Play Book Tag discussion

Or maybe both the wrong place and the wrong time. Elizabeth Gilbert just pulled her book. It sounds kind of intriguing to me, but I understand why it is wrong just now.

What do you think?

https://wapo.st/3CnGpTd

I think it is her decision to make for whatever reasons she wants.

Many authors have wriitten books and elected not to publish them due to political or social factors that would not be favorable to their reception, often leaving instructions for publication after their death. Maurice by E.M. Forster was deliberately not published in his lifetime because he believed even knew that until the laws and social perceptions changed, a book about a gay male that had a happy ending in a loving relationship would not be accepted and given the attention it deserved. It still isn't IMHO. Then there is The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov - written in 1930s but first published and a censored version, in mid-1960s. There are many others.

I agree that it is her decision and we should respect that.

But I disagree with the massive push with large numbers of 1-star ratings (for a book not yet published and which most have not read) just because of the politics of the situation.

That's too close to "book banning" for my comfort.

I think my opinion is in line with this:

“Putin’s Russia is a far right imperialist and terrorist state that deserves all the opprobrium directed at it. But this seems very weird to me. I mean the author’s decision but … no book should be set in historical Russia now?” novelist and critic Lincoln Michel said on Twitter. “A novel about people resisting the USSR no less? Huh?”

It's such a strange time because everyone can share their opinions in real time via social media and if that collective voice is strong enough it alters things in the book publishing world.
It's similar to the argument about whether or not authors can write from a perspective that isn't their own (like white author writes Black POV for example). I understand why this discourse is happening and why it is important, not enough representation in popular fiction, but I think the authors are the wrong focus of the arguments (needs to focus more on the publishers).

Like @Book Concierge - seems too close to book banning. Can't we read the stories then decide for ourselves? I may not personally want to read something for whatever socio-political reason, but I am happy for others to read and enjoy those books.

I have always hated this aspect of social media and it is the reason I am no longer on any of it other than GR. The "piling on" of 1-star reviews for a book they haven't read is unwarranted. The current violence in the Ukraine is a direct result of a dictator, not the entirety of the Russian people (and especially not those who lived a hundred years ago). I agree with Meli that they are directing their ire in the wrong direction.

Yes, should the rest of the world have refused to read books set in USA while we had an authoritarian, isolationist president? I am currently reading The Bear and the Nightingale, which comes from Russian folklore and I never had a thought about it tying into current events.

It sounds like the book doesn't glorify the Russian state, though even if it did, she has a right to publish it. It reminds me of Russian restaurants in NYC and other places who were being attacked or boycotted when the war started. The people of Russian descent who are here almost certainly left because they didn't agree with the government, or were persecuted as Jews or other minorities. In fact many "Russian" restaurants are owned by Ukrainians who just used the larger term to market themselves because it was better known.

And trashing a book you didn't read is just wrong. Same with J.K. Rowling and the trans issue. You can choose to not read her books because you detest her view, and you can post whatever you like about the issue, but that doesn't mean you give it 1 star while stating you'll never read it. This sort of thing is the fundamentalism of the left (and I am very left!)

This is a major peeve of mine. While I think she has a right to not publish her book, I respect her decision no matter what the reason. I despise social media and the outsize influence they have when it comes to bullying anyone who doesn't agree with their opinion. All sides take it too far. And don't get me started on those people who give one star reviews to books they haven't read because they dislike something about the author. Read it, don't read it, I don't care. I am 100% against book censorship.

Booknblues wrote: "Or maybe both the wrong place and the wrong time. Elizabeth Gilbert just pulled her book. It sounds kind of intriguing to me, but I understand why it is wrong just now.

What do you think?

https:/..."

My mother was a huge Dr. John fan and I'm going to be humming that song all day!

I respect a reader's decision to not read a problematic author, but I want the same respect on the other side. Nothing more irksome than mentioning a book / song / artist / show and someone being like "aren't they problematic!?" And the problems can also often be just being a human in the world figuring shit out...

Like @Robin P pointed out about JK Rowling, if you can't get past her anti-trans views, that's OK. But if people can't let go of their Harry Potter fandom, that's OK too. In my humble opinion. I know supporting their work puts money in their pockets, she'll be just fine even if EVERYONE never reads her books or buys her shit again. So, I think these decisions are very personal. I don't want to be involved in trying to make someone feel bad about what beings them joy.

This is the 2nd time in a month that a book has gotten 1-star ratings because of something other than someone reading it and not liking it.

The other was a new author on BookTok who called a girl the B word for giving her a 4-star review. The author then tried to defend herself, saying she was a comedian. From what I heard, her publisher dropped her and will not be publishing her book (it was due out in September). I think she's gone "underground" because she removed her TikTok account. But this girl dug her own hole.

Anyone remember 'freedom fries'? For some reason I no longer remember 'french' fries were verboten and temporarily renamed.

I do agree that this use of social media and online ratings is really just as much censorship as a group of parents insisting Judy Blume's books be removed from library.

@Robin - the far ends of the political spectrum always end up meeting!

I do wonder though about the author's decision here - if holding off publication was to release it in a better environment, to avoid a firestorm like American Dirt, then why the big announcement of why which is creating its own firestorm? Is it to shift attention away from the book to the the issues we are here discussing, during a time when censorship and book banning are front and center and political? The publication could have been quietly delayed - I just think an opportunity was seen here to highlight another form of censorship not connected to gender identity, race, religion, etc.

If that is true, good for the author and the publisher.

P.S. reading the description of the book, I scratched my head as to why Ukrainian's would object as it for sure does not show Russia positively.

Theresa wrote: "Anyone remember 'freedom fries'? For some reason I no longer remember 'french' fries were verboten and temporarily renamed.

I do agree that this use of social media and online ratings is really ju..."

No one in my real life ever used "freedom fries" unironically 😂
But I remember that!

France opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Meli wrote: "I respect a reader's decision to not read a problematic author, but I want the same respect on the other side. Nothing more irksome than mentioning a book / song / artist / show and someone being l..."

I agree Meli.

I don't really care what JK Rowling thinks about trans issues, as long as it isn't reflected in her books. She never used trans characters just to get a cheap laugh, or to ridicule them. There are a lot of TV and Movie writers/directors who were guilty of that.

Maybe Gilbert made the smart move here, because her letter is getting people like us to argue that it would unfair to penalize her book. Other people are making the case that it doesn't glorify Russia. Reading a banned book is on a lot of reading challenges every year, so getting on one of those lists could help sales. (All publicity is good publicity?)

It all just makes me sad that so many things have become political unnecessarily. People then pile on, demanding that we boycott, cancel or fire someone for their opinions or choices.

I agree with all of you. I totally support Ukraine in the war. I do not support anybody giving one star reviews to books, movies, whatever just because of their content. It pisses me off when people do this to object to children's books with LGBTQ themes and now I'm pissed off on behalf of Elizabeth Gilbert, even though I have no desire to read any of her books.

She also has plenty of money from previous books. Think of the poor first-time author who has been working on a book for years that maybe has a Russia connection.

There can be bad timing - apparently some movie or TV episode with a plane hijacking or bombing was about to come out around 9/11 and the company wisely decided to delay it. But I don't think they publicized it until afterwards.

Joy D wrote: "France opposed the invasion of Iraq."

That's right!

I have mixed feelings about this since she's not Russian, but I can see that the timing is bad and she has done will with her previous books--much better than most authors.

But to give one star to authors just because they are Russian, etc is wrong because not all Russian people support this war!!!

I think Gilbert has made a smart choice overall, but this is probably a decision made in conjunction with her publisher and agent as well, so it's probably a group stand.

Olivermagnus wrote: "My mother was a huge Dr. John fan and I'm going to be humming that song all day! ..."

So glad to be of service. I loved Dr. John and the song seemed to fit the topic.

Meli wrote: "I think my opinion is in line with this:

“Putin’s Russia is a far right imperialist and terrorist state that deserves all the opprobrium directed at it. But this seems very weird to me. I mean th..."

I don't even like to write anything about politics on social media, but I agree with Meli and Joy completely on this one. It is the author's choice, but I don't agree with caving to the activists on social media who want to decide for us what we can read. No.

I do understand that perhaps bookstores won't carry it because of the controversy and maybe that's why they are opting to wait until things simmer down. It's very sad. And I think the end result will be less quality releases as authors are so careful not to touch upon anything controversial in their writing and try to stay in their lane. It's sad, and extremely close to censorship.

I will admit I would run to buy it if it were published now. RUN.

Novels are fiction. I think people have lost sight of that . . .

Agree with you Anita, it is sad that art, and a great book is a work of art, is being censored-just think of all the time and labor she put into this work and to have to "fall in line" because of social media -well it is just a sad state of affairs.

I so agree with you, Joanne, that a book is art . . .well at least all works of fiction are. And as art, it’s the free expression of the creator and should be honored in that way.

The market is absolutely welcome to vote with their dollars after publication.

I just read an interesting article about this:

https://medium.com/@geogvma/war-of-wo...

Booknblues wrote: "I just read an interesting article about this:

https://medium.com/@geogvma/war-of-wo..."

That is interesting, it made me reconsider if my original opinion was coming from a place of privilege - in this case, the privilege of being far from a terrible war.

I thought the same Robin, however my opinion stands. That may sound rough, the article really did strike a cord with me. However, were there no internet, would the blow back for the decision been as loud? I stand by my opinion that censorship in any form is wrong.

I think it is ridiculous to expect an author to cancel a book because folks feel the "setting" is currently unpopular and on the wrong side of politics. This to me is beyond ridiculous and I am with Anita and the others. We have a problem in our culture these days where everyone is screaming that their rights are being trampled on by someone else and we are holding each other for standards too high and too unreasonable to uphold a political correctness or moral standard. And to me this is true on both sides of the aisle. The idea that we get to decide what is woke or unwoke, for an entire nation of people. This is off the rails. I am with Anita and others. You vote with your dollars and your energy. You hang with the people you want to hang with and are kind to everyone. This kind of moral outrage is doing what is happening within every other political and social context. It is fueling the fire.

The younger generation from what I can tell is divided. Nearly everyone thinks people should just be who they are, love who they love, practice varying religions and cultures, think and live and love and believe as you care to. The divide is not about that basic tenet. But there seems to me to be a clear divide about whether or not we should be outraged. According to my kids and my friends kids, people are either totally outraged all the time, demanding for themselves to be seen and honored. Or they are privately and publically just sick of the outrage. Love who you love. Be who you are. Celebrate that. Just stop screaming about it. Which again, would calm down a lot, if there weren't attempted legislations trying to deny their existences. The young folks see the older generations doing this kind of thing, outrage, outrage over the outrage, outrage over the outrage over the outrage, and they think its ridiculous. I agree. And yet I am also political minded. In am paying attention, and trying as a Democrat leaning strong Independent, to stay current. Get outraged when I need to be. But I am often with them. If we could get a hold of our outrage, we could govern and live with so much more ease. And yet a certain amount of outrage is important. I think the question is what do we do with it? How do we use it? Not in this way in my opinion. We are the Readers of Books not the Banners of them. Ridiculous. And Elizabeth Gilbert is feeding into it. We are not stopping the violence by Russia in delaying a publication date. How self-important people think they are to suggest another person should have a particular stance. My family is half Ukranian. Many American Jews share that. I fear and feel for them. But I would have bought her newest book no problem and not have thought twice. Shame on anyone who thinks they should dictate what I should be reading or thinking. Anti-woke is Anti Semitic, no two ways about it. It is a danger to think there is one God and one religion and only one way to interpret that religion. But so is PC in danger of telling us how we must think and feel and how outraged we must be. Again, if you are on the side of banning books, decision making, individuation of thought and personal critical thinking - to me you are on the wrong side. I guess having been sort of glazing over this thread this morning, I took a moment to be outraged over outrage. Then I will fall back into what I consider not to be apathy or resignation, but the prayer that somehow this gets back into a loving balance.

I love reading everyone's thoughts here.

I think a lot of the time the way I make up my mind about an issue like this, is I ask myself, "what would happen if this one off example became the norm?"

In other words, is this an action that I would feel comfortable if the principles of the situation were broadly applied?

In this case, I personally would not. I don't think authors can reasonably anticipate (nor should they) every aggrieved, persecuted group in the world and avoid writing about their persecutors. That's not realistic. Literature is art, and I don't believe that a single work of fiction is going to enhance Russia's position in the world, lead to them winning the war, change American's perspective on the war, or cost Ukrainian lives.

Is withholding one book the end of the world? Probably not. But censorship of artwork and creativity in the name of politics strikes me as oppressive, and if you concede that it is proper in this situation, then you concede it is proper to consider every artwork in the context of politics. And then, who gets to decide. The loudest voices? The government? The whole situation makes me sad (and troubled). I think social media should not be the arbiters under any circumstance.

Thank you to everyone for sharing their perspectives. This is a fascinating and important conversation.

Well, I wanted to go to "The Snow Forest" page and read some of those 1-star reviews to see what they had to say.

I thought I might even leave a 5-star review .... even though I haven't (obviously) read the book yet .... just in protest against the trolls.

But the book isn't even on GoodReads ... if it WAS, it's been pulled entirely.

Ahhhh late to this super interesting discussion!! But as someone who has studied Russian history and politics, I gotta weigh in...

I largely agree with the quote from the article by Keith Gessen:

“If the book is good, and teaches us things about Russia and the Russian past that we didn’t know — and why else would you write a book set in Russia, if you weren’t trying to do that? — then it’s a bad decision to pull it. But if the book is not good, and uses Russia, as some American authors have done over the years, as a kind of romantic place of History and Tragedy, then it’s an honorable decision. But without having read the book it’s impossible to know which one of these it is.

It's a tricky subject, writing about Russia in English for an English-speaking audience. Russia doesn't usually get lumped in with the regions covered by Orientalism, (invented by Edward Said to categorize how the West "others" the Muslim world) but scholars have identified a "Russian Orientialism," and I've definitely noticed it myself. Even excluding how Western Europe and America viewed Tsarist Russia, the way the USSR has been framed in English-speaking media in the decades during and after the Cold War is sort of a minefield. When I was in grad school, I got into reading Russian novels, because while of course none were apolitical (I truly believe nothing can be so - everyone writes in the political context in which they live), the framework I was so used to seeing put on Russia as some backward, alien land that needed to be liberated from insert oppressive regime here (Communism, Stalinism, Atheism, take your pick) was largely absent. And don't get me wrong - a storied tradition of Russian literature is subtle critique of its own society. Russian writers don't slack on that, usually. It was just nice to see it on its own terms, without all the America-centric moralizing.

So it's hard to know where, like Gessen, I would fall on Gilbert's book, not being able to read it. From a pure marketing standpoint, it's probably wise to shelve it for a more politically salient release date, though I don't love the mob mentality strategies that pushed it to that point.

It does sadden me that the underlying attitude is to try to censor anything to do with Russia – my time in grad school was full of interaction with native Russians, all of whom were smart, gracious, generous, and none too fond of Putin. Russians have suffered immensely under Putin's regime, and it's only getting worse for those who still live there. I don't think it's fair to try to erase any and all depictions of a country with a beautiful, storied, and often tragic history all because of one power-hungry dictactor. :/ But it sure wouldn't be the first time this was attempted, which is perhaps the saddest part of all.

Heather Reads Books wrote: "Ahhhh late to this super interesting discussion!! But as someone who has studied Russian history and politics, I gotta weigh in...

I largely agree with the quote from the article by Keith Gessen:
..."

A super thoughtful post!

The issue I have with Gessen's quote is, who exactly gets to decide whether the book is good or not? Readers are not children who need to be protected from the possibility of a bad book or assured that the book is a good one. We read it, and we debate! We discuss if it is good, or if it elevates Russia in some undesirable way. That's the beauty of the shared reading experience . . .and after a few years, when it comes to most books, we've moved on.

But putting that to the side, I definitely agree that there are marketing implications that may have come into play here, and perhaps those are the main driver. I believe in "following the money" when it comes to motivation, and in an interesting way, this controversy may propel the book to be a much better seller than it otherwise would have been (ahem, American Dirt). I'm not saying that's anyone's intent, but now here we are all chatting about her book, and before it wasn't even on my radar at all (and I do like this author).

I'm glad you shared your experiences with regular Russian people as well as literature written by Russians. I am sure most of us don't want to be painted with a brush that implies we endorse all of our (U.S.) leaders and/or all of their beliefs.

@Anita - I totally agree with you. While I get Gessen's sentiment, the part I don't vibe with is when he says "if the book isn't good, it should be pulled." It sounds to me like he's speaking from not wanting another book "othering" Russia – which I empathize with. But I agree with you, once it's in the publishing stage it's not really up to anyone but the readers to decide whether or not it's "good." I'd rather a book be released so there can be a conversation about it, than not, and let what amounts to unofficial censorship prevail.

And yeah, chances are decent the marketing strategy is to wait until a later time when the "controversy" can help sell more books. No such thing as bad press, etc.

Book Concierge wrote: "Well, I wanted to go to "The Snow Forest" page and read some of those 1-star reviews to see what they had to say.

I thought I might even leave a 5-star review .... even though I haven't (obviousl..."

Wasn't it on Amazon rather than GR (and I know Amazon owns GR but there is still a separation if wafer thin) where the flood of 1 star negative reviews were? Which of course raises the concern that Amazon and its reviews are actually controlling what gets published. The lawyer in me thinks 'monopoly' and 'control over what we have available to read' which loops back to a discussion a few weeks ago about editing to update to reflect mores of the times.

Circling right back to censorship, but here by whom?

Book Concierge wrote: "Well, I wanted to go to "The Snow Forest" page and read some of those 1-star reviews to see what they had to say. ..."

It was on GR before, and I read the so-called "reviews." They gave the book 1 star without reading it and the critique I noted most often was that it "romanticizes Russia."

As stated above, Russian writers have a long history of criticizing their own government and getting censored (or imprisoned or murdered) for it. I do not agree with that article that by protesting censorship you are automatically not supporting the Ukrainians. That idea (and much of the article) defies logical analysis. It is another example of getting emotionally outraged and trying to justify the emotion without using rational arguments. This is my number one complaint about internet arguments.

I believe you cannot leave a review / rating on amazon unless you've bought the book (through amazon).

Thanks, Joy, for confirming the 1-star ratings were on GR.

Book Concierge wrote: "I believe you cannot leave a review / rating on amazon unless you've bought the book (through amazon).

Thanks, Joy, for confirming the 1-star ratings were on GR."

Yes, I think in the article it referred to the one star reviews specifically as being on Goodreads, but that they are no longer available to view.

Yeah, probably the publisher deleted the GR page so that whenever the book does come out, it doesn't have to contend with the old 1-star review bombs. That's just my guess.

@Joy - I 100% agree about internet arguments! The echo chamber and feedback loop that causes corporate pressure is really insidious.

More troubling is there has been evidence in the past of Russian government agents being part of online campaigns to shift American political discourse, especially on Twitter. Not that I necessarily think this was part of that, but just that it illuminates how difficult it is to verify that online outrage is even coming from good faith actors.

@Theresa - Also agree on the Amazon monopoly and how ominous it is that just a few corporate entities have such sway over what is even available to read.

Why can't all political discussions be as civil and thoughtful as this one? It's a great reminder that the typical social media discourse is really not the normal way people speak to one another. Thank goodness.

Anita wrote: "Why can't all political discussions be as civil and thoughtful as this one? It's a great reminder that the typical social media discourse is really not the normal way people speak to one another. T..."

100% agree!
Something about social media has made political discourse almost unbearable at times. Sometimes even in person.
Not to be cheesy, but when you cultivate a space of shared love for something, and you value that community and space, you have more respect for it which prevents people from getting heated... maybe?

Gifted article so no pay wall -- on GR and it's use as a 1 star review bombing tool: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/bo...

Theresa wrote: "Gifted article so no pay wall -- on GR and it's use as a 1 star review bombing tool: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/bo......"

I read that article yesterday and was going to post it. When I couldn't I also wondered if it had something to do with the goodreads troubles.

It did make me want to read Everything's Fine.

Yes, the author is a Black woman and she is being accused of being "anti-Black"!

Reading that article made me want to start a campaign that only if you have read a book can you post a review anywhere! Certainly no one should be able to review a book that's not yet been written, or even post a comment like 'I can't wait for this' as a review.

I have trouble with seeing reviews of ARCs -- I know that since the takeover by internet and social media, publishers are relying more and more heavily on ARC reviews to build word of mouth and generate pre-sales - but they are popping up way too early IMHO before a books publication date. I'm old school - what reviews I read are not really peer reviewers like fan readers of ARCs, but of reviews published in newspapers, Kirkus Reviews, The New York Review of Books, Book Pages and similar. Those are not published well in advance but around or on the publication date.

I think publishers may have to start rethinking ARC distribution- timing of them. Because this negative use of advance reviews is increasingly harmful to the point of censorship.

I of course want to at least buy and read and review every book mentioned as pulled in that article --- even Elizabeth Gilbert's and I don't even like her books or writing style!

Well GR *could* set their code so reviews can only be provided for published books. And I think they should.

But it’s unlikely they’ll be brave enough do that unless the publishers themselves ask for it - because the publishers’ models are now so heavily reliant on ARCs, and GR has become the easiest platform to publish reviews on. ARC reviews published in groups like ours would still get the discussion going that generates interest in books but they don’t generate the data that GR and publishers can see

Here is another article on the same subject but also calling out GR as unreliable.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/27/op...

Well, another thing they could do is to eliminate the star rating entirely. And just allow for the reviews.

I do like to see legitimate reviews of ARCs, but I think that the ability to write those reviews should be restricted. Perhaps only people who have written a minimum number of reviews - say 100 - (not just given star ratings) are permitted to write a review of a book pre-publication. This would weed out plenty of people who might just be creating mischief.

I could see allowing people to write the reviews, but not allowing them to be displayed until the publication date . . .but I do think that would end up hurting more authors than it helps.

Book Concierge wrote: "Well, another thing they could do is to eliminate the star rating entirely. And just allow for the reviews."

Or, just make the star ratings private so you could have them on your own book shelf, but they wouldn't be public. I could live with that. I do like having the ratings on my shelf though so I can look to see my favorites over time.

Anita wrote: "I do like to see legitimate reviews of ARCs, but I think that the ability to write those reviews should be restricted. Perhaps only people who have written a minimum number of reviews - say 100 - (..."

I follow GR friends' reviews of ARC's, because they help me select what I want to read when the books are published. Most have reading tastes similar to my own. I trust their reviews. And, they have a long track records.

I was flattered recently to be asked to review an upcoming book, published by William Morrow. I turned them down, because my reading is purely for pleasure. I would feel internal pressure to write a good review.

Holly R W wrote: "Anita wrote: "I do like to see legitimate reviews of ARCs, but I think that the ability to write those reviews should be restricted. Perhaps only people who have written a minimum number of reviews..."

I review a lot of ARCs, and I agree about the pressure. I'm very very careful to select books that I think there is a good chance I will like. I gave a bad review to one recently, and I don't regret it . . .but still, I would prefer not.

One of the reasons I do not generally pursue ARCs and have turned down specific requests to do a review is because I don't want to feel pressured - first to read the book at a specific time and, to a lesser degree, write a good review -- 'good' for me being well and fairly written without spoilers and too much of my own personality and interests interwoven in it. My reviews are quite personal, even though I share with all of you and others on GR. To me that's a target audience that I'm also writing them for.

Plus I really don't read newly published all that much except for some favorite genre authors - you can be sure that I will read GRRM The Winds of Winter starting the day it is in my hands! Newly published books need to age on my TBR for a significant time.