manifesta

A huge thank you to everyone for your thoughts on my last two posts. It was certainly an interesting weekend.

The idea of even having to compile this list makes my stomach turn, but I figure it will be useful in future conversations. These are variations of statements I've seen made in recent discussions that were used to dismiss someone's concerns or objections about the potential negative implications of a book's content and minimize their argument. In my response to each I've included reasons why I believe these statements were made and why they are not the best choices for a conversation, particularly one that involves discussion regarding inequality. I write this because all too often it's the people who bring up issues about power and privilege that are not given the benefit of the doubt in a discussion and are forced into defending their position instead of hosting a conversation about it.

(1) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. AKA, you're reading too much into it. I think this one crops up so frequently because high school English classes in the States try very hard to emphasize the apparent symbolism in every single book they can get their hands on (truly, I love Elie Wiesel's Night, but I'm not convinced there's symbolism in the snow) and after being told over and over again to look for the deeper meanings that seem to exist solely because you wanted to find them, the whole concept becomes silly. Combine this with (a) the internalization or lack of awareness of systemic inequality and (b) the societal norms that perpetuate and disguise systemic inequality, and the idea that the text is more than just the text is rendered unfathomable.

( This cut was brought to you by the Society for Shorter Reading Pages (SSRP). )

Working steadily on part 2 of the romance series, but it's slow-going. There are a lot of empowering and disempowering characteristics in romance, and for every topic I elaborate on, there are even more details within that topic that I feel like I need to talk about, and on it goes. I might have a beta reader look over it; if anyone's interested, especially if you have some familiarity with LGBTQ characters and/or kink/BDSM in fiction, do let me know! (Short summary: there seems to be more LGBTQ characters and kink in erotica than there is in romance, and I think that says alotalotalot about how we perceive non-hetero/vanilla/etc. sexualities, as well as the current state of the industry, but I'm not as familiar with erotica and I'm trying to avoid making assumptions. Any thoughts would be appreciated.)


Malinda Lo (author of Ash) wrote a 5-part series of blog posts on avoiding LGBTQ stereotypes when writing YA fiction.

"In YA fiction today I often encounter secondary characters who are LGBTQ. This is a great development; it means that LGBTQ people are increasingly part of the story. Nina LaCour’s hold still has a particularly awesome secondary queer character in it.

"However, I also find the most stereotyping in secondary characters. I think this is because a secondary character, whether he’s a supporting character or simply a walk-on one, has less space on the page than a main character." #

From the comments:

"Too often we still see the coming out story ignore that most teens today not only have greater familiarity with queer people and issues, and have seen those issues debated in real life and on TV, in the news, etc., but many have already met someone they at least perceive to be queer and have greater access to support and queer culture. And so when someone comes out in their world, or they themselves acknowledge they might be/are queer, it is from a different place and context then it was even ten years ago, and certainly than it was fifteen or more years ago. And the coming out stories written about them need to take these changed realities into account." #

 

Congratulations to ar and gloss for winning the book giveaway! Please PM me or email me at manifesta at dreamwidth dot org with your:

1. mailing address
2. which book you would like
3. if you want it as an ebook
4. your preferred online book distributor, if you have one

I include the last just in case someone really wants to support an indie bookstore, etc. but otherwise I'll order through anything that can ship to you.


Thank you everyone for participating in 3W4D and the giveaway! I may not have been able to reply to everyone, but I've truly appreciated your thoughts, comments, and support.

A few of my own thoughts on the giveaway process:

1. There were three other potential books that I at one point had wanted to analyze but didn't: Elantris by Branden Sanderson (political fantasy), The Last Mortal Man by Syne Mitchell (science fiction of some flavor or another), and Vision in White by Nora Roberts (contemporary romance). The last was originally among my top five but I realized last minute that it's a trade paperback, not mass market. The first two were quite good, but only featured one woman as a protagonist, and while they would have been fun to dissect, I was torn over whether or not they served the purpose of the giveaway as I saw it (which was, at its core, to be empowering for women).

2. On that note, common characteristics of the books I analyzed include: female authors with strong female protagonists; added to or subverted the traditional norms of the genre in some way; an element of fantasy; and thorough worldbuilding and/or characterization. I mostly went with instinct when picking my list, and I think it turned out well.

I'd also like to note that these aren't necessarily my favorite books, but rather good books I've read in the last 8 months or so.

3. Everyone's posts they linked to on the giveaway entry page are so interesting! I've been trolling the latest things/3W4D pages but it seems that there was still content out there that eluded me. Thank you for sharing your meta, comment fests, and recipes with me!


For some reason, the poll creator isn't working for me, so if you'd like to answer in the comments: Which of the four books were your favorite?

I'll be returning to my weekly meta and industry commentary now, so stay tuned.

It's three_weeks_for_dw!

I mentioned briefly, back in the dark ages prior to manifesta's renovation, that I wanted to do a giveaway of books that I thought were awesome. More recently I brought up the idea of analyzing some of these books, focusing what I thought was done poorly or done well, and there seemed to be some support for this idea.

So, here's the deal:

1. Over the course of the next Three Weeks I'll be posting about different books that I've read in the last 8 months. The facets I will focus on in my analysis will vary from book to book but ultimately stem from a feminist perspective, and I'd highlight whatever I thought relevant or simply struck my fancy.

2. I will try very, very hard not to post spoilers. If I do think something is spoilery but essential, I'll hide it under a cut.

3. My discussion of each book will not be comprehensive; i.e. if one of the female characters is stuffed in a refrigerator, I'll mention that, but if there are tragic plot holes, I might not mention that (though really, if there are tragic plot holes I think I'd be less inclined to consider the book "awesome"). Thus I wouldn't by any means consider my posts to be reviews, but because this is a giveaway, I suppose you could say that I'm endorsing them.

4. There will be two (2) winning participants, which means I will be giving away two (2) books,* though I will be posting about more books than that. Winners can choose which book from the ones that I've posted about as their prize. I don't have a finalized list of books that I intend to include, but they'll range from fantasy to romance to paranormal romance and include at least one YA. I realize this isn't a very broad spectrum and won't suit everybody, but it's what I like to read.

Because Three Weeks is a celebration of Dreamwidth and a way to foster content and community, there are a few rules. You must do one of the following to enter the giveaway:

a. post at least one (1) entry of 250 words or more exclusively to Dreamwidth (personal journals, comms, etc.) for the festival, content choice up to you; if you want to do photos, vids, poetry, icon spams, etc. that's fine, too
OR
b. post at least five (5) comments of 50 words or more (each) to Three Weeks-related content** during the festival

Don't know where to start? All posts tagged with three weeks for dreamwidth or threeweeks will show up on this feed: http://www.dreamwidth.org/latest?feed=threeweeks

The word minimum is more of a recommendation than a strict guideline. Quality over quantity.

I reserve the right to disqualify any entries or comments that I consider to include hatespeech of any kind.

5. At the end of the Three Weeks festival, the week of May 10th, I will make a post that people can comment on to enter the giveaway. Your comment, in order to be considered eligible, MUST INCLUDE a link to your entry or five separate links to your comments. (If you're not sure how to link to comments, look for a 'LINK' button around or below each individual comment.)

You do not have to be subscribed to me to enter. You also do not have to link to or comment on my journal or entries, but if you'd like to signal-boost the giveaway, I'd appreciate that.

I recognize that not everyone who reads DW content has a DW journal. I could require that people sign up with the site in order to participate, but I don't want a flood of otherwise unused accounts sitting around after the festival's done. I will accept open-ID*** participants that post comments on Three Weeks-related content but ask that you consider trying out DW. We're pretty cool. Really.



Questions? Thoughts? Feel free to comment, message me, or email me at manifesta at dreamwidth dot org.

Ironically, this week is my busiest of the quarter, so I may not be as active around the community as I would like. I will try to read and comment as much as possible, but my response time to any queries may be slow. Please have patience with me.

And on another vein, I truly wish I could give away more than two books, but it isn't plausible at this time. Perhaps in the future I'll do a used-book giveaway, which may cut down on costs.

*Giveaway open to everyone on the planet as long as I can ship to you through B&N, Amazon, or some other book distributor. If you would prefer an ebook version, then assuming there is one, I can do that, too.
**I chose to restrict comments to Three Weeks content in order to promote feedback within the festival itself. If anyone has serious issues with this, I will consider changing it to include comments on entries outside the festival.
***I will not accept anonymous entries because I won't be able to figure out if you were the one who actually posted the linked comments.

[trigger warning for discussions of rape culture]

I've had a week to think about it, and the fallacy I keep coming across whenever there's a discussion regarding rape culture in books is the notion that if the reader is educated, then they are exempt from being influenced. This notion focuses on a small portion of readers that have been educated about what rape culture is and what it looks like, can recognize rape culture when they read or see it (and let me be the first to say that there are times when I, as a violence prevention and survivor advocate, and as someone who analyzes everything, cannot recognize it), and ignores the social norms that are inherent to and disguise, to the point of acceptance, rape in our society. It also shifts the burden of responsibility to the individual to educate themselves about what rape--and what the social norms that perpetuate rape--looks like.

Forced seduction scenarios contain an inherent element of confusion. They blur the line between rape and not-rape, perpetuating the society-accepted notion that "no" really means "yes." They are different from rape fantasies because a properly constructed rape fantasy not only defines itself as a rape fantasy but also creates a context that validates what consent is and isn't. While rape fantasies may still have a psychological impact on the reader, forced seduction fantasies are far more dangerous, because in a rape fantasy the reader is made aware that it is rape that is occurring, whereas in a forced seduction fantasy, there's no such tell.

I am a proponent of education that paints a clear picture of what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like. However, no education in the world can stand in the face of the repetitive and mixed messages American* culture is currently sending through every possible venue. Popular culture can be a magnificent, terrifying force. I'm sure there are people out there who can say, with utmost certainty, that they know exactly what rape and rape culture looks like and that they would be able to identify every facet of it every time. And I have no doubt that they can. But this isn't about the individual.

When books, movies, songs, advertisements, and tv shows, the things we buy and the things that are force-fed to us, depict unhealthy relationships as healthy and violence against women as acceptable, then even a discerning individual's ability to see beneath the sparkle can waver. Even more significant than these messages' impact on the individual is the impact they can have on the group. The 'culture' part of 'rape culture' reflects the systemic and institutional schemas that normalize rape on a scale of millions. 

I am currently in the midst of conducting experimental trials regarding stereotype threat, i.e. negative stereotypes about a particular group that reduces performance on a related task. The particular stereotype threat my research focuses on is the stereotype that women are bad at math. Previous research has found that almost all American women have been exposed to and are thus influenced by this stereotype, regardless of whether they consciously believe it or are even aware of its existence. Simply checking the box that says 'female' before a math test is enough to consciously or unconsciously trigger the stereotype threat and reduce performance.

My point is that, in any discussion regarding rape culture or oppression or privilege, the words unconscious, subliminal, and implicit cannot be stressed enough. Simply by being a part of a culture, we are exposed to repetitive, frequently subtle, unrecognizable messages that we unconsciously allow to influence our beliefs, attitudes, and actions.

One example would be writers that write forced seduction scenarios. Either they have been exposed to the idea that a women who says no but then says yes after the hero ignores her original response is not rape, and

(1) thus not only consciously or unconsciously believe it themselves, but are also consciously/unconsciously sending it to the reader in equally implicit conditions because it corresponds with what societal norms say rape looks like, or

(2) consciously don't believe it, but underestimate the power of subliminal messages, particularly in the context of a culture that promotes the image of rape under narrow circumstances (which forced seduction does not fall under).

Rape thrives in part because women are blamed for the violence committed against them and because the definition of rape is frequently limited to a rape that coincides with physical violence. By writing forced seduction scenes, the author is caught in the bind that is rape culture, regardless of whether they recognize the harm their words can cause. It's a double-edged sword, one designed specifically so that women either perpetuate ideas that further their oppression or are silenced.

The other example would then be readers who intentionally or unintentionally read a forced seduction fantasy. A reader with education regarding healthy relationships or what rape looks like might be able to discern that it is, indeed, rape. Or they won't, and that'll be that. Or they won't, and this scene--coupled with other scenes and other books and other movies--might begin to chip away at what they thought they knew. Myths like gray rape might seem to gain credence.

A reader without any education regarding healthy relationships or what rape looks like might recognize it as rape. Or they might unconsciously or consciously integrate the scenario into their schemas of what rape isn't, based on what society has already taught them. If you're given two contrasting images, such as she said no/she liked it, the resulting cognitive dissonance will demand that you choose a side or find a happy medium. She said no = rape, she liked it = not rape, happy medium = it could have been rape, because she said no, but it wasn't, because she liked it.

It is rape culture when we're taught to believe that no means yes.

It is rape culture when our fiction reaffirms that no means yes and there is no context that disconnects this idea from reality.

It is rape culture when we're taught to believe that fiction that reaffirms that no means yes, without any context, doesn't harm us.

I don't consider myself to be patronizing women when I say that forced seduction scenarios are a symptom of a larger, cultural problem, one that not only sends mixed messages about what rape looks like but then also perpetuates the societal acceptance of violence against women. I don't consider myself to be patronizing women precisely because while I know for a fact that women are quite sharp, this kind of shit is sinister. 

We've been taught to believe that violence against women is acceptable, that rape is only rape if it's violent. To combat this idea we've worked hard to raise awareness and demand better, and we've seen progress. But now we face the conundrum of whether some of our attempts at progress reflect and promote the very attitudes we seek to rid ourselves of.
 
To go back to the original question of the responsibilities of the writer, I don't think that writers are obligated to teach readers appropriate beliefs and values. I do think that they are responsible and should be held accountable for the messages that their books send, messages that are reliant entirely upon the context that either validates or invalidates them, particularly when the content of the message coincides with subtle, real world attitudes and is conveyed in an implicit manner. I don't say this to censor authors or limit readers or suggest that only certain things should be written. A fantasy about a mass murderer doesn't hold the same water in terms of readers' unconscious or conscious impressions because it's quite obvious that in the real world, being a mass murderer is a Bad Idea. A romance that portrays rape as not-rape coincides with social norms that also consider some rapes as not-rape and is that much closer to normalizing and condoning narrow definitions of what rape is and what rape looks like.
 

*Though I imagine this extends to other cultures as well, being an American, I can only speak from my experience as an American.

theinkymuse posted a discussion of how whitewashing covers impacts people of color.
 
I've already covered the Bloomsbury debacle(s), so I won't again, but definitely read the rest of his post. What I wanted to point out was how he used social cognitive theory to frame his analysis.

"The portrayal, and even preeminence, of white people that whitewashing engenders does have an affect. If we are not white, and we are not equal enough to even be put on book covers...what are we? Secondary? Inferior?

"There is a theory in psychology known as the social cognitive theory, stating that we, as individuals, form out concepts and schemata for the world from our interactions, experiences, and observations of society.

"That's what people of color are seeing and learning, and, eventually, it may even be what comes to pass. Self-fulfilling prophecies, and all that business. Because it's an identity issue, and it's an equality issue, and it's a damn important issue."

I may have said this before and in various ways, but his post solidified for me the connection between social cognitive theory and my feminist analysis of genre books and the publishing industry, and I thought I might elaborate.

By way of introduction, I am a psychology major, and within the realm of psychology I happen to specialize in social cognitive theory. "Social" psychology is the study of the interactions between individuals while "cognitive" psychology is the study of the mind. Combine the two and the result is the study of how individuals' interactions influence the mind (and vice versa).

Social cognitive theory, in the context of genre books and in my mind, means taking an interaction and the characters involved in that interaction and looking at their myriad of motivations, emotions, and investments, all of which are built upon the layers that have been laid down from the very beginning of the story and have resulted in a complex psychology of human behavior--and then working even farther backwards and looking at why the author wrote it they way they did and how, in their writing it in that specific way, their real-world biases and the limitations of their experiences are reflected.* In regards to the industry itself, it means examining what choices are made (such as the skin color of the cover models, but can also extend to include content, such as what is and is not allowed in YA books), the biases surrounding those choices, and their impact on the people who see and read those books.

What we see, if we see it often enough, we frequently internalize. Even if we consciously don't agree with something, our subconscious absorbs the stereotypes that the images that surround us present, and with enough exposure these stereotypes may develop into beliefs and attitudes that we may not explicitly show but still confirm through our subtle behaviors. Books are one medium that expose these attitudes. Hidden biases that the author may not have even known they had are no longer hidden as the veil falls away and the words on the pages of a book become an entrance to not just what the author thinks about, but what they don't think about. A privileged individual that thinks about their own privilege can at least attempt to reduce their bias on the page. A privileged individual that does not becomes glaringly obvious.

Close examination reveals our society's preference for white, cissexual, heterosexual, thin, able-bodied, male characters through the absence of non-white, LGBTQ, non-thin, disabled, transgendered, and female characters. The divisive, often exlusive, and increasingly contradictory roles and characteristics of male and female characters can be labelled with new language that pinpoints the divisive and patriarchal notions underlining them.

It's a cycle.** We not only absorb messages that reinforce societal norms (regardless of whether we actively strive not to) but we also reproduce them, often times in quiet, unnoticed ways. The latter is the only part over which we have some control; by continuing to analyze, to question, to pick apart these tropes that objectify women or justify the rape culture that is increasingly perpetuated through YA romantic fiction (next post!), we can begin to raise our level of consciousness and challenge the system in place that allows for these messages to continue to be sent.


*As a sort of disclaimer, I am often the first to defend the sanctity of the author--that the experiences and beliefs of the characters do not necessarily reflect the author's experiences or beliefs. Because x character is depressed does not necessarily mean that the author has ever, in their lifetime, experienced depression. However, I do believe that consistency and repetition across books and genre reveal not only the subtle but telling aspects of the author's schemas but also the systemic and institutional prejudices society holds against cognizant groups.

**If you want a diagram of how social cognitive theory works in this context, a rough draft version might be:

repetitive biased message in real world -->
--> author bias (conscious or unconscious)
--> repetitive biased message in a book (as seen by character actions/beliefs/choices, lack of representation, what the characters mean to each other, etc.)
--> internalization by reader
--> conscious or unconscious behavioral replication of biased message by reader

fiction theory has a lot of good stuff to say:

"It boiled down to me wanting to say that I think we as writers have an obligation to remember that when we write about things that they've actually happened and will happen to real people, and that our works may fall into the hands of someone unfortunate enough to have some experience, directly or indirectly, with them. But more than that, what people read shapes their attitudes and their attitudes shape their actions (or inactions) - and I think people who seek to make a profit should make sure that profit does not come at the cost of influencing bad attitudes and bad actions or harmful inactions on the part of our audiences. "

and

"Further, I don't like the implication that romance - being a female dominated field - is somehow the child of a lesser genre in the world of literature. I don't like the idea that when a man writes a romance under another genre, it's a sweeping literary classic. I do not like that men's reflections on women are given so much credibility but women's reflections on men and on themselves are devalued, relegated to genre ghettos. I do not like that somehow the women in male-written novels are seen as characters and symbols worthy of praise, but the women in women-written novels are Mary Sues. When women dare to express our desires and fantasies and dare not to stake our claim to sexuality, dare to reflect our side of the conversation when it comes sex, love, and relationships that it is automatically cheap, tawdry, infantile."

The Invasion of Inked Heroines in Paranormal Romance from B&N:
 

"Why are these covers featuring tattooed heroines so phenomenally popular that publishers are actually featuring tattooed women even though they’re not integral to the story within? Is it because female readers want to temporarily escape reality and live life vicariously through these edgy heroines and male readers want to enjoy their literary escapism by being these sexy protagonists’ love interests? And what’s so significant about the tattoos? Do they symbolize on some level a fusion of danger, unbridled sexuality and arcane mysticism?"

I think the reason goes back to how female characters are portrayed in paranormal romance (as well as modern urban fantasy). Tattoos are another short-cut that are supposed to give the illusion of strength. Although the social acceptance of tattoos has increased over the past few decades, and I'd argue their use in covers is a definite ploy to bridge the generational gap, tattoos are still considered taboo in white, middle to upper class culture. They represent a certain amount of "edginess," an attempt to portray the character as more fringe or "Other" than they really are.

I don't think their use (in cover art or characterization) are as negative as other elements that are frequently included in how women are portrayed in PR and UF, and I can even see how an increase of women with tattoos is empowering. But I do believe it's important to question why and how the use of tattoos represent danger, sexuality, and the paranormal, as well as who they impact. If a  female character's otherwise insignificant tattoo is being played up to draw attention to a cover, then to me that says the other traits of the female character and the story itself aren't nearly as important as this one little aspect that's being used, in the span of a glance, to summarize a woman.

Black Widow's Walk 55,075/ 90,000

I finished reading The Onion Girl the other day and simply sat there in awe of how amazing it is. I love all of de Lint's works, but it is by far my favorite.

After winter break, I moved two dozen of my favorite books to my apartment. One wonderful thing about having them all here is that I can reread them at any time. Melanie Rawn and Anne Bishop dominate the top shelf, alongside Holly Lisle's Talyn and Hawkspar, Michael A. Stackpole's Dark Glory War (the rest of the DragonCrown War Cycle are there in spirit), and Amanda Downum's The Drowning City. On the second shelf are Jacqueline Carey's collective works, Mindy L. Klasky's Glasswrights' series, Trudi Canavan's Age of Five trilogy, M. J. Rose's Butterfly Institute trilogy, Blood & Chocolate, Cry Wolf by Patricia Briggs, and a gilded tomb of Jane Austen's works. The last shelf if a motley assortment of feminist books, including Malalai Joya's A Woman Among Warlords; Crown Duel by Sherwood Smith and The Secrets of the Jin-Shei by Alma Alexander; various traditional urban fantasies or faerie tales like Palimpsest, Midnight Never Come, Holly Black's books, Melissa Marr's Wicked Lovely series; and random other books I have on hand or haven't read.

Random observations: I wish I had brought more books by Marjorie M Liu and Lynn Viehl, as well as some S&S or high fantasies. (I've noticed when browsing through Barnes & Noble that very few epic fantasies capture my attention these days. Having been raised on Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and their ilk, this makes me sad.)

I also noticed that 95% of the authors are female. About half are ones that I read in high school or younger. Most were marketed and shelved as adult fantasy.

These are just the ones that resonate the most with me. Others that I would add, if I had room, would include Sarah Dessan (particularly Dreamland and Just Listen), Nora Roberts' Chesapeake Bay quartet, Memoirs of a Geisha, various Dragonlance, everything by Tamora Pierce ever, and I'm sure there are even more that I'm forgetting.

I would love to have a hidden library some day, where I can cloister my treasures away like a dragon. I could sit and drink raspberry hot chocolate and read beautiful stories while surrounded by hundreds of other beautiful stories.

Right now I'm reading The Raven Prince by Elizabeth Hoyt, and as of 94 pages in, I'm remarkably pleased and amused. The hero has done nothing abusive and the heroine isn't an idiot. In fact, I may even adore her. Now, if only I could rid myself of the niggling thought that the heroine is only allowed to exercise such common sense and rebellion (in realistic if improbable ways for the era)  because she's a widow...

Black Widow's Walk 50,105/ 90,000

Jacqueline Carey revealed her cover for Namaah's Curse! I'm not sure what to think about it...



I would hazard that this cover stems from the Ch'in, or the pseudo-Asian culture in Carey's new Kushiel trilogy. Much criticism has been leveled at her stereotypical portrayal of Asian cultures, and I wonder if this cover is just another extension of such ignorance.