booktubers part 3

[getinmymachine]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

Agreed. And it goes the other way too.

The Austentatious Book Club (that was Zoe, Hannah, Natasha, Joce, and Maureen) discussed Little Women and thought Jo March might be transgender. But they completely ignored the historical context of the book which was so frustrating.

I see that come up a lot with George from the Famous Five. It can be interesting to discuss these things, or even have your own headcanons about fictional characters, especially when the author is long dead. Someone's personal interpretation of a story doesn't affect anyone else. But if we're talking author's intent... if the book had been written in this decade, who knows? But it wasn't, so mayyybe they're just tomboys.

Suspecting every tomboy character of being trans is kind of narrow-minded as well. What they're saying is "this person doesn't act and dress feminine so they must be a boy" like don't you all want to abolish traditional gender roles so bad?

[hxgsandkxssxs]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

I agree with your first paragraph. But Black Witch was so poorly executed and hollow. The author made a horrible and naive attempt at her themes and character development. The racism in that book stands out because the author did a horrible job and attempting to show her main character overcome her racist views and upbringing. The other characters that endured the racism were simply props so that the main character could could go.

I’m quite intrigued by this whole topic, I’m guessing you read the book? If so, I would love to read why you think that. The majority of negative reviews I read were from people who had not even READ the book, or were bashing it without giving a proper contextual background to their review. The Goodreads reviewers I trust, on the other hand, reviewed it more positively than not. I would love to hear your opinion, especially since we’re anonymous on here I feel it might be easier to trust the reviews.

Also, and I might be wrong, but weren’t the races in the book completely made up? As, in not human? I’ve read so many books where there has been a superiority/inferiority complex between creatures (fae/human, magical/magicless, red-blooded/silver-blooded) and a social hierarchy as a result of it.

[hxgsandkxssxs]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

Agreed. And it goes the other way too.

The Austentatious Book Club (that was Zoe, Hannah, Natasha, Joce, and Maureen) discussed Little Women and thought Jo March might be transgender. But they completely ignored the historical context of the book which was so frustrating.

I see that come up a lot with George from the Famous Five. It can be interesting to discuss these things, or even have your own headcanons about fictional characters, especially when the author is long dead. Someone's personal interpretation of a story doesn't affect anyone else. But if we're talking author's intent... if the book had been written in this decade, who knows? But it wasn't, so mayyybe they're just tomboys.

Suspecting every tomboy character of being trans is kind of narrow-minded as well. What they're saying is "this person doesn't act and dress feminine so they must be a boy" like don't you all want to abolish traditional gender roles so bad?

It’s lovely that today’s book feature a larger proportion of PoC and LGBTQ+ characters, but it does seem a little confusing to me that so many people believe that such liberations could have been reality back in the 1800s. It’s not a pleasant truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. I read The Secret Garden recently and was a little disturbed at the way the author wrote about Indian characters, but I know I had to shake it off and read on because the book is from a time of ignorance and prejudice.

Also, what do people think about J.K. Rowling changing characters after the books were published? Her own drawings of the characters from when she was writing the books, for example, depict Hermione to be white, and Dean is explicitly coloured to be black. I actually really like that Hermione in Cursed Child was played by a Black woman, but I did think it was a bit deceitful to say that Hermione was never supposed to be white. I would love to see Rowling potray a wider array of diverse characters in her newer books written under Robert Galbraith, but changing the characters from what she had always thought them to be makes me feel a little funny. They were written in the 90s, of course there wasn’t as much awareness as there is today and I can’t blame her for it.

[hxgsandkxssxs]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

Preach. These people have some odd mix of victim mentality and a hero complex. It's like they read books with the intent of being offended, and then they run to social media to burn the book and author at the stake so they can feel like the Social Justice Hero. It's very twisted and juvenile. It stunts growth and conversation, as pointed out above, they have their followers blindly saying "thanks for reading it so I don't have to". really?? Let one person read all the books for us and decide what's appropriate for the masses? Sounds awfully frightening to me.
And I will never get over the audacity of certain booktubers, one in particular, "educating" authors on how to be more sensitive and socially aware. The second-hand embarrassment is strong.

I actually just read a comment on The Black Witch goodreads page and a user gave the book 1 star and said, to paraphrase “I haven’t read the book but I feel it is my duty to spread awareness that, from the reviews I have read online, this book is awful”. I usually respect reviewers who give bad reviews and thoughtfully explain why that is, but it makes me nauseuous to think so many people could jump on a bandwagon without having read the book first.

[Guest]

^ You all bring up excellent points! ^

One thing that bothered me most about the Hermione character is that people thought she was already black because she had bushy hair. It wasn't everyone, but majority. Saying that someone is a particular race because of a particular characteristic without any backup, is very stereotyped and unacceptable. I still like the idea of a black Hermione because I think it adds a new layer to her character like what if she didn't have any friends because she was black? And what if she also couldn't fit in with other black people because she might have been slightly well off or she was darker skinned or because she was intelligent so people thought she was "acting white?" So that's the main reason why I liked when characters are played differently.

I'm still confused on Dumbledore being gay.
I don't really blame people for writing what they know, because at the time that was the reality. But people do grow and they learn and they become better.

[Harrietthespy]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

I agree with your first paragraph. But Black Witch was so poorly executed and hollow. The author made a horrible and naive attempt at her themes and character development. The racism in that book stands out because the author did a horrible job and attempting to show her main character overcome her racist views and upbringing. The other characters that endured the racism were simply props so that the main character could could go.

I’m quite intrigued by this whole topic, I’m guessing you read the book? If so, I would love to read why you think that. The majority of negative reviews I read were from people who had not even READ the book, or were bashing it without giving a proper contextual background to their review. The Goodreads reviewers I trust, on the other hand, reviewed it more positively than not. I would love to hear your opinion, especially since we’re anonymous on here I feel it might be easier to trust the reviews.

Also, and I might be wrong, but weren’t the races in the book completely made up? As, in not human? I’ve read so many books where there has been a superiority/inferiority complex between creatures (fae/human, magical/magicless, red-blooded/silver-blooded) and a social hierarchy as a result of it.

The races were made up in way. There was a variety of mythical races that are intended to be “othered” and oppressed the way people of color are. The main characters family set her up to believe that they are superior to other mythical species/races.

I get that the intent of the book was not to be racist. I don’t think the author should be bashed for that or as much as she was. But I do find the racist redemption story problematic if not done correctly. In this book, that theme was handled poorly. While the bigotry against other mythical species was clear, the challenge against that igorance was not clear. The world created in the book seemed to only revolve around racism. It wasn’t three-dimensional or complex, which flattened and belittled the problem of racism. The writing wasn’t strong enough to carry the complicated world it built.

The main character in this book is clearly flawed and I like flawed characters. However she just whined be a majority of the book. She is portrayed as good because her racism isn’t cruel or vicious but subtle and she is a “kind” oppressor. The book took way to long to get to its moral of racism is bad, like 500 pages. Up until then the bigotry goes basically unchallenged. Because it spends so long basking in the racism, it feels like that’s it’s main message.

[Bananana2]

Here’s a super in-depth review for The Black Witch with quotes from the book etc...

http://b00kstorebabe.blogspot.com/2017/ ... orest.html

I myself haven’t read it but I remember this review.

[getinmymachine]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

Agreed. And it goes the other way too.

The Austentatious Book Club (that was Zoe, Hannah, Natasha, Joce, and Maureen) discussed Little Women and thought Jo March might be transgender. But they completely ignored the historical context of the book which was so frustrating.

I see that come up a lot with George from the Famous Five. It can be interesting to discuss these things, or even have your own headcanons about fictional characters, especially when the author is long dead. Someone's personal interpretation of a story doesn't affect anyone else. But if we're talking author's intent... if the book had been written in this decade, who knows? But it wasn't, so mayyybe they're just tomboys.

Suspecting every tomboy character of being trans is kind of narrow-minded as well. What they're saying is "this person doesn't act and dress feminine so they must be a boy" like don't you all want to abolish traditional gender roles so bad?

It’s lovely that today’s book feature a larger proportion of PoC and LGBTQ+ characters, but it does seem a little confusing to me that so many people believe that such liberations could have been reality back in the 1800s. It’s not a pleasant truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. I read The Secret Garden recently and was a little disturbed at the way the author wrote about Indian characters, but I know I had to shake it off and read on because the book is from a time of ignorance and prejudice.

Also, what do people think about J.K. Rowling changing characters after the books were published? Her own drawings of the characters from when she was writing the books, for example, depict Hermione to be white, and Dean is explicitly coloured to be black. I actually really like that Hermione in Cursed Child was played by a Black woman, but I did think it was a bit deceitful to say that Hermione was never supposed to be white. I would love to see Rowling potray a wider array of diverse characters in her newer books written under Robert Galbraith, but changing the characters from what she had always thought them to be makes me feel a little funny. They were written in the 90s, of course there wasn’t as much awareness as there is today and I can’t blame her for it.

I also read The Secret Garden recently and almost mentioned it in my previous post, what a weird coincidence! I wouldn't want the racism in it santised away, because in a way I think it's good to have that cringe moment, it reminds us that we can do better now. I don't know if that makes sense.

And I agree with everying re: Hermione. I think it's great that she was played by a black actress, but I don't appreciate JKR almost acting like we were all racists for imagining her as white when she clearly wrote her as white, drew her white in one of her early sketches, and also allowed her to be played by Emma Watson. Yes, her skin colour isn't mentioned, but I don't believe she was ever intended to be black.

Her habit of retroactively changing characters is very annoying. You had your chance, you didn't put it in the book, now leave it alone. To someone who never reads an interview or looks at her Twitter, Dumbledore is de facto not gay.

[hxgsandkxssxs]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

I agree with your first paragraph. But Black Witch was so poorly executed and hollow. The author made a horrible and naive attempt at her themes and character development. The racism in that book stands out because the author did a horrible job and attempting to show her main character overcome her racist views and upbringing. The other characters that endured the racism were simply props so that the main character could could go.

I’m quite intrigued by this whole topic, I’m guessing you read the book? If so, I would love to read why you think that. The majority of negative reviews I read were from people who had not even READ the book, or were bashing it without giving a proper contextual background to their review. The Goodreads reviewers I trust, on the other hand, reviewed it more positively than not. I would love to hear your opinion, especially since we’re anonymous on here I feel it might be easier to trust the reviews.

Also, and I might be wrong, but weren’t the races in the book completely made up? As, in not human? I’ve read so many books where there has been a superiority/inferiority complex between creatures (fae/human, magical/magicless, red-blooded/silver-blooded) and a social hierarchy as a result of it.

The races were made up in way. There was a variety of mythical races that are intended to be “othered” and oppressed the way people of color are. The main characters family set her up to believe that they are superior to other mythical species/races.

I get that the intent of the book was not to be racist. I don’t think the author should be bashed for that or as much as she was. But I do find the racist redemption story problematic if not done correctly. In this book, that theme was handled poorly. While the bigotry against other mythical species was clear, the challenge against that igorance was not clear. The world created in the book seemed to only revolve around racism. It wasn’t three-dimensional or complex, which flattened and belittled the problem of racism. The writing wasn’t strong enough to carry the complicated world it built.

The main character in this book is clearly flawed and I like flawed characters. However she just whined be a majority of the book. She is portrayed as good because her racism isn’t cruel or vicious but subtle and she is a “kind” oppressor. The book took way to long to get to its moral of racism is bad, like 500 pages. Up until then the bigotry goes basically unchallenged. Because it spends so long basking in the racism, it feels like that’s it’s main message.

Thank you for taking time out of your day for writing this - I guess it’s a mix of just a poorly written book and sensitive, inflammatory subjects? I don’t have any plans on reading it but I might just have to! Thank you again.

[hxgsandkxssxs]

To look at a 1980s book with a 2018 lens is illogical. Even some early 2000s books would be deemed unacceptable by todays standards. To throw a fit about it is like erasing the historical and cultural context from which that book was born. People WERE more ignorant back then, and I’m pretty sure that the hyper-sensitivity plaguing us now is not too great either.

Still cannot believe The Black Witch was burned at the stake for nothing more than a chain of misunderstood, misdirected anger. Can people not write about sensitive subjects anymore? Does every character have to be a sanctimonious angel?

Agreed. And it goes the other way too.

The Austentatious Book Club (that was Zoe, Hannah, Natasha, Joce, and Maureen) discussed Little Women and thought Jo March might be transgender. But they completely ignored the historical context of the book which was so frustrating.

I see that come up a lot with George from the Famous Five. It can be interesting to discuss these things, or even have your own headcanons about fictional characters, especially when the author is long dead. Someone's personal interpretation of a story doesn't affect anyone else. But if we're talking author's intent... if the book had been written in this decade, who knows? But it wasn't, so mayyybe they're just tomboys.

Suspecting every tomboy character of being trans is kind of narrow-minded as well. What they're saying is "this person doesn't act and dress feminine so they must be a boy" like don't you all want to abolish traditional gender roles so bad?

It’s lovely that today’s book feature a larger proportion of PoC and LGBTQ+ characters, but it does seem a little confusing to me that so many people believe that such liberations could have been reality back in the 1800s. It’s not a pleasant truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. I read The Secret Garden recently and was a little disturbed at the way the author wrote about Indian characters, but I know I had to shake it off and read on because the book is from a time of ignorance and prejudice.

Also, what do people think about J.K. Rowling changing characters after the books were published? Her own drawings of the characters from when she was writing the books, for example, depict Hermione to be white, and Dean is explicitly coloured to be black. I actually really like that Hermione in Cursed Child was played by a Black woman, but I did think it was a bit deceitful to say that Hermione was never supposed to be white. I would love to see Rowling potray a wider array of diverse characters in her newer books written under Robert Galbraith, but changing the characters from what she had always thought them to be makes me feel a little funny. They were written in the 90s, of course there wasn’t as much awareness as there is today and I can’t blame her for it.

I also read The Secret Garden recently and almost mentioned it in my previous post, what a weird coincidence! I wouldn't want the racism in it santised away, because in a way I think it's good to have that cringe moment, it reminds us that we can do better now. I don't know if that makes sense.

And I agree with everying re: Hermione. I think it's great that she was played by a black actress, but I don't appreciate JKR almost acting like we were all racists for imagining her as white when she clearly wrote her as white, drew her white in one of her early sketches, and also allowed her to be played by Emma Watson. Yes, her skin colour isn't mentioned, but I don't believe she was ever intended to be black.

Her habit of retroactively changing characters is very annoying. You had your chance, you didn't put it in the book, now leave it alone. To someone who never reads an interview or looks at her Twitter, Dumbledore is de facto not gay.

I completely agree - I actually think Rowling had a sufficiently proportionate number of people of colou in her books in the first place. Harry’s first love interest was Cho Chang, and Dean Thomas, Lee Jordan, Angelina Johnson, Padma & Parvati Patil and Kingsley Shacklebolt were obviously PoC. I’m an ethnic minority living in the UK too and it is nothing but the truth that the majority is comprised by white people - and there is nothing wrong with that.

I’ve read quite a few comments just now before posting this comment to get a better understanding, and I am shocked at the things people are writing: apparently Rowling wrote a “eurocentric” story and it made a Reddit user uncomfortable that PoC were described as being PoC when white people weren’t described as white, as it was a given that a character would be white. Well, the UK IS in Europe and if Rowling never described any of her characters as being PoC imagine the criticism she would have got now?

But that doesn’t mean she should be pandering to the utter ridiculousness that is present-day social media. Changing ethnicities of characters as though shoe-horning them in a story does no justice to diversity at all. I love and advocate for racial and sexual diversity but I don’t like the current culture, not a single bit. If Mia Thermopolis were to write a book set in Genovia there is a 95% chance the cast of characters would have a majority of ethnic Genovians and there is nothing wrong with that. OF COURSE there should be diversirty for the sake of diversity but Rowling is being deceitful and I wish she would leave te series as it is, it’s reflective of 90s British society and thay is the standard by which we should judge it.

[chocolatecheesecakes]

Our culture today is so focused on being 100% politically correct that it's really, really hard to find books that don't cater to that PC culture, especially in YA. It frustrates me so much that BookTubers, who are basically professional book reviewers, can't see the importance of historical context.

I've sat in English literature lectures where people have pulled apart older literature for having racist undertones or whatever, which somehow brand it as "unacceptable". It leaves absolutely no room for authors to be creative, because even if they themselves aren't necessarily racist or homophobic or whatever, if they include those themes in their novels then they are automatically those things too.

Also, the audience is obviously so impressionable and will follow whatever these BookTubers say that I can't believe they aren't more careful about sweeping statements. It's just a brainwash culture more than anything else. It's also why I think it's important to read more classic literature, to get away from the PC bubble. Sorry to those of you who love YA, but that's all it really is.

[yeahiguess]

I don't know where this uncomfortable discussion of YA and book politics came from, but I think (personally) that allowing older books a free pass in crappy content because "people weren't aware/held to higher standards" back then is a shallow excuse. I agree that getting mad at novels and stories that are many years old for poor representation and dubious content is pointless, but I still think these things should be acknowledged and interpreted through current political perspective.

I get what a lot of you are saying, but I think dismissing peoples conversations about these topics is... very concerning. I think getting ANGRY at old politics and misrepresentations in books that are 20+ years old is useless, but I like the awareness of the elements in them that reflect a change in society.

As for saying "political correctness limits creativity" I think that if your creativity hinges on being allowed to be morally and ethically questionable, then your creative was limited from the start. I'm a strong believer that you can include racist/prejudiced/sexist things in books without endorsing them. You can absolutely still write about things that aren't "politically correct" as long as the framing of your narrative acknowledges that these things aren't condonable.

That being said, there will ALWAYS be people who over-examine and accuse anything that attempts complexities of being any variation of politically incorrect, but reacting to "SJW mentality" by assuming that just because they're capable of being the loudest voice, means that they're the strongest voice puts at risk all the progress we've made as readers and individuals.


tl;dr: you can acknowledge bad morality in books without either demanding their execution or dismissing them entirely. "Morally incorrect" content can (and should) still be included in narratives when the author has the skill to write about them without endorsing them.

[Bloopina_]

I don't know where this uncomfortable discussion of YA and book politics came from, but I think (personally) that allowing older books a free pass in crappy content because "people weren't aware/held to higher standards" back then is a shallow excuse. I agree that getting mad at novels and stories that are many years old for poor representation and dubious content is pointless, but I still think these things should be acknowledged and interpreted through current political perspective.

I get what a lot of you are saying, but I think dismissing peoples conversations about these topics is... very concerning. I think getting ANGRY at old politics and misrepresentations in books that are 20+ years old is useless, but I like the awareness of the elements in them that reflect a change in society.

As for saying "political correctness limits creativity" I think that if your creativity hinges on being allowed to be morally and ethically questionable, then your creative was limited from the start. I'm a strong believer that you can include racist/prejudiced/sexist things in books without endorsing them. You can absolutely still write about things that aren't "politically correct" as long as the framing of your narrative acknowledges that these things aren't condonable.

That being said, there will ALWAYS be people who over-examine and accuse anything that attempts complexities of being any variation of politically incorrect, but reacting to "SJW mentality" by assuming that just because they're capable of being the loudest voice, means that they're the strongest voice puts at risk all the progress we've made as readers and individuals.


tl;dr: you can acknowledge bad morality in books without either demanding their execution or dismissing them entirely. "Morally incorrect" content can (and should) still be included in narratives when the author has the skill to write about them without endorsing them.

I 100% agree. It's quite disconcerting seeing how dismissive people are on this site. Maybe some bloggers went a bit overboard with their anger and frustration with older books, but it's still important to analyze and critique those works just the same.

[hxgsandkxssxs]

I don't know where this uncomfortable discussion of YA and book politics came from, but I think (personally) that allowing older books a free pass in crappy content because "people weren't aware/held to higher standards" back then is a shallow excuse. I agree that getting mad at novels and stories that are many years old for poor representation and dubious content is pointless, but I still think these things should be acknowledged and interpreted through current political perspective.

I get what a lot of you are saying, but I think dismissing peoples conversations about these topics is... very concerning. I think getting ANGRY at old politics and misrepresentations in books that are 20+ years old is useless, but I like the awareness of the elements in them that reflect a change in society.

As for saying "political correctness limits creativity" I think that if your creativity hinges on being allowed to be morally and ethically questionable, then your creative was limited from the start. I'm a strong believer that you can include racist/prejudiced/sexist things in books without endorsing them. You can absolutely still write about things that aren't "politically correct" as long as the framing of your narrative acknowledges that these things aren't condonable.

That being said, there will ALWAYS be people who over-examine and accuse anything that attempts complexities of being any variation of politically incorrect, but reacting to "SJW mentality" by assuming that just because they're capable of being the loudest voice, means that they're the strongest voice puts at risk all the progress we've made as readers and individuals.


tl;dr: you can acknowledge bad morality in books without either demanding their execution or dismissing them entirely. "Morally incorrect" content can (and should) still be included in narratives when the author has the skill to write about them without endorsing them.

I 100% agree. It's quite disconcerting seeing how dismissive people are on this site. Maybe some bloggers went a bit overboard with their anger and frustration with older books, but it's still important to analyze and critique those works just the same.

I don’t think the concern is with critiquing, it’s the “cancelling” culture and a following herd-mentality that’s more worrying. I can totally see a prolific social media personality reading The Secret Garden and making a rant review about how racist and problematic it is, saying those who like it are endorsing those behaviours. If The Secret Garden were to be adapted to the big screen again, I can even see hype building up to a hashtag #thesecretgardeniscancelledparty because one popular account posted about the main characters’ prior prejudices. This doesn’t leave any room for anything less than politically correct to survive, let alone thrive, in the current climate. This could happen to Lolita with paedophilia or Flowers in the Attic for incest. Critiquing with the understanding why things were written the way they were is perfectly welcome, with open arms in fact. We should do away with the toxic culture is all I’m saying.

[Guest]

This conversation started because certain Booktubers (and maybe others outside of the community), don't get the historical context around certain books, because they constantly read books (mainly YA) that panders to a certain audience. I can't speak for everyone on this board, but I'm quite sure a majority of us understands the history and background in which books for written, we don't yell and scream and shout because a character used the "n" word, or because a character was sexist. We know the era, we continue reading but we also say, "Hey this was this and this and at the time, this was like this, but this would not be acceptable in today's times, where people are more educated on topics such as these."

hxgsandkxssxs, basically said everything I was going to. It's like we live in a society that is saying, "Hey, be creative, express your opinions (taking out hate speech of course), but if it doesn't line up with what my opinion is, then it's wrong." Which then makes authors not want to write about certains topics that are informative because people will make twenty minute videos on how wrong it is and then other people, without reading the book, will follow without forming their own opinion.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. This is the best way I could explain it.

[aaa123]

no offense but some of yall are really sounding like white frat boys who are upset they can’t say the n word anymore

[hxgsandkxssxs]

no offense but some of yall are really sounding like white frat boys who are upset they can’t say the n word anymore

No offence, but some of us are ethnic minorities living in the Western world who can criticise irrational attitudes towards literature without losing sight of liberal beliefs.

Disagree with us all you want, but to equate us with racism is appaling.

[Guest]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but do not equate our opinions to racism. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is. You can appreciate literature and the historical context behind it while still criticizing and analyzing it in modern context without like previously said above "losing liberal beliefs."

Did I miss something? Like I said, your allowed to disagree, that's fine. However, I feel like your overall reading comprehension might be missing if you think that any of the statements said above equates with racism.

[aaa123]

lmao you’ve all pulled this “pc culture” argument out of thin air and spent the last two pages upset because you can’t have blatant racism/homophobia/sexism in books anymore while saying anyone who dares point out problems they have with books is too sensitive but go off I guess

[Samisgossiping]

.......


So, anyway, Reagan's NYC apartment is cute!



(But I think it's garbage people will try and disregard older books because they do not adhere to our modern opinions on race and gender. That's what makes you a good reader and recognize the growth of society. No one tell these people about 'Biography of an Ex-Colored Man' or the play 'Dutchman.' Read and formulate your own opinions.

Sincerely,

Someone who wants to do her dissertation on 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'The Wanting Seed')