The kerfuffle, it boggles me

[hawkwing_lb]

My first real internet slapfight. It feels like a coming-of-age. Or perhaps a baptism by fire.

The comments at SH have broken 125. I never expected a response of this magnitude, but since it's occurred, I think it's worth a moment's consideration. (Also, I am procrastinating on my conference paper.) Out of the response a number of interesting questions have arisen, which may be roughly grouped into two opposing views of legitimacy.

The first group raises the following questions:

1. Who may "legitimately" review what sorts of books?

2. Whether passion, hyperbole, and angry rhetoric invalidate legitimate critique.

This latter argument is most often referred to as the tone argument (Why you gotta be so angry, baby?) and followers of various race- and feminism-related internet discussions will recall its frequent use is as a silencing and/or derailing technique - the discussion is often derailed into considerations of tone and politeness alone, rather than addressing the substance of the argument. Too, adherents of the tone argument frequently question the legitimacy of the anger/passion itself, denying that there may be a long-running pattern which gives both rise and reason to it.

The first group's questions are not, I think, critical. But the second group's ones trouble me.

The second group asks this:

1. Whether some books are more inherently "worthy" of critical review than others.

2. What constitutes such a book?

3. (Implied.) And why?

This is a question SFF as a genre and a community should, perhaps, consider asking. Books by men are reviewed more frequently than books by women; reviews and "buzz" affect what's considered for awards, and what's brought onto the horizon of people's attention. Criticism also serves a purpose in pointing out problematic trends in entertainment: the acceptance of social privilege, for example, as a normal and unmarked state troubles me about the books I read - not while I'm reading them, but after, when I cast my mind back. (Too, the marginalisation of female agency is a large part of why I can't wholeheartedly enjoy some of the epic fantasy (and other high fantasy) that I read; and the prevalence - the normalisation - of violence, particularly sexual violence, in the grim/dark mode irritates me excessively.)

---

I've collected a few links for posterity.

Comments at SH

Fantasy Book Critic

The OF Blog

The Hysterical Hamster

towersofgrey

ETA: Google Alerts has, somewhat tardily, brought me more links:

http://wisb.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-bully-reviewer-manifesto-or-why.html

http://adrianfaulkner.com/2012/01/14/dear-genre-bullying-reviews-are-very-uncomely/

http://iansales.com/2012/01/16/how-to-write-a-good-review/

http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/calm-the-fuck-down-fanficyasfftie-in-fiction-is-not-serious-business/

http://chamberfour.com/2012/01/17/the-weeks-best-book-reviews-11712/

http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/criticism-in-sff-and-ya/#comments

http://pauljessup.com/2012/01/17/strange-horizons-and-the-tear-down-of-a-terrible-book/

http://corabuhlert.com/2012/01/21/gender-and-review-bias-2012-edition/

http://corabuhlert.com/2012/01/22/more-on-the-reviews-dust-up/

http://garethrees.org/2012/01/28/critics/

Comments

The slapfight.

[warriorofworry]

I'm sorry, but I laughed until I cried. (Though, honestly, I could only stomach about half of the SH comments and had to quit.) This looks *so* much like an elementary school playground, with the little boys circled around taunting one girl, because she had the right answer in class and they didn't. The only unfairness and bullying is from the commenters.
So sorry you got such a reaction from the author's little fanclub over a review that seemed fair and honest.

Re: The slapfight.

[hawkwing_lb]

It's laugh or weep. Although there's some epic snark (not by me) down at the very bottom of the SH comments...

[gareth_rees]

You've linked my piece ("A credo for critics") but it's worth taking a look at the comment thread that developed at James Nicoll's LiveJournal. This revealed to me that there is a big conceptual gulf between critics and fans: in particular, many fans are unaware of the concepts of the "implied author" and the "death of the author", and, even when it's explained how critics employ these ideas, some are reluctant to accommodate the critical discourse.

[hawkwing_lb]

Thanks.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

It roubles me that one of the things that is coming out of this is the idea that some books are 'undeserving' based on either their place in a genre, or the identity of the author. Why we have to mimic mainstream snobbery is beyond me, but apparently we do.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Argh, LJ ate my reply. I can see an argument for prioritising professional reviews. But to suggest that a book is "undeserving" of critical attention merely because it does not set out to do anything new - which seems to be part of some of the objections in this case - to me seems to whiff a little of narrow-minded elitism.

[between4walls.livejournal.com]

I quite enjoyed your review and found the comment thread disturbing in places (how on earth is an impersonal review which does not direct insults at the author "bullying"?). That said, the tone argument can be a legitimate discussion in it's own right and not just a derail from other discussions.

Do you think it's legitimate to critique the tone of a book? There are definitely books I've avoided because I found the tone grating, hyperbolic, or condescending, whether or not I agreed with the arguments. If so, why isn't it legitimate to critique the tone of a book review?

[helivoy.livejournal.com]

If you are a woman who won't back down, the hordes will eventually come with pitchforks. If you are a woman who discusses issues of female authors/artists and female characters in fiction, this outcome is guaranteed (and it will happen at near-light speed).

As to what is worth reviewing: pointing the incredibly regressive nature of much epic/grimdark fantasy is definitely important. The other side of this coin is highlighting women's work in this domain, which is significant in both amount and quality.

[between4walls.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the guy who uses a liking for Chaucer or Dumas as an example of being too highbrow to enjoy anything simpler? What? My beloved The Three Musketeers is no longer a fast-paced adventure with loads of sword-fights and unlikely conspiracies?

[whitewaveraven.livejournal.com]

Can, Worms, EVERYWHERE!!! I'm very entertained Liz. You should be too.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

It's very elitist.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Hurray for the Three Musketeers! It's my favourite book of all time.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I think my answer is a qualified "sometimes" and "it depends." But it's my feeling that critiquing the tone of a piece of fiction is somewhat different to critiquing the same in a piece of nonfiction. I think tone and mood, in fiction, is a legitimate target for discussion and critque. But I also think a discussion of the tone of a piece of nonfiction must consider (and not just assume) the reasons for the use of that tone. (I also think polemic is a valid mode of communication, so I may be biased in that regard.)

I do think the tone argument as regards to nonfiction is most often used as a derail from discussing matters of substance. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

And Chaucer has fart jokes. Extended fart jokes!

(I do think some people could stand to read a teeny bit more widely, before assuming that longlasting means highbrow.)

[jennygadget.livejournal.com]

For me, it's not so much that tone is *never* a legitimate thing to critique, it's that:

When the reviewer is female, the general topic at hand is something often seen as "for boys," the complaints about tone correspond to gendered expectations regarding being nice, and that's the only complaint they have?....Let's just say I question how much they really disliked the tone, versus how much they dislike the tone coming from a female person and directed at something they like.

And this is without even talking about the fact that most of the people making this particular complaint are not only using the same tone, but taking it to a whole other level. Also, it's not like most people are going around saying "I agree/disagree but respect the opinion. ut you know, the hyperbole and such didn't really do it for me."

(substitute for other marginalized peoples as needed)

tl;dr

I think there is a difference in discussing the tone of a work of fiction in a balanced way, and discussing the tone of people expressing their opinions, reviews included, because of power dynamics and how the critiquing of tone is often use to shut down legitimate complaints.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I think I'll pass on being entertained - I do not thrive on internet drama, though I find it interesting enough to watch. But I'm glad someone's enjoying this. :P

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

If I'd ever dreamed of disagreeing with this statement, this little kerfuffle would have gone far to convince me otherwise.

I think much more could be done to highlight the "woman issue." For example, the first B&N thing over at Tor (not hunting links because I'm on the move) treated pretty much solely works of epic fantasy - and epic fantasy only by men, including, arguably, people who are really old news in the epic fantasy field (if you read epic and have not heard of Jordan or Martin, you are living under a very strange rock.)

Will continue thought later, I think.

[requires hate (from livejournal.com)]

When I pointed out the lesbian rape in Abercrombie was gross, his fanboys on westeros.org lost their shit utterly: http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/ewwww-neckbeard-cooties-the-fanboy-fallacies/ "Crazy bitch" was just the start, and the link was passed around on several forums. I riled them up on purpose of course, but it's telling how swiftly true colors show for these people.

Then there's all the rape threats Flavia at Tiger Beatdown got after taking GRRM to task. Certain sections of the genre are utter cesspits.

[requires hate (from livejournal.com)]

Hope you don't mind me butting in. I thought your review was awesome and wittily scathing--and said things that, y'know, needed to be said because ugh grimdark fantasy.

[jennygadget.livejournal.com]

This. xinfinity.

It's one thing to not be widely read, it's another to make assumptions about the stuff you have not read...in order to deride the people that are more widely read than you.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

'some books are 'undeserving' based on either their place in a genre'

That's a thought I'd like to explore more in detail when I have the brain.

Because there seems to be a consensus that only... important, or influential, or outstanding books are 'worthy' of a reviewers attention. The second question is whether you should review books that do something badly, but it appears to be a different discussion. That reviewers shouldn't bother to review books nobody will see anyway seems to be universally accepted, and that bothers me.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I don't mind at all. (Just so's you know, I have default comment screening on all people Whom I Know Not, so it may take a little while for your comments to show up, is all.)

The sad thing about the Sullivan book? Is that it's not even working the grim/dark mode, which I agree is usually (but not necessarily: I will make an exception for Richard Morgan, who - while still working the violence angle - manages to foreground agency) a morass of sexual violence and/or eliding of female agency. It was just bonus lack of ladies, to add to the craft!fail.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

I also have to say that in this particular instance I agree with jennygadget on the gendered nature of the tone argument, tho' perhaps I am too close to the material to speak with considered judgement.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Mm. I think it's definitely a worthwhile question to consider, and one I'd never really thought seriously about, before.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

(Let me use this opportunity to say that I'm reading your blog - I don't usually have comments, but, like hawkwing_lb, you're pointing out important issues, you hit the nail on the head with commendable frequency, and it's not up to me to remark on the tone or whether I would have chosen it.


Not in the least because I've spoken my mind in no less direct terms on my own review blog (beyond-elechan.dreamwidth.org). There are times when being nice to an author you don't have warm fuzzy feelings for would mean siding with the opressors. It took me a while to come around to this opinion, but writers who portray women and minorities in negative ways - as weak, helpless, stupid, wrong - were rude first. Nobody made them portray all [members of group] negatively.And once they've been rude, I don't think it's unfair to call them out on that rudeness.