This morning, author Jeanine Cummins and publisher Flatiron Books responded to criticism over American Dirt, Cummins’ highly anticipated novel centered around Mexico-U.S. migration. The book, which was published on Tuesday, follows a Mexican bookstore owner named Lydia who flees the country with her 8-year-old son when her family is killed by drug lords. Cummins, a white writer with a Puerto Rican grandmother, has been accused of appropriation and criticized for the book’s stereotypes.
“Not everyone has to love my book,” Cummins told NPR host Rachel Martin this morning. Cummins said that she tried to be culturally sensitive and that her Puerto Rican heritage has been “attacked and sidelined by people who are… attempting to police [her] identity.” In the novel’s author note, Cummins wrote that she wanted to humanize “the faceless brown mass” of Mexican migrants coming to the U.S. The author was evasive at her book launch event at a Barnes & Noble in New York earlier in the week when asked by Shannon Melero, a writer for Jezebel, if she thought her “whiteness played a role in choosing to write this book, and how it was received by the public.” In her piece for Jezebel, Melero writes:
Cummins looked uncomfortable, and her answer made me uncomfortable. She told the room that this was an “important” question that “we should all be asking ourselves.” She said she believed that her status as a white woman who is also Puerto Rican (“you can be both,” she said), as well as her economic status and motherhood, contributed to how she wrote the book. But as for how it was received, she said, she felt she couldn’t speak on it. “That’s not something I’m equipped to answer, nor do I want to.” And with that, she moved on to the next question, discussing how much “goodness” and “hope” she saw “along the migrant trail.”
While also speaking to NPR’s Martin this morning, Los Angeles Times writer Esmeralda Bermudez called the book “cheap entertainment” that does not accurately depict the migrant experience, and said it should not be called “the great immigrant novel.” The book has been hailed as “The Grapes Of Wrath of our time,” earned Cummins a seven-figure advance, has enjoyed a heavy influencer campaign on social media, and is already being adapted into a movie.
Much of the conversation surrounding American Dirt has revolved around cultural appropriation and who is best suited to tell what story. Critics of the book, many of whom are Latinx writers speaking out on social media, have called Cummins’ book stereotypical, harmful, and inauthentic. The controversy has also underscored the publishing industry’s tendency to largely publish and award its highest advances and print runs to white authors, while writers of color are published far less frequently and do not often receive the same inflated advances or publicity support.
In response to the criticism, which included the creation of the “Writing my Latino novel” meme, wherein Latinx writers have parodied American Dirt’s stereotypes, Flatiron Books issued a statement of support this morning. They were proud to publish the book, they said, and were “carefully listening” to the conversation.
American Dirt had been touted behind the scenes in the months leading up to its publication this week, including starred reviews in trade publications Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. But it perhaps wasn’t until The New York Times published its first of two reviews on January 17 that the book and its failings were offered up to the broader public.
“The motives of the book may be unimpeachable, but novels must be judged on execution, not intention. This peculiar book flounders and fails,” New York Times book critic Parul Sehgal said in her pan. As the Times will sometimes do for large-scale releases, it then published a second review of the book, that one by bestselling author Lauren Groff, who is not on staff. Her review appeared two days after Sehgal’s, and while she praised the book as a “swift” page-turner, Groff waffled over whether she, as a white woman, was the right person to review it, just as she wondered whether Cummins was the right person to tell the novel’s story. Groff later expressed her frustration on Twitter, saying, “Obviously I finished my review long before I knew of Parul’s—anyone who has gone through edits knows the editing timeline—but hers is better and smarter anyway. I wrestled like a beast with this review, the morals of my taking it on, my complicity in the white gaze.”
In addition to the two reviews, The New York Times also published a profile of Cummins and an excerpt of the book.
If all that weren’t enough, on January 21, Oprah announced in a video that she had selected the novel as the next pick for her Book Club, in its revamped iteration with Apple TV+, sparking even more outrage.
The following day, a now viral tweet posted by writer Myriam Gurba included photos from a Book Expo dinner party in honor of Cummins that took place in late May. The pictures showed floral centerpieces wrapped in barbed wire, made to match the book’s cover, which many have decried as offensive.
Gurba had written her own scathing review of the book, but according to her, the assigning publication told her she wasn’t famous enough to write so negative a review. When Gurba refused to write something more redeeming about the book, she was offered a kill fee, and later published her review with Tropics Of Meta in December. “Cummins plops overly-ripe Mexican stereotypes, among them the Latin lover, the suffering mother, and the stoic manchild, into her wannabe realist prose,” the review reads in part.
In response to Flatiron’s statement, Sehgal said in a tweet this morning, “The criticism isn’t merely about ‘who gets to tell which stories,’ it’s that this story was told so shabbily.”
240 Comments
It’s neat how it’s now the enlightened, progressive types who are arguing for the importance of having strict boundaries to cultural engagement and participation rooted in racial purity standards.
Who is arguing for that?
You, you stupid asshole. You’re attempting to tell people what stories than can or cannot tell. It’s fucking mental.
No, I haven’t done that at all. People can tell whatever stories they want.
They say the political spectrum is a horseshoe.
Leftists – “There should be more books about people of color”Also Leftists – “No not like that”
Seriously, this controversy comes across so much as a parody of over-the-top leftism that I wouldn’t be surprised to find a conservative behind it
“The criticism isn’t merely about ‘who gets to tell which stories,’ it’s that this story was told so shabbily.”
Which is the only rational thing I read in this whole story. It’s fiction. Is the book any good, or not? All I need to know.
Right? The fact that apparently does not “accurately depict the migrant experience”… i mean, is it possible it depicts a possible migrant experience? Also… it’s fiction?There was a recent, pretty well-received novel about the AIDS epidemic in Chicago in the 80s, written by a hetero, AIDs-free white woman born in like 1980. She did a ton of research and by all accounts its very well written and a compelling story. Not a single review I’ve read mentions that “it’s not her story to tell” or something like that. So I guess my assumption has to be… American Dirt is just really poorly-written book?
apparently, it is not.
No. You need to know that she is stealing then culture of another group of people for financial gain.If only the ancient Greeks had a good lawyer, they could clean up!
But I think it mostly is about who gets to tell what stories; the quality of the book is not the primary issue, here. A writer enjoys a rare freedom: the unfettered liberty of their own imagination. They can, and should, be able to tell whatever stories they want. The alternative is a much smaller literature – parochial, solipsistic, conformist.The question then becomes, how well did they pull it off? Cummins may or may not have written a crappy novel – I don’t know, not having read it – but this is something its critics only seem to have latched onto belatedly, assuring us that they think she’s failed only after they condemned her for tackling the subject. There’s also – as she noted in the NPR interview – entrenched structural biases at play in the publishing industry that need to be addressed. While no one is preventing Latinx writers from telling their own stories, and there’s now more of those being published, and translated into English, than ever before, it’s telling that it’s this one and not any of those that Oprah (or her minions) chose to promote. Which makes me wonder: why is no one going after her for this? Why is Cummins copping all the blame?
Except every one of the critics specifically mentioned in this story said she told the story badly.
As I understand it, the disapproval that it exists per se, somewhat predated the actual reviews. And when I read that Lauren Groff “waffled over whether she, as a white woman, was the right person to review it”, I can only hang my head in despair. Will you understand the issues as intimately as someone from within the culture? Probably not. But does that invalidate your reading? Can a text really not speak to anyone outside its own subset? It reminds me of David Marr, back in my own country, bleating that “only a gay man can really understand the novels of Patrick White” – an author I love and have read with diligence and care, and an opinion that struck me as small-minded, exclusionary and smug.I’m not defending Cummins’ novel; it’s probably not great. But there’s a bigger issue here than whether this particular book is good or not – it’s about limiting the freedom of writers to, you know, write.
That’s an interesting understanding. What is it based on. It’s funny that you purport to take issue with Groff’s review, but are actually arguing against a straw man. She is not arguing that she her reading is illegitimate, and no one is arguing that a text cannot “speak to someone outside its own subset.” That’s a ludicrous argument no one is making. All she was doing was expressing a reservation she felt about writing a review (that she actually wrote and published!), as a white American woman, about a book written by a white American woman, about the experiences of Mexican migrants. Meaning, she was probably concerned that there might be issues with the narrative she would be blind to! That seems like a valid concern for someone with a significant platform to give an opinion about a book that will be widely seen to have.No one is limiting anyone’s freedom to, you know, write. In fact, she received, you know, a tremendous amount of money to, you know, exercise that freedom.
No one makes a tremendous amount of money reviewing a book, Bottle. Certainly not in 2020.
I’m not talking about the reviewer, numbnuts, I’m talking about the author, you know, the person you were referring to who needs the freedom to, you know, write.
It’s not that she felt unqualified to say anything about the book, but rather that she felt unqualified to be the one to write the review of it, which a New York Times review pretty much is, for better or worse.
And yet until this “controversy” arose, everyone and their mother was praising this book as it climbed the bestseller lists.
The book just came out. The “controversy arose” along with the book’s release, so I’m not sure how it could have only arisen after “everyone and their mother” was praising the book. If what you mean by “everyone and their mother” is it was being praised largely by publishing insiders with a stake in pumping the book up (also, wonder what that demo looks like) in advance of its publication, and then this “controversy arose” once a wider, more diverse audience (which, for future reference is how most people would use the phrase “everyone and their mother,” not to describe a selective, largely homogeneous group of people) read the book as it got closer to publication.
Certainly there has been a big push from the publisher for this book, but the manuscript has been available and circulated inside AND outside the publishing industry for many months. It’s been on just about every list of best books for 2020 in the lead up to publication, and those lists go beyond simple publisher push.
Been available to who outside the publishing industry to do what with? The simple fact is the controversy is arising along with more people reading the book. It is not just like the book has been out, widely praised by a diverse group of people only to be met with criticism because, what, a fringe group of contrarians caught on?
My point is that this has all spread like wildfire from bad-faith sources. Most of the people fanning the controversy have not read the book, and are going off of the words of two Latinx writers who are motivated by their resentment of the publishing industry as a whole. And they are right that the publishing industry has a gatekeeping problem. But they have taken that issue, and recklessly incited everyone against a specific writer who wrote a book that was being quite well received from most parties. The author has been receiving actual threats of violence due to this hysteria, which is grossly out of proportion to any missteps she may have made regardless of her intentions. And worst of all, the actions these instigators have taken are entirely destructive and if anything will hurt their goal of increased representation in the publishing world, not help it.
Ahhh….there it is. Casually throwing out serious allegations (with no evidence) like engaging in bad faith, disingenuous criticism based purely on spite. The cornerstone of intelligent and constructive discourse. I suppose it’s not possible in your mind that the criticism of this book has been actually genuine and well-founded, and, gasp, that the supposed widespread praise of the book may be a result of the fact that a lot of people who would have had access to the book prior to its publication would have been in and around the largely white world of the publishing industry?
That is certainly possible. This has jumped up my reading queue because I can’t have a complete opinion until I’ve read it for myself, and I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong and update my take. But I do work in a field that is adjacent to the publishing industry, and I can tell you that in this specific instance, yes there are some people that are acting in bad faith, and hand up I’ll admit that it has impacted the lens through which I’ve watched this unfold. Now I’m not going to get into any specifics beyond that because frankly there is no upside for me, but take what you will from my two cents.
What am I supposed to do with that? You get to just say, with no explanation, that there are people that are acting in bad faith, without saying who, or what “bad faith” is, and I’m just supposed to accept that? FWIW, I also work adjacent to the publishing industry, and word is you’re a racist piece of shit, which is why you never get invited to happy hour.
Didn’t say there was anything you were going to be able to do with that. You can take what I say or leave it — it makes no difference to me and either option is understandable from your position. But you come off as particularly angry and hateful (which I’m sure is not an accurate depiction of who you are — the internet has a way of distorting things) and your response here certainly fortifies that no good could ever come from having a more open and informative dialogue with you. Sharing personal details seems more likely to expose opportunities for harassment than lead to any common ground or understanding between us.
I’m not asking for personal details. You are claiming that there has been bad faith by unspecified people that is coloring the way you are receiving these reviews, but beyond that you are refusing to say *anything* that would allow anyone to analyze that claim. Is it by someone who read the book and is criticizing it? What is the bad faith action? None of that requires divulging any personal information whatsoever. And by the way, it is not me who is saying you are a racist who never gets invited to happy hour. That is just what I’m hearing, but I can’t elaborate.
Except no, they didn’t. Groff found the book compelling, just had a panic attack over whether she was the right person to review it (probably because she was afraid of also being targeted by the book’s detractors); Kirkus and Publishers Weekly both had positive reviews (linked above); and I’d think the whole selection by Oprah thing would also count as a positive review.I have no idea if the book’s as vivid a page-turner as Groff claims or as big a cliche-ridden mess as Gurba and Sehgal claim, but the idea it’s universally panned is nonsense.
I didn’t say the book was universally panned. Groff did say the book was compelling, and also specifically mentioned in her review that she couldn’t possibly speak to the accuracy of of the sorts of experiences the book purports to convey.Who were the critics for the Kirkus and Publisher’s Weekly short, not-in-depth, book-jacket-quote bait “reviews”?Ask yourself why you are so defensive about this.
How about you ask yourself why you’re so determined not to tell the truth about this, instead? I just corrected a misleading statement you made: “every one of the critics specifically mentioned in this story said she told the story badly.” Groff clearly didn’t think she told the story badly: she said she couldn’t put the book down, that it kept her riveted, and that the story stuck with her. That wasn’t the experience Sehgal and Gurba related. Groff’s mincing “I couldn’t speak to the accuracy…” disclaimer isn’t “she told the story badly.”
She wasn’t sure she was qualified to say how well the story was told! The accuracy of a book like this to the lived experience of the people whose experiences it is conveying. She made that abundantly clear through a review that took pains to hedge when discussing the quality of the book. What are, Glenn Kessler? Talk about missing the forest. The person I was responding to said they thought the quality of the book was not the issue, but rather that she shouldn’t get to tell the story. The implication was that everyone liked the book but was only upset because it was a White person telling the story. But that is not true! That is what I was pointing out. But if it makes you feel better, I will revise what I said so I have no longer earned three Pinocchios in your mind: “Every critic specifically mentioned in this story who gave a negative review said the story was told shabbily.” Better? Now I expect you to fix your much more misleading implication that I said the book was universally panned.
Your words stand on their own, and I’ve made no misleading implications about them. Your demand for an apology is insincere, as indicated by your “revised” statement (why revise if I was wrong?).Plus, it’s still the case that Groff’s review didn’t say that Cummins “told the story shabbily.” Here’s the actual language from Groff’s review you keep referencing:I was sure I was the wrong person to review this book. I could never speak to the accuracy of the book’s representation of Mexican culture or the plights of migrants; I have never been Mexican or a migrant…I was further sunk into anxiety when I discovered that, although Cummins does have a personal stake in stories of migration, she herself is neither Mexican nor a migrant.Groff’s waffling, as further indicated by the deleted NYT tweet, is not over whether Cummins told the story well, it was about her own unwillingness to weigh in on whether Cummins should be allowed to tell the story at all. To use Groff’s construction, whether Cummins was the “wrong person” to write American Dirt. If you want to talk about the qualities people consider when deciding if a story is told well or poorly, here’s what Groff writes about that:The book’s simple language immerses the reader immediately and breathlessly in the terror and difficulty of Lydia and Luca’s flight. The uncomplicated moral universe allows us to read it as a thriller with real-life stakes. The novel’s polemical architecture gives a single very forceful and efficient drive to the narrative. And the greatest animating spirit of the novel is the love between Lydia and Luca: It shines its blazing light on all the desperate migrants and feels true and lived.
I didn’t say that the book was universally panned, as you implied. You are a liar.
I quoted exactly what you said so that people can make up their own damn minds. You’re an idiot, as well as insincere.
A book can be both a cliche-ridden mess to those who have actually lived those experiences and a vivid page-turner to those who have not.
Setting aside those who’ve lived the experience and those who haven’t (none of the reviewers, negative or positive, seem to have actually lived this experience, and literary criticism shouldn’t depend on that), those things aren’t at all mutually exclusive. Page-turners often lean on cliche in the interest of narrative streamlining.
It’s not worth perpetuating harmful stereotypes for “narrative streamlining.”
It’s not worth perpetuating harmful stereotypes for “narrative streamlining.”True, to the point of truism. But where are the “harmful stereotypes” you’re complaining about? I’m honestly asking, because although Gurba’s hot mess of a review (and I say this as a Latino who’s not thrown by her use of Spanglish so much as her toxic condescension and general incoherence) references stereotypical characters in the bit quoted above, she doesn’t really go into it in any useful way.The negative reviews have focused on the main character being inauthentic (the text references boogeymen instead of the cucuy! She’s surprised there’s an ice skating rink in Mexico City! How could any Mexican be surprised by the plight of migrants, as if it were impossible for anyone in a country of 129 million people to grow up sheltered, privileged, and naive?), not the harmfulness of the characters, beside the fact that they’re thinly drawn, which speaks to shallow writing, but not necessarily “harmful stereotypes.”
The quote above says she employs the stereotypes of “the Latin lover, the suffering mother, and the stoic manchild.” I’m not going to spend any more time digging into a book that I don’t plan on reading anyway, but even if you’re right and it’s just thinly drawn characters and poorly researched cultural signifiers, that’s plenty of reason for Mexican people to be unhappy that she was given such a huge platform to tell this story and has been tone deaf in her promotion.
But I think it mostly is about who gets to tell what stories; the quality of the book is not the primary issue, here.I’m only learning about the controversy from this article, but from what is written here, it doesn’t sound like that’s the case. It sounds like the book is filled with harmful stereotypes and the fact that the woman who wrote it is white means she’s not getting a pass for that like a Latinx writer might.I do agree that it’s unfair to solely blame the author, though. White people are sometimes put in a position where they are elevated above people of color through no desire or fault of their own. It’s not her fault that Oprah chose her book to highlight. Though there’s an argument to be made that she should have turned down the honor (if she has a choice, might be totally up to the publisher) and asked Oprah to shine the spotlight on a similar book by a person with direct experience of the subject.
But it’s *mostly* about who gets to tell which stories, because if the “wrong” person tells the story, it will be dismissed as “shabby/inauthentic/racist” by anyone who did not want said person to write that story.
If you’re not a part of a community and you choose to write about it, the bar to success is a lot higher and people will be a lot more critical if you get anything wrong or write in a way that seems inauthentic. In that regard, I agree with you. But I don’t think that’s necessarily a negative thing.
I don’t disagree, but I also think the bar might be set unreasonably high in these situations, and there are some that will never accept the work regardless of its quality.
Actual leftists—“There should be more books by people of color about their own lived experiences, rather than unintentional parodies of their lived experiences by people who don’t have the actual experience to draw from.”Also actual leftists—“If you are going to profit off the experiences of a group of people, at least take seriously the criticisms of people from that actual group.”Shockrates—Nah, take the scraps you didn’t actually ask for.
You’re an idiot. In what way are people of color being prevented from writing their own books?But yeah, turning everything into a fight about colorism is a really good thing that is making society so great.
Did I say anyone was being prevented from writing any books?
The argument being advanced here is that this “isn’t her story to tell”. In what ways does that argument imply that she shouldn’t be prevented from writing or releasing this book?
Be prevented how? By who?
So you just decided not to answer my question? You. You’re the one trying to prevent it. You’re making the argument that she shouldn’t have written this book. Your logic is nonsensical and i’m sure faced with it’s implications you’d rather just ask stupid fucking questions that go nowhere.
I’m not trying to prevent anything. First of all, I never said she shouldn’t have written the book. I haven’t read the book. I take seriously the criticisms of people who have actually lived the life she is purporting to portray (especially since I, also, have no experience with the life she is portraying). But I certainly cannot say with any authority that a book I haven’t read shouldn’t have been written. But even if I was saying that, saying the book should not have been written is not the same as “trying to prevent it,” which is a literal impossibility for a host of reasons. It is called criticism, and that is a thing that books tend to be subject to.
Just to be clear not a single person who is quoted in this or any of the other stories about this was an immigrant who came across the border at any time in their life. They’re a bunch of twitter users looking for something to bitch about. I promise you that no one who faced the things she’s writing about actually gives a shit about this. Kind of like how 99% of Latinos think “Latinx” but it’s used nonstop in this and other posts like it’s a legitimate word.
https://www.latimes.com/people/esmeralda-bermudezI wonder how someone born in El Salvador got to America without being “an immigrant who came across the border at any time in their life.”Also:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parul_Sehgal
You are aware that legal immigration exists right? Like not every Latino person came across the border illegally. And since she doesn’t say anywhere that that’s what happened, it’s ironically pretty racist of you to assume that.
Lol, what? Are you aware that we can scroll up and read what you actually said? You never said anything about none of the critics coming “across the border illegally.” Here is what you said:“To be clear not a single person who is quoted in this or any of the other stories about this was an immigrant who came across the border at any time in their life.”That is, actually, wrong. At least two of the people specifically quoted here are immigrants who came across the border. Try again.
“Lol, what?” Kill yourself. Nothing you’ve ever said or done has or will ever mean anything to anyone.
Wow, you sure get bent out of shape when people point out that you got simple facts wrong. Later!
interesting stuff.
Kill yourself.
If only there was a way to write about things that didn’t actually happen that we haven’t actually experienced ourselves. Who knows what literature would look like with this hypothetical genre.
Bottle-of-Richard-cream: We, the internet, should get to decide who can write books and who can’t.
Dog Me: We, the angry white people who are forever conflating criticism with censorship, get to decide who can criticize art and in what grounds.
Sounds like you believe you should get to decide who has opinions on books and who can’t.
Yeah, like…if you’re gonna pull a gambit like this, you better come CORRECT.
I feel a bit of irritation at this story. I’m a black guy who has a white niece and a white nephew who are both the grandchildren of a black man and descendants of slaves. They’re a quarter black just as the subject of this story is a quarter Puerto Rican. It irritates me that they might one day want to explore their heritage, or offer an opinion on something related to it only to be shut down by others for “appropriation.” How hard can I shake my fucking head? Where does it end? How white is too white?
She’s a white native-born American. She is writing about Mexican migrants. That is not exploring “her heritage.”
She legit said in an interview a few years ago she considers herself completely white and not qualified to write stories about POC. (And her book shows it). There are so many books by POC about their experiences of POC that get completely ignored and don’t get 7 figure salaries. Publishing industry made a CHOICE to elevate this book by a white woman. Her publisher has already refurbished her all books with the blurb “by the author of the best selling American Dirt”. The book came out less than a week ago. And doing fucking nails and centerpieces with a “barbed wire” theme, something that fucking kills people is asinine.
You do know Puerto Rico is not Mexico? To use your analogy this is like if your niece wrote a story about Nigerians.
…..and wrote about nigeria like it was zamunda
Oh, like I know anything about South America. I just wanted some upvotes.
well, neither country is in south america, so that’s good.but seriously, your niece or nephew exploring their heritage and writing about it like you described sounds really interesting. no-one should stop them from writing it. and NO-ONE should be stealing and misrepresenting their story.
Puerto Rican =/= Mexican
It’d be worth hunting down another piece that goes into the issues the book has. Your grandkids will do a better, more authentic job.
But the author being a Puerto Rican doesn’t mean she knows anything about being a Mexican, despite the fact that they both speak Spanish, any more than an African-American and a Ghanaian can write about each others’ experience with any sort of authority.
She did 5 years of research before writing the book. Whether it bore fruit on page or not, the fact that she’s white shouldn’t invalidate her from writing a piece of fiction. It’s ridiculous controversies like this that alienate a lot of people from the progressive movement.
Does the fact that it’s full of gross “white person is shocked about the realities of Mexican life” cliches — despite the fact that the main point of view character is Mexican, suggesting that she’s actually incapable of taking herself out of her affluent white lady perspective, disqualify her?
It’s not a ridiculous controversy. It’s a project beyond her ability and, if she wasn’t surrounded by equally clueless white people in the Manhattan publishing industry, who only speak to Spanish speakers by accident, they would have realized it was a project she wasn’t capable of tackling properly.
Is it possible that there are Anglos who could have done a better job? Sure.
But it’s not her. And her compounding her cluelessness by proclaiming herself a voice for the “voiceless” of Latin America is some peak white savior bullshit.
See now, there’s a good explanation of it all.
“It’s ridiculous controversies like this that alienate a lot of people from the progressive movement.”Translation: I’m looking for a reason to justify my racism
Ah yes, there it is; cavalierly throwing out serious accusations like racism. The cornerstone of intelligent and constructive discourse.
Meanwhile, the guy who wrote “The Known World” (which is a fucking amazing book) did absolutely zero research…yet received plaudits in reviews from laymen about how well-researched the story was.Great, great book. It also has literally nothing to do with historical fact.
My wife is 25% mexican, but looks completely white. Yet she still feels a profound connection and pull to that culture. God knows how many “progressives” would accuse her of appropriation if they saw our ofrenda during the day of the dead.
Hi, white mexican currenty living in Mexico here, couple of things:a) Jeanine Cummins is Puerto Rican, not mexicanb) No one cares if you and your wife place an ofrendac) White artists being given preference over people of color is just as much a problem here in Mexico as it is in the US.d) Jeanine Cummins being latinx doesn’t give her a pass for appropiating the experience of thousands of migrants, not just of mexican origin.
They would if your wife wrote about Puerto Rico
In this case one of the issues is that just a few years ago (2015) the author of this book wrote an op-ed about how they don’t feel comfortable writing about race because they identify as white, benefit from white privilege, and “never know the impotent rage of being profiled or encounter institutional hurdles to success because of my skin, my hair color, or my name.” She said she did research before writing because none of this is at all close to any life experience or culture she has lived with, but if the latinx critics are to be believed the book comes of as shallow and stereotypical. And now in the face of those criticisms she is bringing up her family connection, even though the previous op-ed was about how her life experience has been purely that of a white woman.
Puerto Rico =/= Mexico. It’s not her heritage
A better question is why do you think Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are the same thing?
I get what you’re saying, but in fairness, Cummins isn’t exploring her heritage. Mexico and Puerto Rico are very different places with very different histories and experiencing very different problems today. If she wrote a novel about Puerto Rico I’m not sure we’d be having this conversation.
And what’s wrong with that? Should people who want more stories about a group of people just shut up and be grateful for any piece of schlock written about it? Are they not allowed to expect some level of quality? The criticism about this book is that it’s poorly written and relies on stereotypes, valid reasons to reject a book.
Well, yeah.
Why this is shitty really isn’t that hard to figure out if you give it a minute’s thought.
Wow. Good for you for reading the article./s
Oh boy, it almost seems like you skipped over the article in your desperate rush to appear witty. It didn’t work out too well for you.
i won’t do any rubbernecking via white torture porn fictionbut i’ll gladly rubberneck the drama that results from such a book
Why would anyone try to write a book anymore?
yeah seriously does her laptop not work or something lmao
Was anyone prohibiting “real” Hispanic authors from penning the great American immigration novel?
Yes. Publishers. Because they are the gatekeepers and they don’t hand off 7 figure advances to those real Hispanic authors.
What a broad/stupid statement. Yes those evil book publishers.
They don’t hand seven figure advances to authors who aren’t proven bestsellers, either. I will admit I wasn’t familiar with Cummins until now, but it looks like her previous books were about 1. a real tragedy within her own family, 2. a woman in Queens of Irish descent, and 3. a 50s-era gypsy.
Adding the latest novel, she sounds like a woman who takes an interest in a broad range of character backgrounds. It’s what authors do. In the case of this book, it fits with what seems to be a unifying theme of family struggle.
She traffics in other people’s tragedy.
“G*psy” is a racist slur; please don’t use it in the future.
Nope! Plenty of books by Hispanics and others about the immigration experience, in fact. How many have gotten an advance in the millions of dollars, movies rights optioned, and a ton of visibility? That’s an interesting question.
She has a suggested reading section in the book and highlights a bunch of Latin writers.
And still goes around saying she’s “the voice of the voiceless.”
Next you’re going to tell me Stephen King never drove a haunted car or Phillip K. Dick never actually dreamed of electric sheep! Thank god we only allow authors to write about topics that pertain to them directly.
What’s everyone angry about, exactly?
This piece is complete shit and whoever wrote it is probably a terrible person. Keep it up AV Club, you’re becoming more and more of a joke every single day.
[shrug] write your own book then.
They are. Too bad nobody’s publishing them.
The biggest issue is that the book is getting plaudits in spite of being utter trash. Read the NYT linked review to get an idea. If the book was good and well researched then there wouldn’t be quite this issue at all. But for being the result of 4 years of research, it sounds like a quarterican chick took some money to vacation in Mexico for a bit and had her worldview informed by a season of Narcos: Mexico and a 30 minute visit to a Dios De Los Muertos parade in Wisconsin
I doubt it.
Yeah, but a lot of things that get plaudits are utter trash. It usually isn’t framed as an outrageous moral failing on the part of the honoree. Or at least it didn’t used to be, but now we seem to be eliminating the possibility that things can just suck without needing to be atoned or apologized for.
In this case, though, it’s both.
Really? It’s a moral outrage to write a novel that’s well-intentioned but just kinda stereotypical and sucky? In a world where (gestures at a dozen horrifying daily news stories), I think that outrage would be more productively directed at something other than How dare she not be a very good writer!
She is calling herself the “voice of the voiceless,” despite the fact that she, herself, included a list of Latin writers in the book as further suggested reading.
The problem isn’t just that she wrote a terrible book. It’s that clueless white lady has set herself up as the voice of the “voiceless” Latin American writers that she herself admits already have a voice.
More like it’s a moral outrage that white people who are incompetent at writing stories about people of color keep getting lots of money and exposure for writing stories about people of color, at the expense of actual authors of color.
I cackled at your last line so thank you for that
That was a biased as all hell review that only came out in hindsight. Before this “controversy” arose, you couldn’t find a bad word about American Dirt, and if Jeanine Cummins happened to be of Mexican descent and wrote the same book word for word, it would have remained widely praised.
quartericanℚ𝕦𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟
ǪǗÃŘŤẸŘĮČÃŇ
As a librarian, I can say with confidence that 60% of book reviews are trash.
I didn’t know they had a God of the Dead parade in Wisconsin… (or really, anywhere)
Is it a good book?That is the only question that matters. The authors skin color has no relevance.
You’re on the wrong website then.
Even the critics who complain about it admit that it’s a pretty thrilling read.
Even the critics who complain about it admit that it’s a pretty thrilling read. “The motives of the book may be unimpeachable, but novels must be judged on execution, not intention. This peculiar book flounders and fails,” New York Times book critic Parul Sehgal said in her pan. Nice try.
Sehgal’s review was badly written, itself. She clearly took issue with *who* wrote the book and the amount of promotional dollars that were behind its success, but instead of being forthright and focusing on that criticism, she cherry-picked a bunch of lines she thought were bad. The bulk of the review was her making fun of those lines in a heavy-handed way. I was not convinced by her claim that the book was exceptionally badly written, especially considering some of the dreck that gets lavish praise in the NYT (looking at you, My Absolute Darling).
Oh, you found one of the bad reviews, and that stands representative for all her reviews?Cummins’ novel brings to life the ordeal of individual migrants, who risk everything to try to cross into the U.S. But, in its largest ambitions, the novel also captures what it’s like to have the familiar order of things fall away and the rapidity with which we humans, for better or worse, acclimatize ourselves to the abnormal. Propulsive and affecting, American Dirt compels readers to recognize that we’re all but a step or two away from “join[ing] the procession.” – NPRNice try.
“Author Lauren Groff, reviewing the book for The New York Times Book Review, found herself completely immersed but wondering whether she should have accepted the assignment.“I could never speak to the accuracy of the book’s representation of Mexican culture or the plights of migrants; I have never been Mexican or a migrant,” wrote Groff, who nonetheless “kept turning the pages.”https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/21/us/ap-us-books-winfrey-american-dirt.htmlIndeed, I try real hard, and am always willing to back up my statements.
“This is a wonderful, melodramatic telenovela, something I would love watching for cheap entertainment, like a narco-thriller on Netflix. But this should not be called by anyone ‘the great immigrant novel, the story of our time, The Grapes of Wrath.’ Why?” Esmeralda Bermudez, LA Time book critic, when being interviewed on NPR yesterday. She went on to say it makes her skin crawl. https://www.npr.org/2020/01/24/798894249/latinx-critics-speak-out-against-american-dirt-jeanine-cummins-responds
That said, it does not sound like something I would enjoy since I’m not into pulpy page turners (not to diss pulp. Many fine authors were popularized through pulp editions). I guess I’ll find out when I read it for my city-wide book club.
“cheap entertainment, like a narco-thriller on Netflix” =/= “pretty thrilling read.”At best, I can see the reviews that say it’s a well-written action-y thriller, but that doesn’t make it good. Calling something “cheap entertainment” is not a good review.
It depends on what the writer’s going for.Like, John Connolly’s Charlie Parker books (which are, GASP, written by a man who’s never even lived in America!) are very well-done, melodramatic pulp – almost like Supernatural for adults.However, they are decidedly NOT trying to be high art.
Lol, do you think that’s a positive review?
Eh. The “skin crawl” line was more about how white people are reacting to it than the book itself.If the conversation around it we’re “Look at this fun, really well-written airport novel, but don’t take it too seriously” rather than “Everyone should read this stunning testament that will forever define the migrant experience,” she’d be fine.
This is the second article I’ve read on this “controversy” but your comment is the first time I’ve heard that it’s actan enjoyable read.
That’s my line of thinking. As someone who has a Spanish last name and who is half Colombian, if the book sucks and is advancing dumb and incorrect stereotypes then that is a far greater issue then heritage. I’m reminded of the controversy surrounding Coco.
Exactly! Amos and Andy was hilarious, so I don’t understand why some SJW libtards are upset about it!
Interesting choice to use in your sarcasm. Amos and Andy were created by 2 white guys, and were originally a minstrel show on the radio. Definitely racist at that point, though not necessarily maliciously racist. But when it got turned into a tv show it was somewhat progressive for the time. Pretty much the only show with black characters in that era and it had black characters who were not just negative stereotypes or maids. It exposed black culture to the country at large in a way that hadn’t really happened before without demonizing them. And it was heavily viewed and supported by blacks. Racist? Through the lens of today maybe a little. At the time, not really.
The Amos & Andy tv show is not a good example of racism or cultural appropriation even though it was created by white guys.
Imagine just thinking a show isn’t racist because it has black charactersImagine defending Amos & Andy in 2020Imagine demonstrating that you’ve actually invested time and energy in watching Amos & Andy
Imagine being unable to think logically. Imagine being unable to understand that shows are viewed differently in different times. Imagine being so obtuse that you think the biggest black led tv show of the era was racist. Imagine talking shit about a show you have not even watched.
There were plenty of people in Amos & Andy’s time who thought it was racist, sunny Jim. The only ones who didn’t were the white people.
Wrong. Completely Wrong. This very website has an article on the show that disputes that. Do some basic research before you put forth an opinion.
Basic research? Like the fact that the NAACP was campaigning against it in 1951. And yet here you are defending it in 2020.
Things were not and are not that simple.
The naacp was afraid that the characters being played as gullible and foolish with heavy accents would reflect badly on blacks overall. This was at a time when TV was new, and there wasn’t 60 years of characters being played exactly like that on tv shows to compare to. They also decided to start the boycott before the show was released and officially started within 3 months of the first episode, not exactly giving it a chance. They were also targeting the only other show on tv with a black lead at the same time. The naacp members at the time tended to be upper middle class, much better off financially than the typical black person in the early 50s. The views of the naacp were not always aligned with the views of the black population at large. The only poll taken at the time showed 75% support for the show among blacks. The actions of the naacp at the time kept blacks out of major roles in tv for many years.
You should talk to some black people about it. Like my dad.
Do you think the NAACP’s reaction had anything to do with the fact that it was a show created and produced by white people that portrayed black people as already common negative stereotypes? And they’d already had 20 years of the radio show which was more than enough time for them to make up their minds. The fact that some black people liked the show doesn’t change the fact that it was racist bullshit produced by racist white people.
You are just a stream of fake and misinformed outrage.
This didn’t actually answer any of my questions
Good. Your questions are bullshit. You go around the kinja sites looking for people to attack for not believing things the exact same way as you. You have no interest in social justice, racism or anything along those lines. You just want a reason to be outraged and to go on the attack.
So hows this for an answer – Go fuck yourself troll.
So you don’t have any answers and just fall back on weak invective and ad hominem, got it. You can just admit you were wrong next time.
You are continuing the exact same trolling I just described. You are so lacking in self awareness it is amazing that you have gotten far enough in life to even type. So once again, GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU PATHETIC TROLL
More ad hominem and abuse. When you can counter an argument with actual facts and logic, let me know.
Which I did repeatedly and patiently. Your response was to be a troll. Even using the standard right wing tactic of I just want to ask some questions. You are the left wing equivalent of a maga chud.You want to be a jackass and a troll while pretending to be woke. You want an outlet and have decided that pretending to be outraged repeatedly over any little thing is your outlet. So to you I say, Fuck off you pathetic troll.
I made some arguments disputing your points. You’ve proceeded to have a content-free pants-shitting tantrum for like five comments now. Sounds like projection to me.
Go be a maga chud somewhere else
Now you’re getting desperate. Maga types would love Amos & Andy. It shows the world they want to believe in.
You are amazingly stupid. The maga chud of woke kinja.
You keep repeating that and yet you’re the one defending a racist white writer
💩
Why is it when JRR Tolkien writes about Hobbits no one bats an eye but when a successful white woman writes about Mexicans everyone wakes up from their cactus naps and flips out? Yeah, we all know why…
Please consider this my all-purpose FFS on these matters.I hope this movie makes 5 billion and stars Julia Roberts as the Mexican mother
With Kevin Cosner as the good border agent helping the family cross.
Julia will finally be starring in the next Harriet Tubman biopic by then
Scarlett Johansson. Just to piss the writer of this article off.
“I care so little about this I made sure to comment about it!”
What made you think I didn’t care? I care deeply that authors are being taken down for daring to write about a skin tone slightly off from theirs
She’s not being “taken down.” She’s received millions of dollars for this. The book is in line to be adapted for a movie. She will probably have any project she wants greenlit thanks to this book, which will certainly be a bestseller. What is actually happening is people are criticizing her. Which, you know, everyone who produces a work of art for public consumption is subject to! Why does this criticism, in particular, bother you so much?
Because I don’t find it to be honest. I think there is a disturbing amount of criticism that is baked in.I think reviews of this nature are pre-written, no matter the quality of the product, simply because of the subject matter or the race of the author or star or other creator.
What is your basis for assuming people are lying about their reactions to the book?It seems like what is “pre-written” are your reactions to any reviews that criticize with the authenticity of the point of view portrayed in a particular book, if that point of view is based on an identity of some sort. You have pre-judged all such reviews as dishonest.
My rule is to immediate cease giving credibility to any review that highlights this topic.I started doing this when Iron Fist came out. You’ll be amazed how much stuff you can find when you aren’t terribly worried about whose wittle fee fees are hurt
That highlights what topic? That discusses the authenticity of a viewpoint when that viewpoint is based on a particular identity? Who is it that has “pre-written” their reaction? To be clear….it is you. You just admitted to it.
Because I don’t consider the race of the creator to be the defining factor of authenticity. I consider their talent, research and execution.In other words, I don’t reject a work because I don’t like the race of the worker.
How do you know that’s what anyone is doing? Have you read any of the critical reviews? Hint: they are focused on the execution.
Now they are, after the first brave woke soul said something. Now the woke sheep are following.
Did you read any of the critical reviews?
I did. Found them the worst kind of mean-girling
Oh? Can you cite which aspect of which reviews said race was the defining factor of authenticity?
You know you can just admit you didn’t read the article right
Heh. She graduated from my daughter’s high school! The school does not get a lot of love because it is majority minority and most white parents won’t send their kids there (“Safety! Test scores! Oh my stars and garters!”). We are all pretty excite regardless of any controversy. Our mayor has selected it for a city wide book club. We should get input from a lot of different voices since this is the most diverse city under 100,000 people in the country (fourth most diverse city of any size).
The “I give up” at the start of Groff’s tweet speaks a lot about how… charming Twitter can be. Not enough to question whether your race makes the book not for you, looks like someone didn’t disapprove of the book hard enough it seems.
She should have just declined to review it. She gets plenty of attention and exposure, she could have turned down that one assignment.
No book author gets that much exposure. Not these days. It would’ve been stupid not to take the gig. And again, it’s not like she overtly praised the book or denied the controversy. But because she failed to pass it on to another reviewer (as though selecting the replacement would’ve been left to her and not an editor who actually works at the NYT) that somehow makes it okay to harass a woman online? Fuck off.
*I* suggested a well-known, prize-winning author could potentially have turned down an assignment to write a review that, in its final form, was full of overt doubts about whether she should have written it in the first place. *You* told a woman (me) to “fuck off” online. Jeez. It’s almost like the anonymity of the internet allows people to abdicate any sense of self-awareness or irony.
By saying that the author “should have” turned down the assignment, your first comment suggested to me that you thought the harassment she received was justified, so I told you to fuck off, as I would anyone who believes that targeted harassment via Twitter is honestly a good thing. If that was not your intent then yes, I’m sorry. I still hold that her writing the review was fine, and on that, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Wow. No one it seems these days is qualified to do much of anything right including writing about the plight of a people. Do we really want to be that person that just looks for and relishes thinking up ways to find the negative in every motive, every action, every word and line? Does anyone have a glimpse into the author’s heart? This is a dangerous and toxic environment that will come back to each one that continues to foster it. Judgement is the new epidemic.
“The following day, a now viral tweet posted by writer Myriam Gurba”2,000 retweets is considered viral?Ultimately it sounds like the author was trafficking in some cheap easy stereotypes and that combined with the hype she’s getting is rubbing some people the wrong way. She should have to answer to that.
This controversy has been fantastic exposure for Myriam Gurba, no matter how pissed off she was by the book initially.
There’s a certain school of thought that says that racism can only go in one direction, from the powerful to the powerless. That may be true. But hate certainly can go in any direction that it wants, and this, this foaming-at-the-mouth-rage at a woman who dared write a book without getting permission from the Woke Council of Oberlin College or whoever decides these things…that’s hate. Just naked hate.Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the whole doctrine of cultural appropriation, the idea that only certain people can write about certain things, that only certain people can create certain kinds of art, that different people and cultures should not and cannot borrow and use ideas—well that’s hate too. Hate of a profoundly ugly nature.Hate runs this country of course, in the form of our hatemongering pig of a president. And certainly, the hatred that seethes in positions of power is far far far far more hurtful and destructive than people bitching in book review columns. But just because the hate that oozes from a book review column is pointless and harmless (harmless in that this lady is getting her book published and people are going to read it)…well, it’s still hate.(And I kind of agree that this whole piece and controversy seems like a Fox News prank. If you were trying to caricature the sort of arrogant white liberal that Fox loves to parade around, you couldn’t do better than this article. It even uses the word “Latinx”!)
You totally get it — white supremacist hate and Latinx people not liking getting stereotyped are literally the same! Thanks white guy!
You know, if you’re going to criticize an argument, you should present the argument fairly.No one is arguing that she needed permission to write this book from anyone. The issue being taken with the book is that it tells a story poorly, loaded with cliches and harmful stereotypes.
“No one is arguing that she needed permission to write this book from anyone.”This is disingenuous at best. Of course they are. That’s what all of these people are arguing.
Quote someone arguing that. Thanks.
“Quote someone arguing that. Thanks.”Sure!“Much of the conversation surrounding American Dirt has revolved around cultural appropriation and who is best suited to tell what story.”“Groff waffled over whether she, as a white woman, was the right person to review it, just as she wondered whether Cummins was the right person to tell the novel’s story.”Hope that helps!I wonder if being half-Latino is Latino enough for one to write a book about them? Like, do you get kicked out of the club if your mom was from Mexico but your father is a white dude from Minneapolis?
I’m sorry, to be clear, you said there were people who said Cummins should have gotten permission to write the story. What you quoted was a reviewer questioning whether Cummins “was the right person to tell the story.” Do you understand the difference between questioning someone’s judgment, and requiring permission?
“No one is arguing that she needed permission to write this book from anyone.”Writer of “American Dirt” has to cancel publicity tour due to threats against her person.https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/1/29/21114167/american-dirt-book-tour-canceled
Not sure what you think that shows?
It’s not hate to be sick and tired of people who know nothing about you controlling the stories that get told about your people, you feckless wimp.
Write one, then.
What?
this all raises an interesting question about what artists are allowed to work on. is the point of acting for the performer to play a character different from themselves or should they be regulated to only playing people of the same gender & race that they are? obviously, i’m not condoning blackface. mickey rooney in “breakfast at tiffany’s” is horrendous. but if you remake “rain man,” do you need to cast an autistic savant? if you remake “to wong fu…,” do you need to cast real drag queens? there are many points to consider. personally, i’m a white female children’s playwright & i was once offered the chance to have a public reading of the first act of a new piece i was working on that involved slavery. the black performers never said anything to me about any problems they had with the script. the audience crucified me. i will never write a black character again & i’ll be happy to explain why if anyone ever asks why i don’t write characters for people of color.
What, exactly, do you think is the relevance of the “black performers” who “never said anything to [you] about any problems they had with the script”? Did you take the criticisms of the audience seriously, and try to improve the way you approach these topics, or just dismiss it as illegitimate while hiding behind the fact that the black performers involved in your piece didn’t say anything to you (gee, I wonder why that might have been?) and take your ball and go home (and, oh, what a blow to the artistic community that Becky won’t be gracing us with her slave narratives!).Artists “are allowed to work on” any damn thing that they pleased.
it wasn’t criticism, it was a personal attack. so if you wonder & complain that there aren’t more black characters in stories by white authors, that’s why.
A personal attack on you? How? Care to elaborate? Did someone, like, punch you in the face? Or make fun of how big your ears were?I dunno, Green Book won the Oscar. Watchmen was probably the most critically acclaimed shoe this year. Plenty of white people put black characters into their stories and get tons of money and acclaim for doing so, whether those stories are shitty (Green Book) or well done (Watchmen). Maybe what happened is your play sucked?
Imagine writing about slavery, getting feedback and ignoring itI think I’ve found out why you have problems writing characters of color
uhm, you weren’t there, it wasn’t constructive criticism or feedback – it was an insulting, personal attack. so the next time people ask why there aren’t more minority characters in stories by white people, that’s why.
Because writers who don’t write people of color never get personal attacks! You’re really just demonstrating that you’re looking for an excuse to not write poc
Isnt this the woman that snitched on a subway rider eating during their break or am I mistaken?
This will just make white authors more reluctant to write “diverse” characters into their stories.If we’re all to stay in our lane, and subject to mob outrage whenever we stray, and whites should simply write about whites, blacks about blacks, and so forth… well, okay. I think, at least, that the far-left and far-right could find rare agreement on such a thing. But I don’t think that the results of such artistic segregation will benefit society much.
First of all, what is the “This” that “will just make white authors more reluctant to write ‘diverse’ characters into their stories.”? Is it the million dollar advance? The movie deal? The Oprah’s Book Club nod? Second, there is a pretty big difference between an author writing a diverse character into a story and writing a story that hinges on viewpoints and experiences the author has no real connection to. Like, it would be one thing for me, a straight man, to write a female character into a story, and another thing, entirely, for me to write a story with a female character that is all about gender dynamics. And even then, the quality of the story would be the focus. The argument is not “whites should simply write about whites, blacks about blacks.” See, for example, Watchmen, a critically acclaimed show where this sort of criticism has been largely absent, even though it has a black female protagonist, heavily centers the black experience in America, and yet whose showrunner is a white male.
To your first point: It’s far easier to imagine oneself being on the receiving end of negative critical feedback than being selected for Oprah’s Book Club or winning a million dollar book deal. Though there may be great rewards available, we are often much more sensitive to the dangers of pursing some given action.Of course, what we’re discussing isn’t “negative critical feedback” alone, but moral censure. Call it public shaming or a “call out” or “cancel culture,” or what you will, it’s aim is fundamentally destructive — and that is what it accomplishes, because being accepted (by one’s community, by one’s peers) speaks to deep, possibly ingrained human need. Thus, the threat of taking that acceptance away is hugely powerful; exile, shunning, excommunication, etc., are huge disincentives and have been successfully used as threats or punishments throughout human history.And so, the idea of writing “diverse characters” may seem far surer to draw scorn and whip up outrage in the present environment than to contribute to one’s writing a novel successful in any respect (as writing a novel is notoriously difficult, and the financial strife of artistic pursuit is cliche), let alone one that wins awards, or a million dollar advance, or some other kind of lotto-fueled dream. And even then, such arguably superficial success is no guarantee against the kind of humiliation that we’re discussing, obviously, and it’s not clear that this is a worthwhile trade off.
In short, when white authors have a choice as to whether to explore a diverse character — or simply include another white (straight, cis, etc.) character — it may occur to them that the non-diverse character is the far easier, far safer route. (And they may further take to heart the idea that it is not their place to try to write the “other” at all, which is a message that is something implicit, sometimes explicit in these kinds of discussions.) That, whatever their story might lose out on through that choice (and whatever society might otherwise have gained through the increased “representation,” or “visibility,” or a chance at empathy and understanding), at least they won’t be the one offered up to this month’s Twitter hate thread. And though that won’t discourage every experiment in writing “the other,” because art requires courage, in general it will absolutely reduce it.I’d also like to address myself fully to your second point, but I’ve already written enough, or more-than, for which I apologize. Suffice it for now to say, then, that the hallmarks of mob “justice” are not rationality or proportionality.
It is the case with EVERY book, whether it deals with race it ethnicity or some other identity issue, that it is more likely to be the subject of criticism than selected for Oprah’s book club. There is no element of “mob justice” here. What are you even talking about. She wrote a book and people are criticizing that book! Who, in your ideal world, gets to criticize art, and on what terms?
It is the case with EVERY book, whether it deals with race it ethnicity or some other identity issue, that it is more likely to be the subject of criticism than selected for Oprah’s book club. Yes. And when a book deals with race, ethnicity, or some other identity issue, it is far more likely to be the subject of criticism. And criticism of a “special” character, as discussed below.
There is no element of “mob justice” here. What are you even talking
about. She wrote a book and people are criticizing that book! Who, in
your ideal world, gets to criticize art, and on what terms?Let’s not feign ignorance about the wider context here. Or if you honestly don’t know what I’m talking about, though I find that hard to imagine, I might direct you to a recent video essay by one of the few worthwhile YouTubers, ContraPoints, on “cancelling.” She elucidates the matter far better than I could.As far as criticism goes, anyone can criticize art in my ideal world… and equally this one. And then criticism itself is not above criticism, n’est-ce pas? Hence our discussion. So let’s not frame this as who “gets to criticize art,” which is demeaning and ought to be beneath us. You get to criticize art, and so do I, and so does anyone else. Obviously. But if your criticisms are poorly formed, off-target, unhelpful, or even destructive, I further have the right to say so.It is fair to criticize the author of this book for poor writing, as the New York Times did; it is fair to offer critique that her portrayal of immigrants isn’t “accurate,” to which I cannot personally speak (though whether that criticism itself matters, in a wider sense, is another discussion entirely; art need not always be “accurate” or “realistic” to be good); it is not fair, in my opinion, to criticize (or to intimate) that the author is white, and therefore ought not to have written such a story in the first place. But more than being “unfair,” I have argued from the first that it functions as a strong disincentive against increased diversity/representation — which is something that people have otherwise often argued that they would like to see more of, in their art.
Anyways, I think I’ve expressed myself sufficiently, so I’ll leave it here. You’re welcome to final comment, and thank you for the discussion.
Fuck you, condescending asshole. You’re just making up things to argue against.
Whatever, dude. I tried to discuss contentious and difficult issues with you, treating you like an adult. Did my best to explain myself and didn’t ask for much in return, but next time try to be a better human being.
No you didn’t. You just invented arguments in your mind and argued against them, paying no mind whatsoever to what was actually happening or the arguments that were actually being presented. And you were condescending throughout, which is fucking hilarious because you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Fuck off.
Me fuck off? You were the one who chose to initiate this discussion. Then, when you ran out of argument, you started throwing a tantrum. And you continue to do so. You don’t seem to know much about anything we were discussing, or even how to be a decent person, but presumably you can find the door without being shown…?
Yes, you fuck off. The only argument I ran out of was one that I, nor anyone else, was making.
You know what? Sure thing. You’ve turned this into a contest of who has more time to waste on bullshit, and we both know that’s you.
Cool. Enjoy your life never learning a single fucking thing.
“There is no element of “mob justice” here.”Also disingenuous, or possibly willful denial.
You are confusing “widespread criticism of a work of art” with “mob justice.” Get a fucking grip man. What has triggered you, snowflake?
So what kind of books about women should you be allowed to write?
I’m allowed to write any damn book I please, no one has ever tried to stop me from writing any book on any topic.
So we’re on the same page that Harriet Beecher Stowe DEFINITELY shouldn’t have written Uncle Tom’s Cabin…but should JK Rowling have written from the perspective of a teenage boy with magical powers?
on the same page as you can fuck off with your bad faith bullshit
What’s bad faith about the UCT comparison?Uncle Tom’s Cabin is lurid Victorian misery porn, written by a rich white woman who had never been to the South.Do you disagree with any part of that statement?
the distribution regarding any factor should be discarded every body is equal in there areas
https://technologymoon.com/intelligent-technology/
When a white person uses a term like “Latinx,” a term barely used outside white academia, to criticize someone of partial Hispanic heritage, it’s Really hard for them to say they’re appropriating
What? How does knowing one term keep people from being appropriative?
Kind of mind-blowing that woke criticism has led us to the point that an entire language and the 500 million people who speak it are bigoted. “Latinx”. Show me someone who uses that word and I’ll show you someone who couldn’t order off a Spanish menu without pictures.
I’m interested more in Groff’s self-flagellation that the particular author. Its one thing to say “Only Latinx people should write Latinx stories,” but is there an argument being made that LatinX stories can’t be reviewed by white people?
What the olds have discovered (and the youngs will learn soon, too late, like everyone) is that these kinds of arguments continue to evolve, burning through layer after layer like acid, seeking rock bottom.If it isn’t already the argument that Latinx stories can’t be reviewed by white people — though I sort of suspect that it is — it might be tomorrow. Or maybe that there is something appropriative in white people reading such a story. I can already hear the “progressive” “argument” (there aren’t enough scare quotes in the world for modern society): “It wasn’t meant for you. The stories of marginalized people aren’t your entertainment.”Cancer spreads.
I love that you think anything you proposed in this comment is a bad thing
If we get to a point where people are saying “You can’t read this story; it’s not meant for your kind,” the world will lose understanding and empathy of others, both of which are desperately needed.So yes, it would be a Very Bad Thing.
It sure is a good thing nobody is saying that, then!
I think we’re headed towards that point, the point where we’ll be told that white people shouldn’t read those books…of course, that will be hard to enforce! You can’t send the mob after individual readers the way you can after a woman who had the unmitigated gall to write a book.
I know you’re most often treated as either a troll or a caricature, but let me attempt an earnest response:Yes, I do think that this is generally a bad thing. I value things that bring people together and speak to a common, fundamental humanity. Above all, I think that this is the great good of the arts — that it encourages empathy and understanding (not alone for the audience, but also for the artist). So to turn it on its head and use the arts as a way, not to bridge social divides, but to enlarge them, to reinforce them, is particularly repellent.Donald Trump wishes to build walls between people, to keep them apart, and he’s deeply wrong to do it. This is building walls of a different sort, but it is also wrong.
See but all this is you pearlclutching over strawmen you created without any evidence that this is gonna happen
but is there an argument being made that LatinX stories can’t be reviewed by white people?Not really fair to take one white reviewers’ self-awareness and then try to morph that into a straw man to argue against!
No one uses Latinx, only white women.
I understand if the text is offensive or poorly written. I get the criticism for that. But I don’t understand the other level of criticism I am reading in this article.
How Latin does an author have to be to be allowed to write about Latin characters?
The “appropriation” whiners are losers. This is a losing issue. It has no clarity, only a bunch of catchphrases and slogans popular among the handwringing elite and brown people who want to become exploiters. Capitalist dogs trying to make capitalism “fair” need to be reeducated and capitalism needs to be dismantled.
By the way, if we can talk some more about hatred, let’s talk about Gurba’s review. Here are the first four words…“When I tell gringos…”The whole review just seethes with hate.