Thank you. I wasn’t fishing for compliments but we will take them with joy!!
What she said! ;)
In a nutshell, reviews and comments, and a place to feel some community.
Same for me: reviews and the open/honest comment community. I don’t know how many books and authors I’ve discovered in over 20 years of visiting AAR, but I strongly suspect they are actually the majority of my current reading.
As a reader, my favorite thing about AAR is the chance to learn more about what’s afloat in the vast sea of romance and to steer myself toward new things to read. As a writer, it’s a place to get a sense of what a subset of readers actually like to read (and, to a lesser extent, why). This community is not (based on the past year of regular participation) interested in the type of book I write; but that doesn’t mean the opinions here don’t interest me. :-)
Power Search is a great feature. I’ve used it to fill in some backlists! But generally, AAR is a teaching tool for me.
Slightly off-topic, I think it’s important for regular site users to remember that a blog is a gift. It costs money, and it takes a lot (A LOT) of time, and there is a real danger of letting a blog become an expensive burden for the site runners. So it’s important to go through those reviews and ads to buy new books, and not just use this as a way to talk to each other. :-)
Thank you.
The hard thing is that buying books is a flagging source on income. I expect that Amazon will, at some point, cut completely affiliate dollars to sellers. That will mean buying books doesn’t do anything for us. However, right now, we do get 4%. To let you know how little money even that is, yesterday, AAR made 7 dollars at Amazon.
An ask@AAR after my own heart. Here are just a few points that have been made with which I agree 110%:
chrisreader – opportunity to respond; company in her vacuum – I fully get that because I am in the same vacuum outside of AAR
Marian Perera – honest, balanced, sometimes pithy reviews. Absolutely!
Nan de Plume – camaraderie, open invitation and commitment to open discussion. How wonderful is that – and how lucky we all are to be here!
stl-reader – thoughtful, civil discussion. A pearl without price for sure – particularly in our confusing times of cancel culture all of the intolerance that has bred.
The above comments are what have kept me coming here nearly every day for more than 20 years. I’ve been around so long that some of those who comment here seem like old friends you could sit down with a cup of tea or glass of wine and feel like you’ve known them forever.
The thing I relish most here – beside all of the above – is the way in which Dabney and Caz run the site. I have approached them on a few occasions over the years about one thing or the other that I wanted to keep “off piste”. Always, I get a warm and friendly response from them, an answer to the question or understanding of any issue I raise. There have been tensions at AAR over the years which have apparently meant that some who used to comment have left our community (and that’s EXACTLY what it is). They are missed and, even when I sincerely disagreed with them, I fully appreciated that this is an incredibly civil welcoming, tolerant, informed, safe and superbly run site. I don’t mind what name AAR goes by – it could call itself Lies, Lies and Damned Lies – doesn’t matter. The esprit de corps here is invaluable and that’s down, really, to Dabney, Caz and all of us who take the time to visit and, when the mood or urge strikes, contribute to it with a comment, review or whatever. Well done to all of us!
I agree with you 100%, especially this:
Despite some of the rows I’ve been in- many of them self-induced by my big, fat mouth- I miss the commenters who left as well. Yes, even the ones I vehemently disagreed with. Maybe especially the ones I vehemently disagreed with. It was so nice to engage in all that passionate, sometimes fiery discourse. Dare I say it felt like a modern-day college of the old free speech days that are long gone on most campuses? Better actually, because there are no assignments here. :-)
I also appreciate when new commenters stop by to add their insights. Just like I say about books, “The more, the merrier!”
Me too.
It’s hard for me to understand why arguing is offensive. And yet, for many it is.
Arguing isn’t offensive, but it can be exhausting. I often bypass discussions here because I can’t face the multi-paragraph responses to what I say. That’s ok, because if I could let everything slide off my back I’d jump in there more, but sometimes I can’t. Please understand that some people can’t argue because they are physically and emotionally unable to distance themselves from the topic, or have anxiety issues that mean it cost them a lot to engage repeatedly.
There is also the intimidation factor. I absolutely don’t mean people here mean to intimidate, but it happens when the posts get very long, and then you have one or more commentors posting equally long posts in agreement. It’s really difficult to come into the middle of that to say you disagree. Sometimes I just can’t engage in that situation.
I’m not saying anything needs to change. It doesn’t. I guess I’m just explaining that “arguing” or intense disagreement is impossible at times not because it’s offensive, but because of the emotional cost.
I’m am on the side of people who don’t want to engage. To me, conversation is a choice. And everyone has the right to say, I don’t want to do this. But I draw the line at telling others they don’t have the right TO do that.
Absolutely, and I don’t think I suggested that. I hope, however, that the voices of the more assertive people aren’t the only voices heard. I’m not sure how that can be assured, maybe it can’t. I’m not an introvert, but I think this must be how introverts feel in a group of extroverts–deciding not to engage because you feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of it all.
I guess I think the internet is not a great place to find that even when a site, like ours, tries to make them feel welcome. If you have any ideas, please let me know.
My only suggestion is to encourage people to move tangent discussions to the forums, then they don’t overwhelm the comment space.
The forums are sort of dead. We’ve found that the software that runs them is wonky. We opened them back up when we found a more stable version but readers aren’t using them.
I am curious–what does an overwhelmed comment space look like to you? Is it that it’s poorly organized? Hard to follow? I’d like to see if I can make it better. Thanks!
This comments space is overwhelming to me right now. Once you have one or two comments under a post then it goes in a long, long line down the page. It’s squashed to the right half of my screen, with the list of “Recent Comments” on the left.
When you combine that with the multi-paragraph answers (which I write at times, so not dissing anyone) it becomes difficult for me to read and follow. It’s easy for me to lose the place in a conversation, and who is answering who. Sometimes I start to read a comment, and then realize it’s a response to a different post than I thought, and I have to scroll up and try to find the original post. It just makes it less likely I’ll read the posts at all once the page gets crowded.
But I’m not sure that can be fixed and I’m obviously in the minority. So, thank you for wanting to help. I appreciate it, but I don’t expect anything can or needs to be done.
I changed it somewhat. Does it work better for you now?
Thank you for trying! It’s somewhat easier to follow the threads, but now is more squished to the right making for long thin columns.
Better or worse?
Honestly, both. It’s easier to follow the threads, but more squashed to one side, making long posts more difficult to read. I’m fine with whatever you decide. Thanks.
As always, you’re the best and most reasonable voice in the thread.
Don’t mind your “big fat mouth” at all, Nan. From the time I was about four years old my mother told me to “think and speak for yourself” only to lose my dinner and get a session banished to my bedroom because I did speak for myself and she didn’t like what I said – frequently told me not to be a smart-ass for it! Just made me more robust and better able to deal with life. And, yes, too bad the old days of a university education (University of California alum) meant that you learned to debate, savour and protect free speech and expose yourself to a huge variety of opinion. It was called learning to think, analyse, express yourself cogently and know at the end you didn’t really have all the answers and, further, did not know everything – only nothing – but were willing to learn!
Aw, you’re so sweet. :-)
This. As I was saying below, our culture has lost a lot of its resilience. While I agree a lot of things have improved (isn’t it nice that slinging around ethnic slurs willy-nilly is considered uncouth nowadays?), a lot of today’s society has gotten too soft. I mean, if you are a grown person who is going berserk online because you didn’t like one particular sentence in a novel written twenty years ago, get a grip. Better yet, use that righteous indignation to do something constructive like writing your own book or helping the less fortunate or something other than a destructive rant designed to pillory and ruin someone else. Just a thought…
Agree! thank you Elaine S for making the list, all of so precious to me.
reviews, power search, community, all feeding each other.
As I appreciate it, I contribute to it in a monthly donation, and keep hoping it survives and thrives.
I’ve said many times that I love the freedom, thoughtfulness, well crafted reviews and the commenters here at AAR.
There are other technical things like the power search that are great and I always check out the steals and deals to do my book buying through AAR.
But one major thing, apart from the freedom to express opinions across the board, that struck me upon reflection, is how AAR offers the opportunity to respond to each other.
In every other site I can think of you can post a comment but it’s part of a long string and you don’t have the choice to reply directly to an interesting or even provocative remark someone else has made. At AAR I can reply directly to Dabney, or Nan or DiscoDollyDeb or even an anonymous person drawn into the discussion.
Sometimes we veer way off of the original topic and sometimes people bring something new to the conversation that’s bigger, or more thought provoking than the original discussion and I absolutely love that.
I feel like I’m getting a sense of the personality of the poster through their comments and it can be a real back and forth discussion rather than me scrolling up an endless page to find a comment 20 remarks back and then try to @them in my comment so people know who I’m addressing.
AAR feels more direct and personal to me. As a commenter you aren’t flinging something up on a wall to sit there, you’re engaging with the reviewer, or another commenter (or several).
As someone who often reads in a “vacuum”- meaning my close friends and family aren’t reading the same books, this is so valuable to me. I really respect the opinions I find here even if they don’t always align with my own. Having to articulate why something does or doesn’t work for me helps me wrap my brain around a book or it’s themes and even my own preferences for this type of story or that.
That is lovely.
Over the years I tried several review sites but AAR is the last one I regularly visit. Before buying a book from a new to me author I always search for a review here on this site.
So I would say first I love your reviews and the comments of other readers, but very near comes the blog with the many interesting comments. I like to follow the discussions, I agree or disagree but it’s always interesting to read other voices, different voices.
So I would say that I truly would miss AAR. I follow AAR since about 20 years and that should say you something!
The Power Search, Steals and Deals, and the comments.
This is the first site I pull up every single morning and it stays up all day. I’m here for the honest and well written reviews as well as the superb Power Search. The wit is also a huge draw both in the reviews and the comments. AAR is my guide for all the romance books I buy – and the number is considerable. Thank you all.
I can’t choose between the reviews and the comments—both are equally important reasons for me to make AAR a regular stopping place during my daily circuit around the blogosphere.
I love the honest, balanced and sometimes pithy reviews. If not for those, I would never have started reading romance, and for that, I’m very grateful.
More than anything, I love the spirit of camaraderie around literature and the open invitations to discussion that are uniquely fostered by AAR. In this troubling era where the Wild West internet days seem to be having their last stand against increasing censorship and pettiness, AAR is the only website I have ever found that respects differences of opinion as well as the people who voice them. Too many websites’ comment sections have become intolerant echo chambers filled with a lot of unnecessary ugliness. In contrast, AAR is a true safe space where polite disagreements about literature and the topics they invoke are welcome, as is the positive goal of finding common ground.
I love so many elements of AAR: the detailed and often funny reviews, the recs from both staff and commenters, and the general user-friendly layout complete with tags and power search. But since this week’s ask is about our favorite element of AAR, I have to go with the comments. This is the only website where I comment regularly, and it would be a great loss if AAR went comment-free or lost its commitment to open dialogue.
Perhaps my favorite film is Almost Famous. I watched it with my mom last night–she’d never seen it–and was struck by how the whole point of criticism is speaking freely. We have certainly, over the years, been occasionally unpopular for our independent voice. Today, we are unpopular not so much because of our critical takes on novels but because we are committed to allowing all, even those we disagree with, speak their piece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnk_sFVNDxc
And how sad is it that being – committed to allowing all, even those we disagree with, speak their piece – is cause for unpopularity?
That is, surely, what freedom of speech is all about. Makes me glad we don’t have a written constitution over here, because if that’s how something that is supposedly “enshrined” in one is treated, then no thanks.
What really scares me is how the idea of what is “liberal” has shifted so fundamentally in just my lifetime.
I was educated largely by professors and teachers who came of age in the 60’s and the era of questioning everything, commitment to free speech and rights for everyone. They proudly pasted their A.C.L.U. cards in their office windows and talked about the dark ages of institutional book banning and “thought police”. Of days where checking the wrong book out of the library could put you on a government list for decades.
Now when I see top “liberals” wanting to keep lists of people who voted differently or afraid to let an opposing mind speak it scares me.
Maybe it’s because “liberal” thought was considered the outsider, fighting against the system in those days- there was no position to “protect”. Every party was fair game and everything was to be examined and challenged.
Now you must pick a party and stand with it. The days of true independents are gone. You either stick with the party and the politicians on every issue or you are the “enemy”. Bipartisanship isn’t the goal, it’s “weakness”.
Agreed. I would say even within the last 10 – 15 years the left has undergone fundamental changes to their original platform. The attitude of “Stay out of my bedroom! Who I go to bed with is my business as long as everyone is a consenting adult,” has transformed into the alarming, “If you don’t date members of X group, you’re a racist/homophobe/transphobe!” Yes, that latter argument actually exists in leftist parlance now, and some of it is quite hostile. Some of it is downright predatory. If there is one area in which you should be allowed total rights of discrimination, it is who you permit to have access to your body and heart. Just 10 years ago, a lot of liberals probably would have agreed.
Don’t think I’m letting the right off the hook, but what I don’t think a lot of today’s censorious, militant leftists realize is that their increasingly controlling, crazy behavior is driving people to the extreme verges of the opposite side of the political spectrum. Even Libertarian websites I have loved for years have taken a hard-right turn, which is terribly discouraging. Whatever happened to embracing Ayn Rand’s disdainful comment that “Libertarians are the hippies of the right?” Now the antiwar, low tax crowd with a fondness for sex, drugs, and rock and roll has been slowly pulled toward finding its Judeo-Christian roots. It’s not that religion is bad or incompatible with the Libertarian movement, but it was never an obsessive focus until recently. And I have definitely observed the change.
Depressing, isn’t it? Joe Rogan discussed something similar on one of his podcasts. He said a friend of his got so tired of modern liberals that he became a conservative. The side effect is that this friend now feels like he has to go to church every week just to fit in. Apparently, it isn’t enough that he agrees with some of the core political and cultural beliefs, he has to adopt all of them or else be a kind of outcast.
Ugh, don’t get me started on the ACLU. Those guys used to be bastions of protecting the First Amendment. Now some of their staff are actively engaged in witch hunts to get books banned. Just the other day, I read their mission is no longer protecting free speech but to promote social justice. Throw away the very foundation of your organization while you’re at it. Somebody should tell these people that without the First Amendment, there is no social justice.
On that subject, you might enjoy this article by Former Executive Director Ira Glasser: Would the ACLU Still Defend Nazis’ Right To March in Skokie? – Reason.com. In short, he is alarmed about the anti-free speech attitudes of so many college students today.
I’ve thought often about the Skokie march over the past 6 months.
See, I think you’re wrong here. You would be shocked how many moderate folks, including a lot of moderate liberals, have had to move to the right. Like me. I’m pro-choice and atheist, so there you go. All I can say is: Politics makes strange bedfellows these days, for sure.
If you had a chance to watch any of the #walkaway stories on YT, it is fascinating how many people abandoned the left in recent years and their reasons for doing so. And these are just ordinary Americans from all walks of life, all skin colors, all ages. This video is one of the best, IMO.
Sorry for this off-topic post.
Thanks for sharing that perspective. The right wing does seem to encompass a wider range of member beliefs than it used to. But there is still definitely a strong religious element in a lot of right wing circles that I and others have found off-putting, among other things.
Although, now that I think about it, there has always been a segment of the Republican Party who are actually Libertarian but run on the Republican ticket because of the two-party system. Ron Paul immediately comes to mind. Whereas I doubt many Libertarians- big “L” or small “l”- run as Democrat, especially today. Like you said, “Politics makes strange bedfellows these days.”
Thanks for sharing that video. I watched it last night and found it quite interesting.
The A.C.L.U. used to be the last bastion in my mind. They would defend your rights no matter how bat&^*% crazy your position. There was zero moral judgement- and they were lauded for it.
Not because people thought “Oh they must secretly like Nazis” but because we all knew they thought they were disgusting and repugnant but they STILL believed in the Constitution and people’s rights so much they would support even *their* Constitutional rights. Because it was about ensuring the same rights for everyone. The law must be equal and impartial, and that’s why “Lady Justice” is often depicted blindfolded.
It’s the same principle for defense lawyers. Even terrorists and child molesters have the right to an attorney. The fact that lawyers are being barred from campuses and certain employment for serving as defense lawyers to “unlikeable” people is abhorrent to me and should be to everyone. It is trying to strike at one of the most fundamental rights we have.
John Adams is revered in part because he was willing to represent the most unpopular defendants of Colonial America (The Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre). Many of the lawyers who represented O.J. Simpson took their fees and used it for social justice causes of their own. Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project has freed over 300 people who were wrongly convicted (proven solely by scientific evidence).
Years ago–maybe 15–I expressed doubt (this will get me in SO much trouble) with the concept of hate crimes. My concern at the time was that they would evolve into… where we are now. I worried that once we began to say a crime is worst depending on what you were thinking or saying, we’d slip into policing what we say and think independent of crimes committed. This has, sadly, come to pass. The ACLU and FIRE, once organizations one might see as politically opposed to one another, are now the strongest, united, two organizations fighting in the US for the right to say the wrong things.
I agree with you that the concept of “hate crimes” never should have come to pass, certainly not at a legal level. We’re criminalizing alleged thoughts and feelings now as opposed to actions? That should have been setting off alarm bells from the beginning.
I’m also worried about how crime severity is being judged by nebulous criteria like intersectionality with more emphasis on the perpetrator’s sob story than the violation of the victim. Just as an anecdotal example of this, I read an article in a book about public school education recently where someone was defending a middle school student who smashed her teacher’s arm in a doorframe because the teacher moved her lunchbox without asking. But according to the author, that was the teacher’s fault because the student was a former foster care child who had suffered a lot of food insecurity and was acting on a defensive instinct or some such thing. Listen, I don’t care how rotten your life is in a case like this. Your grievances don’t entitle you to commit assault. And I’m seeing way too much of this excuse-making for unacceptable behavior. Some of the horror stories I’ve read or been told about public schools are just the tip of the iceberg.
Hate crimes have always been a problem for me in part because I think of it in legal terms as well as emotional. My biggest problem is that it seems to say some people’s lives are more valuable than others. That it’s worse to hurt some people than others.
Women are statistically far more likely to be killed by a spouse or partner. The percentages are rising, not falling. Is this not also a serious problem? And one that is seen across the board worldwide.
We could logically extrapolate that any murder of a woman by a partner or an ex-partner is a “hate” crime.
To me the most horrifying murders of all are that of children. A shocking number and percentage of child murders are by the biological parents. I can’t think of anything more awful than the murder or abuse of a child, particularly by someone who has a duty of care over them.
We could go on and on listing the “worst” of the worst but it just gets more confusing. There is a reason the legal system examines motive, deliberation, intent and planning in crimes.
The ACLU is actually still taking on freedom of speech cases although I think they look for those with disenfranchised plaintiffs.
I’ve never heard of that movie (where have I been?) But if that profound clip is indication of its quality, I’m in! Thanks for the rec.
While we’re swapping recs, you might want to check out the blog Snowy Fictions by Madeleine Rose Jones. She generally doesn’t review books (so no competition with AAR ;-)) so much as she dissects the destructive effects of modern day, knee-jerk censorship in literature. Jones also analyses story elements, such as what makes a successful fairy tale or why Jane Austen’s work still resonates today, but her commitment to a marketplace of ideas (i.e. free speech) is what really drew me in. So, rest assured, you are not alone as a voice for true diversity in literature. But blogs like AAR and Snowy Fictions are part of a sadly shrinking minority in that regard.
Oh Nan, watch Almost Famous! I can virtually guarantee you will love it.
I love this film so very much. Everyone in it is great -and if you weren’t a Frances McDormand fan before, you will be after seeing it.
She is the mom I want to be!
First off, Almost Famous is SO good!
Secondly, one thing I deeply appreciate about AAR is the fact that it is, as you put it, Dabney, ”committed to allowing all, even those we disagree with, speak their piece”, because I think that freedom of speech and freedom of debate are crucially important. That commitment was mostly why I managed to screw up my courage and started commenting here – and this is the only site where I comment on. Communication is not my strongest suit to begin with, and since I’ve never met even one person I’d agree on everything with, it seemed like a doomed task to even try to comment on sites where disagreeing is not accepted. It is also why, besides all the awesome content, AAR is the only literature site to whom, in addition to using the book links, I have donated money, albeit much less than I wish I could. I have to say that it boggles my mind that a site can be unpopular for such commitment. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Do people really not agree with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights anymore? Does not compute.
Also, as someone who only occasionally has the strength to put together a comment or two, but who follows the discussions here with great interest, I am reminded time and again of the importance of freedom of speech not only to the speakers but to the listeners as well. I really like what John Stuart Mill said in his 1859 essay On Liberty about this: ”But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generations; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
Hi Annik,
It’s nice to see you posting. I hope that means today is a good day for you!
Thank you for reminding me this is a global issue. I think myself (and many of us here) tend to think automatically of the U.S. Constitution because of so much discussion that goes on here in the U.S.
But as you so kindly posted, this is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone should have the right to think and say what they want, even if someone else doesn’t like it. Even if many, many other someones do not like it.
The internet began as this amazing free zone where people who don’t have the opportunity to speak in “real life” can exchange ideas and theories and even debate them if necessary. I think there have been a handful of things that have been as revolutionary in all of history as the internet: the printing press, radio and TV. It’s been the great equalizer in giving a person with a website the same chance to be heard as a huge news conglomerate. I hope there will always be free spaces where people can disagree and express themselves freely. I’m so happy AAR has remained one of them.
Hi, chrisreader, and thanks for the warm welcome! I’m writing the comments little by little, taking brakes to rest. It still took me three days to write the three comments I posted on Sunday. It was a bit better day, Sunday, I’m happy to say. Yesterday I had to take it a bit easier, but I’m typing again today, so yay!
Yes, it is indeed a global issue. And considering there are still people in the world who are not free to express their opinions, I think it’s all the more important that we who are, keep working towards a world where everyone has, like you said, ”the right to think and say what they want.” Ourselves included, obviously.
I totally agree on what you said about the Internet. That is also why it is so alarming that the governments have started to use denying access to the Internet as a tool against their own people. I don’t know what the very latest situation is but about a year ago The Guardian ran an article about it here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/01/the-guardian-view-on-internet-censorship-when-access-is-denied.
Wow. That’s a great quote which I’d never seen. Thank you SO much for sharing it!
You’re welcome. :)
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all freedoms, freedom of speech has limits.
Common limitations to freedom of speech include libel, slander, obscenity, inciting actions that would harm others, etc.
And at least in the US, the 1st amendment only protects you from the government restricting your speech, not private individuals or organizations.
Understanding that freedom of speech is not a limitless carte blanche, we also have the right and responsibility to balance our limited freedom of speech against the harm that it does others.
Unfortunately, as a society, we have lost not only some of our civility in discourse but also have lost sight of the fact that our freedoms are not limitless. There are many people that think freedom of speech gives them the right to say whatever they want whenever they want and ironically accuse any critics of “canceling” them because apparently, their critics don’t have the same freedom of speech to express counter opinions.
The erosion of civil discourse has been decades in the making and I don’t know if it will return without content moderators (site moderators, debate moderators, editors, etc.)
Sol, I absolutely agree with you that civil discourse has been in a state of erosion for years. One of the most blatant examples I can think of is during award ceremonies such as the Oscars where actors behave like it’s cute, bold, empowering, or whatever to drop F-bombs on stage on national television and act like all-around brats rather than showing some humility and gratitude. I’m sure we could both think of many other examples of such ugliness, but that is one of the examples that immediately comes to mind.
You are definitely correct that the First Amendment is a restriction on government rather than private individuals or organizations. But when major corporations that are entwined with the government at various levels- via lobbying or whatever else- start getting strict with censorship, that should be cause for alarm. Especially when social media was the new Wild West until just recently. The sudden shift in attitude is worrisome.
I have no problem whatsoever with criticism and counterarguments. And of course critics are free to express their contrary opinions. But this is not what I and others mean by “cancel culture.” Cancel culture occurs when major corporations surrender to inarticulate, vague complaints of “racism” or “homophobia” or whatever else, dropping their actors, authors, and other employees like a hot potato when they greenlighted those people in the first place. And for what? Just to avoid tantrums from people who have nothing better to do all day than find things to be offended about? In this regard, cancel culture is very, very real and very, very dangerous.
Now, you could argue that these companies have every right to fire these people others have found offensive. And technically that’s correct, except in cases of breach of contract. But doing so sets a terrible precedent and encourages continued hostility toward artists who get even slightly out of line with Twitter mobs who are delighted to ruin people whose views don’t align with their own.
When people go out of their way to get someone fired just because they don’t like what they said in a book, that’s where I draw the line with my tolerance for so-called “criticism.” That is not criticism. That is explicitly trying to get somebody fired to hurt their livelihood. These publishing houses need to grow a backbone and defend their authors instead of caving into such articulate arguments as, “OMG! This author is such a homophobic A-hole! Somebody fire this person immediately!” Yeah, that’s not what I would call mere criticism…
The problem with some of the limitations you mention, like “obscenity” for example, is that it imbues a certain group of people with the power to decide what is “obscene”.
James Joyce’s work was considered obscene and thanks to the “New York Society for The Suppression of Vice” they got Ulysses banned in the US for 13 years to protect citizens of the USA from “impure and lustful thoughts”.
Every time someone is silenced, thoughts are policed and the public is “protected” from reading or hearing something, it’s always because editors, moderators, and certain groups want to “do good”.
There is always a group that knows better than everyone else (but gets to read and hear everything they want) what should be “heard” and discussed. It’s always with the best of intentions- to protect the poor, easily swayed masses into hearing something they shouldn’t “for their own good”.
Moderating discussions is not a radical or new concept. Moderation promotes civil discourse, reminds people to stay on topic, and allows discussions to be more inclusive.
Moderated discussions are widely taught and practiced — from an early age– in schools and work (and thank goodness or meetings would go on forever :-). Most of us don’t get to say whatever we want in school, work, or in any face to face situation — at least not without paying a price.
So I find it surprising that so many people today find it radical and insist that moderation and limits go against “free speech” — which has never, ever been an absolute freedom.
This myth that free speech is limitless is ironically defended by invoking accusations of “cancel culture” any time someone else attempts to exercise their free speech to criticize you.
As a society, we are paying a price for this new limitless free speech. The cost is not only a loss of discourse and a polarization of society but more disturbingly, a society in which some people dismiss facts outright and live in an alternate reality.
I respect the difficulty of moderating discourse, particularly on the Internet, where the anonymity of the platform makes it easier for people to be less respectful of each other. But we need it more — not less — precisely because the Internet makes it easier for us to lose our humanity and for misinformation and hate to spread.
I’m just curious where you see the need for more moderation? I can think of few places where it isn’t moderated.
Even on Facebook when people post joke cartoons or memes about anything remotely relating to current events, Facebook puts a disclaimer up.
We have a situation where a group of tech Oligarchs are deciding on their own without any legislative guide or oversight who gets to tweet or not. The Nation’s oldest newspaper- depends on whether the Twitter owners like what they are saying. (But apparently horrible threats against the State of Israel and Jews are A-OK!)
Both Emanuel Macron and Angel Merkle (hardly “right wingers”) have spoken out about how wrong this is.
Even here at AAR, which actually allows differing opinions, moderators step in to say “hey cool it” when things get overwrought or too personal.
Again, here we don’t cancel anyone.
I’m also, as someone who was born at the dawn of the 60s, deeply suspicious of the idea that any group should define what harmful speech is. That argument has been used to shut down rap musicians, comedians, leftist politicians, feminists, and almost every marginalized group. I think there’s a good reason that the cultural standard, for decades, was yelling fire in a crowded movie theater (a misunderstood concept), rather than wearing wearing clothes with controversial images on them.
I am not suggesting that AAR cancel people.
Moderation and criticism is not canceling.
I know that AAR engages in some moderation of discussions with the objective of trying to make discussions inclusive.
If the objective is inclusion, then moderation is necessary to keep discussions not just respectful but also from being overrun with hate, misinformation, etc. Sites that don’t engage in moderation tend to dampen discourse as people really feel welcome to comment.
The notion that speech is absolutely free is a myth.
I am just baffled that the term “cancel culture” has been weaponized so effectively to shut down criticism.
It’s a bad phrase.
It’s not just a phrase. If you go to other sites and say something critical against the moderators or something they don’t believe in, it gets removed, and you get asked (or told) to go. It’s a private site and that’s their right. Not everyone can stand up to being questioned or challenged. It’s much easier to “prove your point” if you can just delete anything that contradicts you.
The other side is that people have gotten so enraged that AAR doesn’t delete comments (or people) they have gone out into the web pretty much demanding AAR do so.
Complaining about people excising or trying to banish anyone who doesn’t agree with them is hardly “weaponizing” cancel culture.
I think sites that cut out any opposing viewpoints tend to “dampen discussion” more than sites that don’t but I guess it depends on what you call “discussion”.
Thanks, Chrisreader, for articulating what I was having trouble putting into concise words. This in particular:
You nailed it.
Weaponizing cancel culture refers to the misapplication of the phrase’s original meaning to shut down any criticism or legitimate protest. It is *not* complaining about a Twitter mob trying to banish you.
Your interpretation of cancel culture is unfortunately, way behind what it has changed into. The term “cancel culture” is no longer limited to accusing a twitter mob “excising” or “banishing” an individual but to silence any criticism.
And it most definitely wielded as a political weapon, a shortcut to shut down criticisms. If you protest, you are criticized as being part of cancel culture. Which is funny considering freedom of assembly is found in the same 1st Amendment as freedom of speech.
For the record, I have not advocated for either canceling anyone or cutting “any opposing viewpoints.”
Many websites not only moderate discussions but also have posting guidelines. Generally, I think these are good.
Are you a proponent of no rules at all in online forums such as AAR’s? People should be able to post racist remarks? Personal attacks? No rules for anyone?
“And it most definitely wielded as a political weapon, a shortcut to shut down criticisms. If you protest, you are criticized as being part of cancel culture. Which is funny considering freedom of assembly is found in the same 1st Amendment as freedom of speech.”
Why is criticism of someone else’s criticisms worse, or not allowed? Isn’t that just an opposing viewpoint? How is that worse than not allowing other points of view or deleting them?
”Are you a proponent of no rules at all in online forums such as AAR’s? People should be able to post racist remarks? Personal attacks? No rules for anyone?”
I don’t think there is anyone who is and has been a bigger admirer of AAR and the way they run their boards than myself. They step in when things get heated yet are incredibly gracious when people come here and often insult them, the site and anything else they feel like. Unlike other places, these remarks are left up and people can respond to them because AAR isn’t afraid of disagreement.
They always take the high road when someone lobs insults at them and complaints are met with offers to change rather than defensively. I would hold them up as an example to anyone else on how to host a welcoming and dynamic discussion.
I think I have articulated repeatedly in my comments what type of moderation I think is appropriate and what is inappropriate so inserting a question somehow implying if I don’t agree with your statements then I support racist remarks feels too inflammatory for me to respond directly to.
I will just repeat my earlier question from above that wasn’t answered:
What sites and places are you visiting that allow racist attacks and comments?
I cannot think of a single platform or site that I visit or have visited that allow this type of disgusting behavior.
First, I apologize because my question was genuinely trying to understand what level of moderation, if any, you support since your previous responses seemed to question even established legal limits on speech. For example, you questioned the limitation of obscenity
even though that is an established legal limit of free speech.
In contrast, racist remarks are protected speech. Some people support the right to speak freely (even racist remarks) even though they find such speech abhorrent.
So my question was not intended to offend.
You asked, “why is criticism of someone else’s criticisms worse, or not allowed?”
I never said that counter arguments are not allowed. In fact, substantive counter arguments are an essential part of discourse.But responding to any criticism by claiming “they are cancelling me” is not a substantive response.
It does not address the actual criticism but rather distorts the discussion to an issue of “free speech”
without directly addressing the actual critique.
So crying cancel culture is an effective way of “attacking” your critic without having to respond to the actual criticism It is a form of defense by playing offense.
The core of what I have said in my comments on this thread is
1) I believe that there are limits on free speech
2) I believe that civility in discourse has eroded over the last few decades and
3) I believe that more moderation, not less, is needed to help society return to more civil discourse
As to your last question, there are many sites, including AAR that allow racist remarks.
Just look on the Bridgerton thread where some people said that they were not bothered by any changes in the TV series from the books except those on race.
I am not referring to the textual literalists who were bothered by any changes to the book.
I am referring to the comments that did not mind all of the other changes except for colorblind casting.
They are of course entitled to their opinions but when you say that all other changes to an adaptation are OK except for colorblind casting, then yeah,
that’s a racist comment.
I only bring up the above because you asked for an example of sites that allow racist commentary.
Sol, I realize this comment is directed toward Chrisreader, but thank you for clarifying your points. I wholeheartedly agree with items 1 and 2 but am worried about seeking “more moderation” as per point 3. I would ask, more moderation by whom? Site owners? Politicians? The government? Who gets to make those decisions?
I strongly disagree that AAR allows “racist” remarks. Looking through the Bridgerton thread again, I see a lot of complaints about the lack of historical accuracy in a variety of factors including race, music, sex, and so forth. What I also see are commenters who got harped on solely for mentioning race, acting as though that was the only factor for the original commenter disliking the show- even when the original commenter mentioned those other factors.
Were there some commenters who only mentioned their displeasure with the multiracial casting? Yes. But I would not necessarily regard those racial remarks as being racist.
I’m sitting in front of my copy of the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, and it says:
“racism… 1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2) racial prejudice or discrimination.”
I have seen nothing on AAR that falls under definition #1 (thank goodness!) and dubious arguments that any such comments fall under definition #2. Does having a preference for characters who physically look like their counterparts in the book necessarily mean the displeased commenters are racially prejudiced? Maybe, maybe not. If anything, I saw a lot of comments saying Bridgerton’s colorblind casting did a disservice to history by pretending such prejudices never existed. As for discrimination based on race, okay sure when it comes to casting. There’s a good reason why we don’t cast Samuel L. Jackson as Elizabeth Bennett in an otherwise faithful adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, even though he’s a wicked awesome actor. But people who make an argument that casting shouldn’t be colorblind on the grounds of believability aren’t necessarily racist so much as they are racially aware. I think that’s an important distinction.
On that note, I think it’s odd that the current thinking is that colorblindness = badness/ignorance/racism. And yet, if we notice a character’s race in a historical drama, the attitude flips to, “How dare you notice the character’s skin color doesn’t match what it would have been in real life? You’re a racist!” Contradictory, much?
Some of the people who objected to the colorblind casting on Bridgerton were fine with all of the other historical inaccuracies of Bridgerton. They were only bothered by race.
Bridgerton had a plethora of historical inaccuracies. If you state that the ONLY thing that bothers you and makes you dislike a production is the race of the actors, that is a racist comment.
Definition #1 of racism from Oxford dictionary:
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
Re the argument of “believability,” I made a distinction between the textual literalists who want all details in the show to match the book vs people who are only calling out race.
Re: Samuel L. Jackson is a man so if he were to be cast as Elizabeth Bennett, the more obvious change would be gender, not race.
I did not see a single comment that said anything to the effect of, “I am totally cool with the period-inaccurate costumes, music, and uninhibited sex. But black Regency titled characters is where I draw the line.” Yes, there were some people who only mentioned the characters’ race, but did not expound upon their opinions regarding the music, costumes, or other inaccurate elements. So I cannot say if they had other issues with the series or not.
Furthermore, I would argue that if the Bridgertons was accurate/followed the book in every other respect other than its casting choices, I would not consider such comments to be racist. Obviously, you and I disagree on this point, and I think we’ll have to leave it there as neither one of us is going to convince the other party otherwise.
Yes, I understood that in your comment. My counterpoint was in reference to those only calling out race, as I explained above.
Okay, let’s look at a different example then. What about Queen Latifah as Mrs. Bennett? As much as I like Queen Latifah, I would consider that a miscast role. Just as I would be annoyed if Anne Hathaway got cast as Madam C.J. Walker. How is it racist to point that out? If you want some examples of racist comments, I have some read terribly ugly things around the web from real racists who claim they are getting “tired of seeing” black actors in any roles, even contemporary works. Thankfully, I don’t see that nasty attitude at AAR. If anything, I see a lot of defenses of period dramas such as Belle and praise for Beverly Jenkins’s diverse historical romances. Not to mention all the diverse contemporary stories that get reviewed throughout the rest of AAR.
In regard to media, I am on the side of writing new stories- lots and lots of stories- rather than shoehorning actors into roles that are canonically of a different race and then crying racism when certain audience members don’t like it. When James Bond fans squawk about rumors of casting a black or female actor in the title role, it’s not usually because they are against black and female actors. It is because they are annoyed some big wigs in Hollywood think it’s a brilliant idea to trample all over canon for the sake of political correctness. Then those big wigs can preen and gloat about how sexist or racist former fans are for disliking their obvious in-your-face changes for the sake of promoting the left-wing virtue of diversity at all costs. How about rebooting Cleopatra Jones or Shaft or writing some new characters instead? I say, the more the merrier. It would sure beat the alternative of rehashing the “classics” a bajillion times…
Anyway, I’m going to duck out of this thread now as I’ve said my piece on this topic.
While those comments may meet some definition of racist, they are the kind of thing we will continue to allow here at AAR. We believe strongly that discussion is one of the best tools we have to change others’ minds.
I appreciate you giving specific examples. It’s often hard to figure out how to address very generalized complaints. Thank you!
Yep.You’ve made your position very clear on numerous occasions. I listed specific examples of racist commentary only because another poster asked for an example. Not because I expected that AAR would make any changes.
There is a lot of discussion about inclusion and hearing “more diverse voices” in Romance so I found the racist commentary, blindness to it, and fervent insisting that it is not racist to be very illuminating, though disappointing. We’ve got a long way to go as a society if people get so upset because a few black actors are cast in a fantasy romance.
It’s my sense that most of Romanlandia as well as our readers loved Bridgerton and celebrated the casting. I know I did.
I agree the blindness to the racist comments is disappointing. It’s one thing to decide to allow them,which I understand even if I might not agree. It’s another thing to not recognize the remarks as racist in the first place.
I definitely read those comments that were only bothered by race.There were there.
Yes they were. But I do not think they represent the majority of viewers.
I don’t have the ability to judge more than what people put down in their comments so I cannot say that everyone who didn’t enjoy the casting was racist.
Were some of them? Possibly. What’s the alternative? To say no one can criticize anything if it relates to actors or actresses of color?
There was a huge uproar a few years ago about a fantasy film with Matt Damon fighting dragons or something in ancient China maybe? I can’t even remember the name because I had zero interest in it. It was clearly a fantasy as there were ancient super heroes fighting mythical creatures with, as I recall, a mostly Asian cast and plenty of people said “why the *%^^ is Matt Damon in film set in Ancient China?” But they didn’t have a problem with the dragons.
There are always going to be people who are sticklers for one thing but not about another and have set ideas about what characters should look like.
I didn’t have a real emotional investment to the Bridgerton characters before the series with the possible exception of Penelope and Colin because I had read their book years before. I thought Pen was adorable and perfect (there were other people on the internet who thought she was “too fat” for their idea of her) but Colin was not great IMHO and not at all my idea of Colin in looks or manner. It didn’t keep me from watching but it detracted from my enjoyment in some way if I’m being honest.
I’m still disgruntled over the casting of Tom Cruise in Interview With The Vampire all those years ago because he didn’t match in face or figure or mannerisms my idea of LeStat from the books. (Didn’t love Brad Pitt as Louis either).
I don’t think it’s fair to say AAR allows “racist” comments because it didn’t delete comments or commenters who didn’t like the casting, particularly when the choice of colorblind casting was so heavily promoted and mentioned. Of course there would be discussion about it and people would have differing opinions.
I personally thought it brought a lot of interesting discussion and allowed people to post information a lot of people may not have known about the role of people of color in society in the early 19th century.
If someone holds an opinion you feel is wrong isn’t it better to allow arguments against it? Isn’t that more instructive and enlightening?
I agree. Everyone is not on a level playing field and that makes a lot of difference. With hundreds of years of racial injustice and oppression and as many years of intolerance to religious beliefs and sexual orientation, many people aren’t standing on the same level the rest of us are. I believe safe places need to be made to allow their voices to be heard, even if it means muting others by demanding certain restraints, like defining some speech as hate speech.
As an illustration you could look at systemic repression and years of injustice like a physical disability. We make accommodations for those, like telling able body people not to sit or park in certain areas so we can level the playing field and allow equal access. Right now marginalized voices don’t have equal access, and making rules to create a safe environment for that to happen is important.
We can’t keep allowing the loudest voices and the most powerful groups to control the national conversation on rights and justice. There is a meme circulating that has three people of differing heights standing behind a fence trying to see a ballgame. none of them can see it. in the second frame each is given a box exactly the same height to stand on,but that only raises the tallest two to the height to see the game. That’s equality–giving everyone the same opportunity. The last frame gives each person the box they need to be able to see the game. That’s equity,or justice. Each person is given the tools needed to achieve their goals. In the end,the tallest person (most powerful group)is given the smallest box,and the smallest person (marginalized group) is given the biggest accommodation. That’s what needs to happen to public discourse. We need to provide equity, not just “equality.”
Should anyone control the conversation? I ask that sincerely.
To me, the issue is who wins the argument. For example, in the conversation about voting rights, those who argue for the suppression of the vote are clearly losing the argument. Polls show that a vast majority of Americans, pulling from all sides of the fence, believe that voting should be protected.
Now, those rights are under attack but not because public discourse believes they should be but rather because of–IMO–deeply unethical political practices. Limiting the discussion about voting rights doesn’t change that. Furthermore, arguments about cancel culture and who can and can’t say what are enabling those who wish to prevent freedom at the ballot box because they are able to fire up their constituency around language rather than the the actual issue.
So, to use your analogy of people trying to watch a game. If we focus on how we define the word tall or on whether or not watching the ball game is even a valid pastime or any number of other cultural issues, we rarely end up with a game that all can see. Historically, we end up with private games, games with box suites, and token admittances. If we want to truly change the world, focusing on language is rarely the way to do it. Tax policies, judicial appointments, and, yes, voting rights–these are the better tools in my opinion.
That said, I love your example and I think it’s one that anyone can use to easily understand privilege. Thank you for your insights and for your clear imagery!
This interview with Ken Burns resonates with me.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/15/magazine/ken-burns-interview.html
I totally agree, Dabney. I don’t want to get too deeply into some of my ideas for this as that’s another wide-sweeping tangent, but I will say there’s another reason why it is especially important to protect writers’ speech in particular. That’s because it is one of the few Wild West jobs left in this country. Practically everything else with the potential to make more than chicken feed requires a degree, a license, vast amounts of capital, or a combination of all three. In other words, most professions are taxed, regulated, and licensed to death. Talk about a lack of equity! You just try to start a small business selling knick-knacks or anything else in this country without being crushed by asinine rules most likely passed and enforced by people who have never run a business. (Companies like Etsy have thankfully allowed creators to bypass a lot of the nonsense that comes from having a storefront, but you wait and see. If citizens find a way around the powers that be, politicians will find a way to screw them out of their profits. But I digress.)
Getting back to writing, anyone with something to say, internet access, a word processor, and a KDP account can publish a book without barriers. Comedians have a similar freedom. A person with something insightful and humorous to say can get up on open mic night and possibly segue into making it a paid job.
So artists understandably get extremely touchy when perpetual online complainers with no skin in the game make scathing remarks specifically designed to cut them off from one of the last free market forms of enterprise. They are the ones trying to control the conversation by gleefully getting people banned. The artists, for the most part, are just trying to make a living without being under some corporation’s thumb.
I’m just curious about how muting others works in practice.
For instance, let’s say someone posts on AAR saying, “I’m gay and I feel AAR is homophobic.”
Since this person is in a marginalized group, does this mean that others who feel AAR is not homophobic should be silent? I’m completely in favor of giving this person a voice and a space to provide their opinion, but I’m not sure how the rest of us are supposed to react under those circumstances. What if disagreement makes this person feel AAR is not a safe space for them?
Here’s how I would respond to that:
I am so sorry you feel that way. That is never our intention nor do I suspect that others here intend to make you feel that way.
So if someone then posted NO WAY! AAR IS NOT HOMOPHOBIC, I’d respond to them this way:
Thank you for the vote of confidence. However I think it’s likely that even when we don’t mean to make someone feel as though they or their voice is somehow less, we may have done so. I’d rather we just work harder to make sure that when we do comment, we are aware that we all have different lenses.
If that still isn’t enough for someone then, well, I’m not sure commenting at AAR will work for them. I want to support marginalized groups and I believe that our coverage reflects that but I’m unwilling to silence conversation. If that is what is required, I’d wish someone well and continue to work to publish coverage of works by queer and POC authors.
You are ever the diplomat, Dabney. Those are nice responses that still make it clear you aren’t going to be cowed into silence over a differing opinion.
On that note, I think we also have to be careful when we talk about “marginalized groups” in a manner that could be construed as painting them as a monolith. Continuing with Marian’s homophobia example, one gay person might be offended whereas another can’t see what the fuss is about. Because, like anybody else, groups of any kind are composed of individuals. When the wider culture talks about “the gay community” or “the black community” or “the Asian community,” those labels encompass descriptors that are way too large to ascribe certain traits or overall beliefs. Sure, there can be general trends, but they shouldn’t be used to automatically dismiss those with a minority opinion. What I’d like to see is more diversity of thought rather than obsessing over percentages of X group or Y sexuality in a particular context. And I think AAR has an excellent mixture of both.
I certainly believe in shaping conversation.
Thank you, Dabney. That’s a respectful way to acknowledge that people have different opinions without either muting anyone or turning the place into an echo chamber.
And as someone who is not privileged in terms of skin color, I still believe in all voices being heard (unless we’re talking about personal insults, calls for harm to others, and so on).
That’s the goal.
I run the online conversation for my neighborhood. Our rules are:
No bullying or personal attacks. Disagreement is cool, dismissiveness is not. Be kind.
They work pretty well and we are a very diverse group.
I think those are good rules for a website. That, and not doing anything illegal (inciting a riot, for example).
My concern is that a lot of social media used to be as open as AAR. Sure, you had some rude, foul-mouthed commenters, which wasn’t nice, but the list of “thou shalt nots” is growing exponentially on other sites way beyond enforcing basic manners. That’s what worries me more than anything. I remember the early days of YouTube where basically the rules were nothing illegal, nothing pornographic, nothing excessively gory/violent. That was it. And before Google took over- and even for a while after- those three basic tenets worked really well. Now people are getting blocked and demonetized all over the place just for having a difference of opinion that is outside the bounds of what some technocrats think is appropriate.
Like I said before, you can definitely argue that it’s not our website, so they can do what they want. But at the same time, we should be wary about the growing restrictions that are reminiscent of Puritanism and the McCarthy Era only on the left side of the political spectrum instead of the right.
AAR, I believe, strikes an excellent balance by enforcing politeness rather than policing ideas. As far as I’m concerned, more websites need to take note and emulate your model that used to be almost ubiquitous.
Thank you.
To the above, I would also add the following: “Can you provide a few examples of AAR’s homophobia? Help us to see where we missed the mark, so that we can course-correct going forward.”
Broad accusations mean nothing to me these days, unless the accuser provides concrete examples.
That’s a great addition. Thanks!
The thing is, you cannot “fix” something if you don’t know what exactly is broken. Or even if something is actually broken. (It could just be that the poster’s perception of “broken-ness” is based on a misunderstanding, or a lack of knowledge, and once that is cleared up, the poster is satisfied.)
Thank you, Dabney.
I wouldn’t take the ball game analogy as far as you did. They could have been looking at a beautiful vista. It doesn’t matter what they were looking at. It’s access that matters. And since you did bring up other ways to access the games, ways usually open only to the privileged, then it’s even more important that equity be our goal.
As for controlling the conversation I feel like your example of voting rights doesn’t quite get at what I was saying.The conversation over voting rights in this country isn’t really at issue. We know the majority are in favor. What matters is who has the power to curtail them, and right now, the minority opinion is prevalent, at least at the state level as evidenced by over 120 bills introduced to limit voting options.
I cringe at all the calls of “cancel culture,” much of which is now aimed to do exactly what those shouting it are objecting to–to shut people down. A lot of what is being called cancel culture is no such thing. It’s people using their voices and freedom of speech to express their opinions. When I post opinions and information on J.K. Rowling’s ties with the TERF movement, I’m not cancelling her voice. I’m adding mine into the mix. I’m hopefully educating people on her views and what she supports, and letting people decide if they wish to support her by buying her books.
We already let the powerful groups control the conversations in this country. Minority voices have basically been “cancelled” for centuries. It’s time to provide the safe space for everyone’s voice.
Let’s take a groups of people- you have a mix of personalities and types. If you have a person who is used to making decisions and being in charge it it sometimes difficult to get them to relinquish control. They talk over people. We’ve all been in these meetings. So the group may set up rules to make a safe place for everyone to talk.That will mean the people used to talking a lot will “lose” that privilege to some extent while room is made for others. I think this is where we are in our country. In the search for justice and equality, some voices need to be quieter for a while so new ideas get a chance to make an impact. Hate speech is a way to keep people down. It’s worked for hundreds of years. It disempowers people by making them seem “less” or “other.” When a group in power uses it, it makes it even more powerful and detrimental. It’s easy for those of us who are privileged by being white and perhaps even well-off financially to say all voices need to be heard because ours will most likely always be heard. But when a group has been keep sidelined in part by the language and speech of others, this isn’t academic. The speech designed by it’s very nature to keep people down needs to end so there is safety for others.
Carrie, thanks for zeroing in on 2 crucial points.
And
I am naturally aware that freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations to it, the laws that limit it slightly different from country to country. As I understand it, that is a part of the concept of freedom of speech, the way certain laws limit it.
Of course, not all people live in free societies and are free to express their opinions even now, and especially against this background it is hard for me to understand why some people are so eager to cut back their freedom of speech, even though it is, as we have both established, already limited by multiple laws. To my thinking, the current limitations are enough, but I know a lot of people disagree, and of course, I’m not from the US, so the laws are a bit different here where I live anyway. But honestly, whenever I hear someone say that it would be only the wrong opinions that would be silenced or criminalized and that it would be done for the common good, my first thought is always: ”What an eerie echo of how totalitarian systems have always started, and of the principal on which they are based now. The way I see it, the problem with hate speech laws is, that I am not convinced that it is possible to find such a clear definition to hate speech, that the laws could only be applied fairly and consistently, and never be used against the very people whom the laws were supposed to protect. Or against journalists or political activists. Or those who stand against injustice, discrimination, inequality, and intolerance. Or just about anyone who opposes or questions those in power. Hate speech laws have, after all, already been abused again and again.
I don’t think that anything which people are involved in can ever be perfect, because people will always be human in strengths but also in weaknesses, and there will always be those willing to abuse any tool at their disposal and do harm. Freedom of speech is not without its problems, but I think that it has been proven time and again that its alternatives are way worse.
As I noted in another comment, I don’t have all that much energy to spend on the Internet these days (I have a progressive muscle disease), but from what I have observed, my understanding of ’cancelling’ is that it is a complex phenomenon. I believe that there are those who will say something vile and then when challenged for it, are not willing to take responsibility for their words. And those who simply do not know or care that freedom of speech is a concept with limitations. As I said, there are always people willing to abuse any tool at their disposal, and if a law has been broken there obviously has to be consequences. But I’ve also seen people getting fired and viciously attacked online for stating an opinion and that does go against my sense of justice. As a person with autism spectrum disorder who has been bullied, which is something that way too many people on the spectrum sadly have in common, it has been heartbreaking to see the tactics some autism activists have adopted online, for example. So I guess we have to agree to at least partially disagree on this.
As for site moderation, as I said before, I appreciate so much what AAR is doing, and think this place is a great example of a well moderated site with a good set of rules. The rules for commenting can be found in the About AAR section -> Commenting at AAR. Sticking to those, and naturally respecting the laws that limit free speech, is a good way to go, I think.
Thanks again.
We love hearing for you and from all our readers. And we like that not everyone sees things the same way. It’s how we learn!
I agree with this entire post. The comments are key to the success of this website for me.
The real question is, is there still a market for a website that provides a safe space for diverse opinions on a particular piece of literature? Is there still room for a website that promotes thoughtful, civil discussion, where people can share their honest opinions about and reactions to a particular book? A website where readers can discuss (even sometimes persuade or educate!) rather than cancel?
I’m very skeptical these days. The thought police seem to be everywhere, even looking over the shoulders of booksellers and editors. (We already have discussed how authors are feeling the effects.) I believe there have been posters on AAR who left because they were not allowed to cancel opinions with which they disagreed.
I want to believe that if AAR is able to (1) figure out how to attract more viewers and (2) make it clear on the main page that this is the place for in-depth reviews and thoughtful discussion–a place to help you pick that next book or movie!–then there will always be a solid audience for a site like this, and they will help support it.
I want to believe it.
Thanks for the shoutout, and yes to everything you said.
As far as I know, AAR is the only literature website that fosters diverse opinions and has a significant following. While I’m sure there are some vanity blogs out there with similar principles, they’re not really on the radar as far as I can see. The closest comparison I can make is that Snowy Fictions blog I mentioned in response to Dabney’s comment, but that’s a bit of a stretch considering it’s not really a book review website so much as commentary about literary elements and the censorious forces that threaten authors today. But if the dearth of comments on her site are any indication, her following is miniscule.
Yes, this absolutely happened. Dare I humble brag and posit that a lot of my posts were the catalyst? If Tessa Dare’s screen capture of one of my comments out of context is any indication, I’d say that’s a definite possibility. Sorry if it sounds like I’m holding a grudge, but that really burned both me and AAR.
It’s not that I come here looking to antagonize anyone, but a lot of internet commenters these days are so used to throwing a hissy fit when someone has a difference of opinion, they flip out when opposing viewpoints aren’t shut down instead of engaged with.
I have found AAR to be highly educational in this regard. The example that comes to mind immediately is A Rogue of One’s Own. How refreshing it was to have a tough, nuanced, adult conversation about the hero’s perversion of a Hindu deity as a tattoo! I learned a lot in that discussion, far more than I would have on certain other sites where anything other than righteous indignation was immediately shut down on the grounds of “racism.”
On that subject, here’s a helpful hint to the perpetually offended crowd: you won’t win many converts by throwing ad-hominem laced tantrums rather than explaining your position in a thoughtful, rational fashion. I admit I have a lot of work to do not letting my emotions/frustrations run away with me in the heat of the moment, but you won’t get anywhere with me by saying something like, “OMG, you’re such a racist, homophobic troll who should be banned from the internet for life!” That’s not an argument. That’s a tantrum, and the internet is flooded with them these days. Normally, I could shrug it off. But the problem is, mainstream publishers are caving into these kinds of outbursts, dumping their controversial authors- that they greenlighted- instead of defending them. Ugh… I hope AAR can keep fighting the good fight.
Unfortunately, thoughtful, rational discussion is becoming a “boomer” value. Something to be mocked as outdated.
From what I’m seeing today, one either supports the “preferred” (read: politically correct, thought-policed) agenda–even when it comes to book discussions–or one is considered unworthy of having a place at the table. One’s conversion to “Right-Think” is acceptable, but not required. Canceling is a good alternative, a simple and expedient way of keeping independent thinkers from infecting other people with their not-always-politically-correct viewpoints. IMO
Even worse, I have recently read serious “arguments” from full grown adults in positions of authority saying that logic, rational thinking, and mathematics are “racist.” Really? Concrete thinking and absolute truths are now considered a tool of systemic white supremacy? I wish I could say I read this on The Onion or The Babylon Bee, but these notes and policy changes are coming from teachers, school administrators, and school boards in various districts. Isn’t that just lovely? We’ve got a nation full of academically failing kids who desperately need concrete lessons in their ABCs and 1 2 3s, and policymakers are dithering about pandering the latest lessons in wokeness and tearing down old statues rather than emphasizing concrete, immutable facts that could actually help these kids secure a decent future. Regardless of your feelings, background, and grievances, 1 + 1 = 2. Period. There’s no opinion involved. And when it comes to supporting a foundation in logic, how are kids supposed to learn how to dissect ideas and judge their merits when the adults around them can’t or aren’t allowed to make an argument more substantial than “Logic is a tool of white supremacy?”
You said it. And a big part of cancelling unpopular viewpoints, I believe, comes from society’s increasing rejection of anything that helps build resilience. Even ten years ago, any school board member who suggested that something as concrete and irrefutable as mathematics is racist would have been laughed out of the building- or heard crickets. Now, anyone who says, “Wait a minute. If a kid’s not doing well in math, shouldn’t we be tutoring him to help him overcome whatever difficulties he’s having?” is accused of being out of touch with the child’s culture or slapped with the label “racist.” In this sort of climate, won’t kids grow up thinking their failures are not the result of poor teaching or needing extra help but a society that’s out to get them? And if society is out to get them, why attempt to overcome any obstacles? After all, it’s this nebulous society that is the problem rather than anything or anybody that could help the kid succeed- including, sometimes, the kid himself. So why not put up a stink on Twitter over every little thing you think ought to be cancelled to make you feel less oppressed?
This all reminds me of the end of Phoebe Cary’s poem “Try Try Again:”
“If by easy work you beat,
Who the more will prize you?
Gaining victory from defeat
That’s the test that tries you.”
In short, we need to get back to a place of backbone, gumption, and try, try again rather than this whining meltdown cancel culture that’s destroying art and artists. I honestly think a lot of these Twitter calls for book cancellation come from a generation of spoiled brats who were told their every precious opinion matters, feelings matter more than fact, and have never had to achieve or overcome anything significant. So they cheer when an author gets a contract pulled, thinking they’re such awesome activists for ruining someone who actually accomplished something in life. Ugh… rant over.
According to the new National Museum of African American History and Culture in D.C., I would say the answer is yes.
Aspects & Assumptions of WHITENESS & WHITE CULTURE in the United States is a controversial graphic featured in the museum. It outlines *white* values, including the following, and I quote:
Emphasis on Scientific Method:
So there you go, Nan.
People’s livelihoods are certainly at stake, I’m a lowly office worker at one of the big consulting firms. Their influence on ideas, policies, technology and infrastructure within corporations and even the US govt and across the world should not be underestimated. One of our recent meetings on DEI had a slide on educating allies and leaders. The stated goal is to debunk traditional orthodoxies, e.g., meritocracy and colorblindness.
I’ve been through several rounds of diversity training at different places both through work and through volunteer work. It’s been my sense that those efforts usually fail to change the perceptions of the participants they most wanted to reach.
Furthermore, diversity training has proved depressingly ineffective in changing the behaviors of corporations and groups.
What’s the answer there? Certainly not trying to change behaviors is a bad plan. We need a more diverse workforce complete with far more women and POC in leadership roles. But how do we get there? The answer to that proves remarkably elusive.
It’s really amazing how much power and influence things like PR firms and other entities can have on public perceptions. They can completely sway the narrative, particularly if they get a stranglehold on the sources reporting the news.
Just watching Allen vs. Farrow and seeing how much power and influence a famous director has over things like government agencies is truly shocking. Add to that a powerful PR force with agents who can withhold access to reporters who don’t comply with their client’s narrative shows how biased “news” and news sources can be.
It does kill me, as a lifelong left wing liberal, to suddenly be deemed a conservative because of my conviction that free speech is a basic part of a functioning society.
Now you’re getting it! It is what it is, Dabney.
The erosion of your freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.
Believe me, the one and only good thing about the COVID lockdown for me was that I had oodles of time to research historical facts, statistics, etc. on the web. Something I had never done before.
Once I started looking at news sources/historical sites that are not controlled by the popular media outlets–and you have to really search the web to find them, an exercise that most people are not inclined to do–a different picture of what really happened in 2020 in the U.S. emerged. The blinders were off.
If you have an hour to kill, maybe watch this. The truth will set you free.