Ways To Separate The Malicious From the Ignorant

I was raised to believe that progress had eradicated prejudice and hatred, aside from a few small brush fires from those who really should be pitied for their pathetic, hateful lives.  But those teaching me were confident that humanity had collectively progressed and that as we gained access to more and more information, cultures, and knowledge, then we would get closer and closer to the Star Trek ideal of many groups working together without any one claiming to be superior to the others.

Not pictured: people

The last few years have buried the remaining shreds of that belief.  As much as I (and I'm sure many others) would like to believe that any remaining horridness is merely an education issue (i.e. show them in a constructive way why they are mistaken and everything will be better), the truth is that there are many who cling to their hatred and enjoy attacking others.

But here's the thing that keeps me going: it's not all of them.

There are still many people who spout or support prejudice and hateful ideas because they have been taken in by malicious individuals who use their audience's limited experience to present things in a way which seems plausible and then fans the flames of outrage.  It's effectively a magic trick in that it only works from very precise angles.  Step even an inch either way, and it's revealed as a complete fraud.

I still believe it is possible to reach many of those people through education and exposure.  However, there's a challenge in that many of the malicious will hide their attacks behind a pose of ignorance and use it as a shield for micro-aggressions and outright lies.  This gets exhausting for the targets of their anger and often provokes them into justified anger, which then gets interpreted as "oversensitivity" and "irrationality" by their attackers.

So here's the second thing: how is anyone supposed to be able to separate out those malicious attackers from those who can be educated?  There are actually some very consistent cues that I've found can help.

Is the information they present factual?

This is the basic line of defense.  When someone claims that 95% of all rape cases are dismissed because the police discover the victim is lying, that's an easy number to check.  Even a basic google search can reveal the common lies told by the various hate groups as part of their recruitment and justification strategies.  And most of them have clearly defined and researched debunkings.  This research is dismissed by these groups as part of a wide-spread conspiracy to keep them oppressed and people fooled.  That's a very simple litmus test: if someone's "truth" requires that large segments of the population be actively lying and withholding accurate information, then it's probably less truthy than they'd like to accept.

The ignorant can usually accept education (even if it is painfully slow sometimes).  There is a challenge in that many malicious attackers use a technique called sea lioning, where they will insist on endlessly cited sources but then refuse to accept any of them.

It can be tiring to have to constantly research to make certain that you're not falling for false facts, but if it means that you're also not supporting a hate group, I personally feel it's worth the effort.

Do they constantly change the topic?  

"Drunk driving is bad."  
"But what about people who drive while high?"  
"That's bad, too."
"But what about cultures where refusing hospitality is seen as rude?"

There can't be a discussion if the other party insists on either dragging in a lot of false equivalencies (like driving high) or completely unrelated topics (hospitality culture).  While discussions do naturally tend to follow tangents, if you constantly find yourself having to present more and more information on a wider and wider net, without the other person ever acknowledging the previous points you've made, that person is likely unwilling to be educated and is attempting to wear you down.

Do they use a lot of "But ...."?

You may have noticed that a lot of the previous examples start with the word "but" which is one of those critical words that can tell you what someone really thinks.  If a lot of statements start with but, then it's a deflection strategy.  If the but is in the middle of the sentence it can be a little trickier to figure out.  Generally, a person feels stronger about whatever is presented after the but; i.e., I think that restaurant is good but the waiters are really surly.  Most people understand that the surly waiters outweigh the goodness of the restaurant.  And most people saying that would be using "I think that the restaurant is good" as a social soothing technique to soften the upcoming criticism.

The other technique is to look at which side of the sentence has more detailed information.  If someone says "The last time I was at the restaurant, the waiter made a rude comment and they messed up my order, but I'm sure it's a perfectly good place most of the time."  then the specific complaints outweigh the generic reassurance.  This kind of sentence structure is usually a sign that the person realizes they may have gone too far and is trying to back-pedal to prevent exposure.

Sometimes people have mixed feelings or an issue is genuinely complicated and then they have to use a but to accurately express herself.  However, if there are a lot of buts and the emphasis is continually on a hateful point of view, then there is likely an element of maliciousness behind them.

Do they deflect, claiming to be joking or just asking questions?

Claiming to be joking and deriding the other person for not having a sense of humour is one of the oldest tools in the bully's tool kit, but it continues to be surprisingly effective.  It falls apart on closer view though.  Why is it funny that someone is hurt or upset?  Even common jokes lose their humor when viewed with empathy and separated from surprise: eg: A man and his wife are in the hospital and he's dying.  He tells her: "Before I go, I need to tell you that I had an affair."  She replies: "I know, that's why I poisoned you."  

When someone thinks about it, that's not terribly funny.  Murder, affairs, and painful deaths are sad, not funny.  And I say this as someone who constantly needs to double check my own gallows humour.  But I would be horribly hurt and embarrassed if I realized a joke of mine had hurt someone else, not dismissive of their pain.

A variant on the "I was just joking" is the "I'm just asking questions" technique, but too often it's a deflection from sea lioning.  If someone has indicated questions are intrusive, or have already been answered, or that the questioner is not acknowledging the information already presented, then they cannot hide behind "just asking."

The joking/question approach is often used as a silencing attack.  The attacker causes harm to the victim and when the victim tries to raise awareness or seek reparations, the secondary attack is intended to keep them from doing so again.  

Are there logic gaps in their position?

Dumb solutions follow nearly every exposure of hatred.  "If they just <blank> then it wouldn't have happened" is the time-honoured formula.  It's presented as simplistic and obvious and for those who have not been exposed to underlying issues, it can seem plausible.  But those simplistic solutions usually have some serious logic gaps.

Recently, an author has been attacking other authors for using a common English word in their book titles which she has also used in her titles.  She has defended her actions, claiming that there is no cost or penalty if those authors just retitle their books so that they cannot be confused with their own.  However, if she truly believed there was no penalty to retitling, why did she not retitle her own books with something unique?  Why attack other authors with threats of legal action if there's an easier solution that is entirely within her control and which she believes is harmless?

Or what about those who claim the men arrested at Starbucks should have ordered something before waiting or that the boys questioned by police during a campus tour should have worn a lanyard to identify themselves as legitimate prospective students?  They overlook the fact that minorities face much more frequent harassment and focus attention on those who were victims rather than on those who acted inappropriately by calling police.

It can be hard to pick up on the logic gaps sometimes, particularly if a person only has limited experience.  The best way to overcome that limited experience is to seek out alternate points of view from those who directly experience these issues.  It can be hard to listen without being defensive, but it can also be rewarding.

There's so much out there these days that it can be hard to know what's truth and what's not sometimes.  But we can't allow the malicious to be the only ones still talking.  I hope that some of you find this post helpful because I think we all need to work together.  And then maybe we can make the vision of a respectful and supportive society into a reality.

Book 4 of my Lalassu series: Judgment is now out!  And Book 1: Revelations is on sale for less than the price of a cup of coffee.

Previous Post: Heroine Fix: Celebrating Angry Girls with Meg Murry of A Wrinkle In Time

Blog Homepage

Diversity and the RITAs

The RITA awards are pretty much the Oscars for romance writers.  Books are submitted and judged by fellow authors.  It's by the industry, for the industry, not necessarily reflecting popularity or sales.  There are 2000 entries (although authors are allowed to submit more than one book each year), with various categories.  It's one of the more expensive contest to enter, although there have been efforts made lately to allow people to submit ebooks rather than having to mail physical copies.

I entered my first book in the RITAs and it did very well.  I didn't final, but when I looked at my score vs the average score of the finalists, I was within 0.5 of them (on a 10 point scale).  It made me feel very proud and accepted.

But there are problems with the contest and how it is structured.  Last week RWA sent out an announcement letting all authors know that it had been brought to their attention that authors of color were hugely underrepresented.  They've committed to fixing the issue which has sparked a lot of discussion about how the contest could be revised.  (And also awareness that this is not the only diversity barrier.)  For a closer look at the issue, please check out Courtney Milan (@courtneymilan) or Robin Covington (@RobinCovington) or The Ripped Bodice (@TheRippedBodice) or Rebekah Weatherspoon (@RdotSpoon) who are all far more eloquent than I would be.

Right now, any author who submits a book must also sign up as a judge.  People have rightfully pointed out that this means that unconscious or conscious bias could be influencing the scores that judges give.  There have also been suggestions that authors of color are deliberately avoiding entering because they have not felt accepted by RWA, and many have cited personal experiences of prejudice at RWA chapters and conferences.

I'm proud that RWA has acknowledged the problem and is working on fixing it.  I'm not okay with people feeling unwelcome within a professional organization that exists to support all of its members.  There are some amazing authors out there who are not getting recognized, which is not good for either the organization, the writers, or the readers.  I hope that RWA will take the time to figure out what the barriers have been (and I'm sure there have been more than one) and how best to effectively eliminate them.  Some people have been pushing for immediate action but that could end up making the situation worse if the wrong assumptions are made.

I didn't enter the RITAs this year, but I will be there to applaud my fellow authors at the awards ceremony.  To be meaningful, the RITA should represent the very best of the romance genre, not just a small corner of it.  I want all of our amazing stories to be awarded and recognized and I feel that this announcement is a good first step in making that happen.

Previous post: Ink Tip: The Dos and Don'ts of Accountability Buddies to boost your writing productivity.

Blog homepage

My fourth book, Judgment, is coming out soon.  You can pre-order your copy now or pick up Book One: Revelations on sale to find out how it all began.

Ink Tip: Finding The Reason Behind The Story

Stories don't happen in a vacuum.  They grow out of a desire to say... something.  Everyone has something different that they want to share.  Sometimes it's as simple as a cool bit of dialogue or an awesome character or an amazing scene.

And sometimes its more.  Sometimes there's a message that an author wants to send.  One of the questions that I usually end up exploring in my novels is balancing responsibility and personal choice.  Nathan Burgoine often explores the concept of chosen family in his stories.  Lucy Farago looks at the implications of keeping secrets and the consequences of telling the truth.  Sherrilyn Kenyon usually deals with the aftermath and recovery from abuse.  

Finding the thread that runs through your story can be a big part of finding your voice as an author.  And it can also help to guide you through some of the pitfalls.

The #OwnVoices movement is getting stronger (as it should) but it means that an author writing outside of his/her own personal experience is more likely to face challenges.  Research is important but it's only part of the work.

The other part was summed up very eloquently in Nathan Burgoine's post on the Spoonie Author Network: Why You?  Before deciding to tell a story which isn't your own, take the time to think about why you want to do so.

I struggled with this decision for Metamorphosis and Judgment, both of which have Native American main characters.  I knew I wanted to place the stories in an isolated community up North and the vast majority of the population up there is native.  To have non-native characters felt like whitewashing but at the same time, I knew I was going to have to be very careful and make sure I did my homework.  But it was critical to the story that I wanted to tell about those who can't hide from prejudice (in my case, people with visible signs of their talents).  So I've done my best to represent them in a respectful and accurate way.

But I think the message behind the story is important to find out even if an author isn't treading on OwnVoices territory.  Why do you want to tell this story?  What is the one piece that could never be compromised on, that would gut the whole reason why the story needs to be told in the first place?

When you know the answer to that question, then you'll be able to craft something more powerful than you can imagine.

Previous Ink Tip: All the 2017 Ink Tips

Previous Post: Separating the Artist from the Art

Blog Homepage

Too Dark for Children: Lois Lowry's The Giver

Ever since I was asked to participate in ALSO's Persisting Beyond Margins event on September 28th, I've been doing a lot of thinking about banned books and why people ask for books to be banned.

In the case of Lois Lowry's The Giver, the number one reason why people want it banned is because they feel it's too dark for the intended audience (10-12).  The story is about Jonas, a young boy in an egalitarian society where everyone's birthday is celebrated on the same day with the same presents.  He is about to turn Twelve, the age when children are apprenticed to their adult assignments.  The decisions are made by the Council.

Normally, this would be a story about an underclass revolution or showing the horrors of having one's life determined by others, but Lowry's book is different.  The people of Jonas's community are actually happy.  The kids are pleased with their assignments and the Council has obviously done a great deal of work based on the child's personality and skills.  Families discuss their feelings every evening.  Food and medicine are available on demand.  There's no poverty or abuse.  It's the happiest dystopia that I've ever seen.

It's only when Jonas is assigned to be The Receiver that he begins to understand the flaws in his society.  The Receiver holds the memories of the society before this one (our world).  He or she uses them to deal with unexpected problems.  Those memories can be transferred to the new Receiver.   

Jonas remembers love, hate, war and laughter.  He begins to see colour.  He realizes the price of complacent conformity is a flattening of the emotional experience.  People experience contentment, not happiness, and irritation, not anger.  He finds himself more and more isolated as the story progresses.  But the tipping point comes when he learns that the Ceremony of Release, which is done to underdeveloped infants, and the old, is actually a euphemism for lethal injection.  He's horrified when he realizes that the baby in their household will be released and escapes into the night.

The story is dark.  There's no promise of a happy ending, no sign of a revolution.  Just one boy trying to understand how his world can be so different from the one that everyone else experiences.  

That's the part that I feel is so valuable for children.  It introduces the concept that what they experience might be different from what others experience, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.  It introduces the concept that adults can lie to them and that comforting euphemisms can gloss over horrible things.  It can serve as the start of a discussion about the dangers of an "equal" society (ie, where everyone is forced to be the same) and the nature of happiness.  

When my children were young, I was deeply annoyed by the constant "everything is fine" riff in children's shows.  If something was destroyed, all was forgiven with a smile or a song.  If someone was being a bully, all they needed was an invitation to friendship.  Everything always works out with very little effort.  The optimistic message is helpful for children, it makes them feel safe and encourages them to make social efforts.  But it's not a true depiction of the world.

At ten to twelve, children can begin to understand the complexity of the world.  Lowry's book is well written and introduces several difficult topics.  I think that those who complain that it is too dark are indulging in some wishful thinking about both their children and the world in general. 

I've never been a fan of banning books, especially controversial ones.  (Although I admit that I've been tempted to ban some horribly written and trite books.)  Books are a way to live dozens or hundreds of lives, giving insight into cultures and experiences that would otherwise remain unknown.  Readers tend to be more tolerant, more thoughtful and more curious than non-readers.  They're exposed to different ideas, making them less likely to accept things at face value.  Limiting the number or types of ideas isn't helpful.  The real solution is to expose them to more and then encourage them to think and talk about what they've read.  Recognize their reactions and thoughts and have discussions.  Teach them to recognize convincing lies and euphemisms.

Next week, I'll be at Heartwood House (404 McArthur Avenue), enjoying some wine and cheese, as well as some amazing authors and books.  The ticket money goes toward supporting adult and family literacy, so it's a good cause.  Please consider joining us on Thursday, September 28th from 7 to 9.  It looks like it's going to be a lot of fun, but it's also an opportunity to stand up against imposed silence.  I hope to see a lot of Ottawa people there and hopefully we'll have a sold out event.

Why I Will Never Agree To Calls For Silence

Recently, the RWA issued an apology for survey done in 2005 which asked RWA members to vote on whether romance should be redefined as being between one man and one woman.  This was rightly dismissed as being too restrictive and excluding ménage and polyamory romance as well as LGBTQ romance.

The RWA said the survey should never have been done.  "In issuing the survey, RWA failed its members, its genre and its mission.... We apologize for letting our members down and for failing to treat all our members with the respect they deserve."  That, to me, went to the heart of the issue.  Withdrawing RWA support from those subgenres would have been an attempt to silence them.

J. Michael Straczynski wrote a beautiful "Declaration of Principles" for his show, Babylon 5, which eloquently explains the horror of imposed silence (this is only part of it and I encourage everyone to go look at the whole thing):

The universe speaks with many languages, but only one voice...

It is the small, still voice that says

We are one

No matter the blood

No matter the skin...

We are one...

We must be kind to one another

Because each voice enriches us and ennobles us and each voice lost diminishes us.

I support the right of everyone to tell both their own stories and any other story which resonates with their soul.

In the wake of the apology, there have been a number of posts and tweets condemning those who tell stories which "don't belong to them" and blaming them for preventing authors from those groups and cultures from telling their own stories.  I can understand the frustration underlying those posts, but, respectfully, they miss the point.

We are not alien and separate from one another.  We have far more in common than we have differences.  Thus, claiming that those outside a particular group can have no insight or interest to offer is just plain wrong.  They are not authorities, but can offer different perspectives.

Writers of colour and writers from other groups, such as LGBTQ, have traditionally been discriminated against when it comes to publishing.  That's a fact and I don't dispute it.  But the problem lies in publication and promotion, not in the number of stories out there.  Calls to silence other writers will not solve the inherent problem.  I will support efforts to encourage more diversity in submissions and in publications.  I will support efforts to bring attention to diverse writers.  But I won't support silence.

I was speaking about this post with a friend of mine, who rightly asked: would I support telling stories that I consider morally repugnant?  Last year, there was a debate over a contest submission which featured a Jewish woman falling in love with a Nazi commander and converting to Christianity.  Obviously it was a story which resonated with someone and they spent considerable effort telling it.

Here's how I split that particular hair: I support the right of the author to tell that story.  I would have a problem promoting it as I feel that real love requires a sense of equality which can never be between a jailer and someone slated for genocide.  I was also offended by the idea of the heroine abandoning her faith in order to achieve love.  But the solution to my offence is not to demand the author's silence.  It's to use it as an example to share why such ideas are a problem.  The solution to offensive speech is not censorship, it's more speech.