This week! Books!
While newspaper editorials continue to clutch their pearls about “cancel culture” (say it with me: SHAMING IS NOT CENSORSHIP), there is real honest-to-god censorship sweeping the country, particularly targeting antiracist and LBGTQ books, with plenty of others caught in the crossfire. Two articles this week profile people fighting back: Odette Yousef at NPR looks at parents organizing campaigns against book challenges, the shadowy money behind the moral panics, and the long history of these fights, and Hannah Natansan at the Washington Post profiles librarians who are fighting back.
Often lost in these debates: JoAnn Yao talks about how book bans like these impact kids.
In further controversial news, author Lauren Hough had a Lambda Literary nomination pulled because she had defended a novel that had been accused of being anti-trans. Like most social media dustups I have not had time to sift through all the claims and counterclaims, so I do not have an opinion here.
As someone who can hardly write a blog post without multiple typos, I both shake my fist at grammar nerds and secretly respect their abilities. But it’s also worth remembering that grammar is one big ponzi scheme and there’s not some law of nature around the form language takes. Who gets to decide the “rules”about language says a lot about power and culture.
What are your fellow writers writing? Agent Kristin Nelson provides a fascinating glimpse into her slush pile trends.
In writing advice news, Tiffany Yates Martin has some sound advice on how to weave flashbacks naturally into the story, and Melissa Febos has advice on how to write a sex scene: treat like any other scene.
The David R. Godine imprint has been making fine books for fifty years and its last book will be by David R. Godine the person, looking back at the imprint’s history and the books he most enjoyed. Certain to be a time capsule of this era of publishing.
And Esquire has a ranking of the top 50 science fiction books, ripe for a conversation/argument starter.
This week in bestsellers
Here are the top five NY Times bestsellers in a few key categories. (All links are affiliate links):
Adult print and e-book fiction:
- The Match by Harlan Coben
- Run, Rose, Run by Dolly Parton and James Patterson
- It Ends With Us by Colleen Hoover
- Verity by Colleen Hoover
- The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo by Taylor Jenkins Reid
Adult print and e-book nonfiction:
- One Damn Thing After Another by William P. Barr
- The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk
- Lessons from the Edge by Marie Yovanovitch
- In Love by Amy Bloom
- The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larsen
Young adult hardcover:
- Gallant by V.E. Schwab
- One of Us is Lying by Karen M. McManus
- You’ve Reached Sam by Dustin Thao
- Loveless by Alice Oseman
- Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Zhao
Middle grade hardcover:
- Wonder by R.J. Palacio
- Refugee by Alan Gratz
- Daughter of the Deep by Rick Riordan
- Pax, Journey Home by Sara Pennypacker
- Out of My Heart by Sharon M. Draper
This week on the blog
In case you missed them, here are this week’s posts:
Don’t forget that you can nominate your first page and query for a free critique on the blog:
And keep up with the discussion in all the places!
And finally, a legendary “killing stone” in Japan has broken that was the source of a 12th century legend of nine-tailed fox. This may be good or bad news, depending on who you ask.
Have a great weekend!
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Photo: Downtown Brooklyn. Follow me on Instagram!
%20sweeps%20the%20country%20(This%20week%20in%20books)){kind=link}
Hmm . . . shaming may not be censorship, and yet, it has that effect.
Also, say it with me SHAMING IS NOT DEBATING.
And, related, SHAMING DOESN’T CHANGE MINDS.
But, what do I know? I’m a nobody.
Explain to me how shaming has the effect of censorship?
Seriously? You can’t see it? Can’t imagine it? Can’t posit some people might self-censor for fear of shaming? Can’t envision people might be afraid of accidentally saying something that gets misinterpreted and then is ostracized for it?
Surely, you know of examples where that’s happened? What, after all, is the objective of shaming?
I mean, yes, using a literal definition, shaming (the act or activity of subjecting someone to shame, disgrace, humiliation, or disrepute, especially by public exposure or criticism) is not censorship (individuals or groups preventing others from saying, printing, or depicting, words, images, or ideas).
But then, again, what is the ultimate objective of shaming if not stifling discussion? Of imposing one’s views on someone else?
In fact, I could read your comment as a challenge meant to discourage the expression of my opinion . . . or, are you genuinely curious, open-minded, and entertaining the possibility you’re wrong about what you said?
As an editor, if you read your question, would you say it leans more toward honest curiosity or a challenge? If it were a line of dialogue in a novel, would it sound friendly or antagonistic? What was your mindset when you wrote it? Were you smiling, glad for the chance to discuss something important, or frowning because something you said was challenged?
. . . all good questions . . .
Self-censoring sounds like a choice. As you say now, they’re not the same. The first comment sounded to me like false equivalency.
That reply sounds disingenuous.
For the record, this reply was to your comment before you added the second sentence (that’s an unfair advantage you have).
Let me ask you… What do you think about religious zealots trying to shame women seeking an abortion?
From a few weeks ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/opinion/campus-speech-cancel-culture.html
You can find other such articles if you’re open to them. You don’t have to agree with them, but they should be aware of the opinion of others.
After all, you encourage writers to be widely read, to read outside their preference, their comfort zone . . . because exposure to diversity is a good thing, no?
Sorry, but Cancel Culture is censorship. The message is, if you don’t think the way we want you to think, and say the talking points that we want you to say, then you will be canceled. This isn’t always just limited to losing your social media accounts. Sometimes it is taken so far that people lose their livelihoods, or even bank accounts, all because they expressed an opinion that is unpopular. The Bill of Rights protects free speech – especially the kind that is unpopular. You don’t have to agree with what someone says, but in the America, they still have the right to say it.
Censorship is censorship.
There are a few isolated instances of overreach, but suffering consequences because you said something stupid is….suffering consequences for saying something stupid.
Would you still approve of cancel culture if you lost your social media and your livelihood because someone thought the things you said or posted were “stupid”? Who is to decide what is “stupid”? Just because someone says something that you don’t agree with, it doesn’t make what they said “stupid”. People need to be more respectful of the opinions of others.
Cancel Culture also has no sense of the passing of time. They will cancel someone for something that happened 20 years ago when they were a kid. They don’t accept that people grow and change as they age, they cancel them anyway. It’s ridiculous. Would you want to be judged on the things you said and did when you were in high school? Junior high school? Cancel culture is censorship at it’s worst.
I’m not defending the excesses of what you’re calling cancel culture but the false equivalency is astounding. Censorship at its worst? Are you kidding me? Maybe you’d rather live in Russia or North Korea?
See, that’s the thing, cancel culture IS related to the kinds of censorship you see in places like Russia, or North Korea, or China. These regimes begin with cancel culture, canceling everyone until only their opinions and those who agree with their opinions remain. Those are the kinds of places where you disappear when you don’t agree with the government, or you are put in a camp. Even here, people were saying that it would be a good idea for those who didn’t have Covid vaccines to be put in camps and kept away from the rest of society. If not kept in check, cancel culture leads down a path to brutal dictatorships.
Nathan, bringing up North Korea and Russia as alternatives is what is known as a false dichotomy. Not a very good discussion tactic and I’m surprised you didn’t include Hitler.
Seriously, perhaps this impromptu discussion could be made more productive if you clarify what you mean by shaming.
How does it work? What are the mechanisms and the expected outcomes?
I assume it involves more than pointing at someone and saying “Tsk, Tsk! Shame on you!”
How does one go about shaming someone, and what does one hope/expect to achieve?
Lastly, could you perhaps provide examples of positive shaming? So far, all I’ve seen is those “isolated incidences of overreach”. So many isolated incidents that perhaps I’m getting the wrong idea about the positive aspects of shaming.
Personally, I would prefer engaging a person in conversation and discussing assumptions, perceptions, ideas, etc.
Mind you, we can stop right now and move on, but for me to respect someone’s opinions, I need to understand where they’re coming from and if they’ve seriously considered the broader implications of what they choose to voice. Not that it matters to you what I think, but it’s always good to self-check (I think that’s also a message occasionally appearing in your posts).
The article on censorship is pertinent to writing and writers . . . so is shaming. For the record, I’m of the strong opinion one shouldn’t condemn or cheer something based on who’s doing it, and when free speech is bandied about, it invariably and erroneously understood to mean “only if I agree with it”.
You both are replying in a very complicated way to something I think is ultimately very simple. Censorship by the state is very different and very much more problematic and worse than people suffering consequences for saying stupid things. I am not defending excesses of shaming and have posted several times on this blog about the danger of online witch hunts, but to equate someone “self-censoring” because they’re afraid of criticism with actual censorship like book banning or the worst regimes of the world is completely ludicrous to me.
Respectfully, let me point out you’re mixing meanings and moving goalposts (and not answering the question).
You seem to imply that shaming is the same as criticizing someone.
I believe there is a big difference between “criticizing” someone and “shaming” someone.
I know full well how to criticize someone. Please educate me on how you would go about shaming someone.
We both agree censorship is bad. Put that aside for a moment.
Someone self-censoring in today’s environment isn’t because they are afraid of criticism. It’s because they are afraid of being attacked and having their character impugned, usually in such a way that they can’t realistically defend themselves from exaggerated accusations.
Again, we can put this whole thing to bed if you just explain how you would go about shaming someone. Or, did you mean “criticizing” when you said shaming? Because, if that’s the case, I’m on board.
Criticizing someone for either what they say or do isn’t censorship.
For instance, I’m criticizing your statement because I think you are wrong. In the process, I’m giving you a chance to explain what you meant.
However, I’m not saying you are an awful person, questioning your fitness to give advice about writing by suggesting your views are somehow damaging to others, and I’m not claiming you should be ashamed of yourself for not being wholly honest in this discussion, or, worse yet, flat-out lying.
Can you see the difference?
You’re having a different discussion and making different points than what I’ve said both in the post and my replies. Which is fine, but I’ve been making a pretty narrow )and I thought pretty uncontroversial) point all along.
I’m not sure how to phrase the question so that you would answer it.
Please, tell me how you would shame someone so that I may understand your uncontroversial point.
I genuinely want to know and understand.
Pick something you would want to shame if I said it, and assume that I said it. How would you proceed to shame me?
Or, just point me to an example. Something, anything, so that we can be on the same page.
You want to have some other conversation than the one I want to have. I don’t see the point of getting lost in examples and counter examples and hypotheticals. Literally all I’m saying is that state sponsored censorship is worse than shaming, which, barring separate crimes or the other excesses I’ve already made caveats for, is almost always someone *also* expressing their free speech.
Too bad . . . it would have been instructive knowing exactly what you were thinking — and what you meant — when you wrote the first part of that paragraph:
“While newspaper editorials continue to clutch their pearls about “cancel culture” (say it with me: SHAMING IS NOT CENSORSHIP)…”
… because it doesn’t seem to square with what you, in the comments, say you meant.
Then again, I’m not an editor, so perhaps I don’t process word meanings like editors do (doesn’t bode well for my chances of selling anything).
But, no worries; I still think I learned something.
Take care.
Sa-ay! Here’s an interesting post:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/03/29/what-on-earth-is-cancel-culture/
Thanks to all commenters for an interesting and very topical debate! I generally agree with Nathan’s blog posts, but I have a different view on this particular topic.
Cancel Culture is undoubtedly one of the greatest evils infecting the USA today, and is spreading thence to the rest of the English-speaking world and beyond. It is VERY real and overlaps with governmental censorship. It is overwhelmingly a weapon of the poltical Left at the moment, but such things can change, sometimes quickly. The Left seems very happy to weaponise huge social media and other platforms against all who dare disagree with the Left, ignoring the danger of such legal and social weapons being seized by the Right in the future and turned against the Left. The Left should not assume it will always control the corporate state.
Public/Governmental censorship, Private/Corporate censorship, and self-censorship are deeply entangled with each other, endangering livelihoods, reputations, relationships, freedom and even life itself. Self-censorship is the ultimate goal of all other censorship, preventing books from being written in the first place, not just from being published.
Inside many democracies there’s a dictatorship trying to get out, since democracies tend to stockpile unnecessary emergency legislation. For example, Hitler was able to use the Weimar Republic’s existing emergency laws to create Nazi Germany, with little need for new powers for years. Let’s be wary of giving our oponents sticks to beat us with.