(no subject)

[owlectomy]

In one of my cursory blog-checks over the past few rushed days, I noticed that Bitch Magazine had published a list of 100 feminist YA books. Now, it seems, they have amended the list, removing Sisters Red, Living Dead Girl, and Tender Morsels because all three books dealt with sexual assault in ways that could be triggering or otherwise problematic.

...In response to which, various YA authors -- including Scott Westerfeld, Justine Larbalestier, Maureen Johnson, and Ellen Klages -- protested their own inclusion on the list.

I've read critiques of all three books and I think they're reasonable. The only one I've actually read is Tender Morsels, and that is a book that I will clutch to my heart and defend against anyone -- while also acknowledging that it has a lot of rape in it, and that not all of it is portrayed in a way that I would sanction as Okay, that I would hedge myself very carefully when recommending it.

I'm okay in principle with Bitch vetting their book list for ideological purity, but if that's what they're doing they need to take a look at half a dozen examples of dodgy race stuff in the other books on the list, and other issues of unexamined privilege. If that's what they're doing, they're going to have a hard time making it to 100 books. Heck, I love Laurie Halse Anderson but for my own peace of mind I will probably never read Wintergirls.

I am trying to find the words for what I want to say that don't privilege stories over the people who are hurt by those stories. That may be impossible.

A list of 100 feminist books ought to pay attention to the diversity of women's experiences and the diversity of feminisms. To me, that means that it can't shy away from anger and sharp edges and the process of turning over parts of yourself and finding something awful inside. I want a book on that list that is as gracefully empowering as Laurie Halse Anderson's Speak, but I also want a book as sharply edged as Tender Morsels.

And I don't want that to come at the expense of readers who may be triggered -- but again, I may just be at an impasse there.

Comments

[daedala]

I think that triggers should be warned for, but not censored. I've got some real triggers that have been helped a lot by me being able to work with them in reading, where it's safe. Removing all books that trigger someone also means removing that possibility.

That said, I don't know exactly what's going on. But I do think that potentially-triggering books have a place, as long as the potentially-triggered can figure out beforehand if they want to deal with it; I don't think that potentially-triggering books necessarily exist at the expense of the triggered. A story that might hurt at one time may help someone else, or may help at a different time.

I'm not sure if that entirely made sense...

[trouble]

I think what you're saying is that mentioning on their list "This book deals with rape and its aftermath" would probably have been a better choice than deciding to remove books from the list, in terms of people getting angry. Which I totally agree with.

On the other hand, I'm really bothered by people saying the list has been "censored". Bitch isn't banning the books or refusing to carrying them in their bookstore or something, or telling people not to read them. They removed the books from a book list.

I get why people are angry and I totally think Bitch mishandled this. They mishandle every controversy they are part of in epic ways that blow me away. *sigh*

[daedala]

Oh, right on "censored" -- sorry about that.

I'm not really talking about how they handled it, though, because I don't really know the background. I think what I'm saying (now that I've babbled about it long enough to figure it out) is that triggering things can actually be good and helpful to the person triggered. Not always, and it's certainly not ok to assume it, but I think I'd be in a lot worse shape, mentally, if I hadn't had books as a safer place to work out some of my triggers.

The problem of accidentally or maliciously triggering people is real, and I don't want to minimize that. But triggering is not always a bad thing.

[owlectomy]

It's a problem that the list was presented without any context or commentary. In fandom we're developing a culture around warning for triggers, even if that's still somewhat contentious, but there's nothing similar on book jackets and publisher blurbs.

I don't feel great about Bitch's decision to remove those books from the list, but I can understand it in that context -- that Tender Morsels is a book I would recommend, but not a book I would recommend without context or commentary.

(Also, it feels like there's two separate discussions that have been conflated under the umbrella of triggers -- first, that TM contains triggering content, and second, that TM contains a scene of rape-as-revenge that is not sufficiently addressed by the narrative as problematic. I have no problem endorsing a book that could be triggering, with appropriate warnings; if I really thought that TM was endorsing rape-as-revenge, I would have a problem endorsing that. I happen to think that's not what the story was doing.)