>“This is one of the few ways that publishing has evolved into the 21st century, by having to listen to people’s immediate reaction to what they’re publishing,” she said.
I find it extremely sad that this is broadly phrased as something positive. Just consider how many great works of literature were publicly dammed and published regardless only to be redeemed decades or centuries later. Setting a precedent, even just a moral one, that public outcry should be considered when deciding on publishing is absolutely horrible.
Let's say it's never redeemed, and it just ends up being a bad book. So what?
People have bad ideas all the time. Are we incapable of dealing with bad ideas on an intellectual level any more? We should be analyzing the understand the flaws in the reasoning that lead to the bad idea.
I also think often the reaction isn't to the original source, often the reaction is to the reaction of others. Many people running around shouting "Fire!" without having even seen smoke.
“This book is about slavery, a false oppression narrative that equates having legitimately dangerous magical powers that kill people with being an oppressed minority, like a person of color. This whole story is absolutely repulsive.”
It immediately reminded me of Jemisin's "The Fifth Season", because that's pretty much the central plot device there: people with dangerous magical powers being discriminated against, out of fear, in ways that directly and obviously parallel racial discrimination of blacks in real world USA.
Except that book won Hugo for best novel in 2016.
So, what was actually so offensive about this book? I'm genuinely curious to see for myself now.
I dont think the fifth season parallels racial discrimination of blacks in real world USA. It is really not the same nor history of that is the same. Jemisin learned from slave stories imo in terms how of how people in that situation think and feel, but not in how the slavery system works nor in how it came to be.
Does this book parallel that? Or are short-sighted readers assuming it does because it's the only way they understand the concept of slavery, despite many wildly different implementations throughout history?
No, my point is that it does not parallel that. Also, I think that people who say that did not read the book at all, but found slavery mentioned in book analysis and jumped to conclusion. Because you can easily read the book without thinking about slavery at all and much less American one. The word itself is used only few times.
Also, in born abilities are not the only way to become a slave in that book. Guardians are slaves too.
Ah, ok. I have no idea. I reacted to "It immediately reminded me of Jemisin's "The Fifth Season", because that's pretty much the central plot device there: people with dangerous magical powers being discriminated against, out of fear, in ways that directly and obviously parallel racial discrimination of blacks in real world USA." in parent. The description that made him think of fifth season does not sounds like fifth season either.
I did not read "Blood Heir" and don't know anything specific except seeing some tweets about about the issue. All those tweets were from people with strong agendas (both ways agendas but still not fully trustworthy in their analysis). Which is why I don't want to speculate on its content.
So orogene/rogga didn't give you any obvious word associations?
There's more if you look closely, though. Let me quote something straight from the second book in the series, "The Obelisk Gate":
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the physical integrity of the Stillness — for the obvious interest of long-term survival. Maintenance of this land is peculiarly dependent upon seismic equilibrium, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the orogenic can establish such. A blow at their bondage is a blow at the very planet. We rule, therefore, that though they bear some resemblance to we of good and wholesome lineage, and though they must be managed with kind hand to the benefit of both bond and free, any degree of orogenic ability must be assumed to negate its corresponding personhood. They are rightfully to be held and regarded as an inferior and dependent species.
— The Second Yumenescene Lore Council’s Declaration on the Rights of the Orogenically Afflicted"
Recognize that wording? It's the Mississippi declaration of secession in the Civil War. Here's the original bit:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
Of course orogenes are not the same as African Americans (they're not a race, for one!), and the situation in the books is different in many ways. Nevertheless, there are many intentional parallels and call-outs like that there.
I did interpreted it as insult made to sound like current insult. There are call outs as you say, but it is in no way parallel. More like she learned from history and mixed pars of it into the book. I think that she also learned from some former slave stories.
The whole system of oppression in the book is completely different from chattel slavery. It is not even really race-based except to the extend where ability is inherited. The overall system resembles genocide more - there is some commonality with wwii too. American slavery had slaves permeated whole society, serving in households closely under whites. That is not like that at all in book and Jemisin knows that. American slaves where money, property. Not at all in book. American slavery did not had beautiful fulcrum. Not took away all the kids from parents.
There are call outs, but in important defining things it is different and resembles also other historical events to the same degree. Jemisin took pieces of this and that and mixed it to something original.
"Technically it makes no sense to call this a race at all; they emerge from every people of the Stillness in roughly equal proportions, though more of them live to adulthood in the Arctics and the Equatorials because the Fulcrums are located in those regions. There’s nothing visually distinct about orogenes; the thing that makes them unique is perceptual, behavioral. Yet race in our own world is a social construct, not anything related to actual biology, so it makes sense that a world which has such complicated feelings about orogenes would conceptually fission them off from the rest of humanity. In fact, as Essun alludes at one point in TFS, Old Sanze officially classified orogenes as non-human a few centuries back. The better to oppress.
But there’s also something about the common experiences of orogenes which lends some substance to the label. Orogenes of the Fulcrum use a highly specialized vocabulary — e.g. torus, crucible, grit. They aren’t used to hiding, which is one of the reasons it’s rare for them to successfully escape; having spent years among their own kind, there are markers in their behavior which make them stick out like sore thumbs among any non-Fulcrum population. Only those who lived outside the Fulcrum as children have much real hope of blending in. But orogenes who grow up outside the Fulcrum — ferals, as Fulcrum orogenes call them — have their own unique traits. They share the markers of an oppressed group in hiding — and just as black people can sometimes spot those who are passing via “blackdar”, and just as other hapas often know on sight that (frex) Keanu Reeves is One Of Them, it’s something that can be seen. It might be subtle, protective camouflage… but it’s visible to those who have reason to look for it."
So I'd say that it's intentionally closer than you believe it is. But also - sure, it's different, but then isn't the book being discussed here also different?
Also, regarding orogene/rogga - it's not just the second part. Look at the first word closely, and consider the letters it consists of. Or just read it backwards.
I did not read the other book. I have no idea how different it is to Jemisin nor to history. I have no idea whether I would personally consider it bad or whether I would not cared.
In any case, fifth season is not parellel to real history nor contains stereotypes. The author goes out of her way to give distinct personality to each character and no group is composed of same-like individuals. All biological groups have members of differing opinions and personalities. Shared traits are carefully explained as result of situation.
I don't know what you mean to say by that description of orogenes and fulcrum. Black could not blendin (except few very white individuals at risk to have dark child), they were not separated to largely self-governing institution). Instead they lived in households and plantages. Blacks indeed had own dialect, but so did any group of people separated by livestyle or rules. Different classes and separated places always grow to differ in language and habits. None of it is specific to black history in United States or very closely parallel to it.
It shows that Jemisin do know how groups of people develop cultur and shows her opinion on race being social construct. It does not show special closeness to black history in USA except in some taking cues of how people behave. She is educate and knows psychology and likely sociology well.
I think that you read too much from wordplay+callouta and ignore massive massive differences between orogenes and real world blacks - both during and after slavery.
Disclaimer: never heard of the book before today and will never read it (no longer in the Y segment of the YA audience). I'm basing my opinion on the info in the article and similar issues in the past.
> racial stereotypes and careless borrowing from other cultural traditions
It's time to accept we live in a world where you can't "win". Someone will be offended no matter what you do. First thing that popped in my head was if Dune would have still had a chance in today's world where each generation was raised with the increasing expectation that all opinions are equal and maybe their's is a little more equal.
The quote above disqualifies 95% of Hollywood movies. Russian/Chinese hackers? Arab terrorists? Damsel in distress? "Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist" guy with tall blonde assistant? Mutants with superpowers being discriminated against?
I guess this backlash comes from people wanting to think they're changing society but don't bother picking their fights, they just join one that seems easy.
> a false oppression narrative that equates having legitimately dangerous magical powers that kill people with being an oppressed minority
Same person probably kept quiet when X-Men was pushing the narrative in order to protect their social media standing. The hypocrisy of going only after the "easy target" and for the wrong reasons undermines whatever point one might try to make.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
What I find interesting is the people that decry metaphorical book burning (censorship, banning) are the same ones that want to destroy authors and prevent their books from being published. It's like they think that if they can prevent a book from being published, they can't be counted among the Firemen - which IMO is rather bad logic.
Don't worry. Now you will probably never be able to read the book to evaluate it.
There are (at least) three types of censorship:
1) gubernamental censorship
2) mob censorship
3) self censorship
For some reason, many people care only about #1. This looks like a #3, but it's very close to a #2, because if this book were published there may be a tweeter outrage asking the major bookstores to "spontaneously" decide to remove the book and also any past or future books of the author.
Probably because #2 and (even moreso #3) are difficult to evaluate without a great deal more nuance. There's not much of a use case for #1 except (arguably) national security.
I assume what you mean by #2 & #3 is when people collectively or individually say that an idea is not worth the paper it's printed on. In that case, there's a good lot of things that should, ideally, never see the light of day; except as examples of human folly. The anti-vaccine movement and chemtrail theories are examples of this.
I don't know the details of this case at all, but I suspect it falls under the category of the author trying to communicate one thing, but most people understanding the book in a very different way, and the author not wanting to be mis-read.
I find it extremely sad that this is broadly phrased as something positive. Just consider how many great works of literature were publicly dammed and published regardless only to be redeemed decades or centuries later. Setting a precedent, even just a moral one, that public outcry should be considered when deciding on publishing is absolutely horrible.