Unsolicited writing advice, no. 271: Everyone has opinions. But publicly sneering at popular novels - and by association, their readers - isn't a good look for a writer. - ThreadSky

joannechocolat.bsky.social • 65 days ago

Unsolicited writing advice, no. 271:
Everyone has opinions. But publicly sneering at popular novels - and by association, their readers - isn't a good look for a writer.

Comments

dkinnard.bsky.social•65 days ago

It's possible for me to consider myself not in a book's target market, and that is all I need to say.

jlg62.bsky.social•65 days ago

I can always celebrate a popular writer's business acumen, its hard work to make good money off of fiction, even Mickey Spillane has something to teach us.

cthulhunaps.bsky.social•65 days ago

Oh, and that crappy "John Ringo" as well

cthulhunaps.bsky.social•65 days ago

Except for Rowling. She can eat an entire bag of Flaming Salty Assholes.

tibbittz.bsky.social•65 days ago

Did you know H.P. Lovecraft was a horrible backwards racist who hated my Irish forebears and viewed them as sub-human garbage? Just saying, you could find a less hateful author's creation to cosplay as on the internet.

P.S. You're a misogynist.

cthulhunaps.bsky.social•65 days ago

Fully aware, thank you. But if you're trying to equate his 18th and 19th century attitudes and knowledge with a 20th century writer who should fucking well KNOW BETTER, does know better now, and doubles down on her shitty behaviors, and chooses to be a POS anyways, you fail rather spectacularly.

cthulhunaps.bsky.social•65 days ago

Furthermore, do list the places I've said anything misogynistic.

P.S. On the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog.
For all you know, I may well be Cthulhu. The insanity of the internet does support my goals...

rdaweso.me•65 days ago

I agree that Joanne Rowling is a terrible person, but I don't really buy the argument that it's an unfair comparison. If there were people at the time who knew that it was wrong, and there were many, especially in the fields of speculative fiction, then it becomes much harder to justify the choice

tibbittz.bsky.social•65 days ago

Standing up for women's rights in the face of backlash, threats of violence, and death threats does not make J. K. Rowling a bad person. Quite the damn opposite.
You only think J. K. Rowling is a bad person because the Kool-Aid-drunk have told you this is the correctthink to her supposed wrongthink.

rdaweso.me•65 days ago

Nobody would be mad at her for standing up for women's rights, my concern is for the women she's chosen to exclude in that. I'm also not even gonna address that ending bit, I can't imagine having written something like that without already being embarrassed with yourself, so we'll let it be

dodo81.bsky.social•65 days ago

Do writers “sneer”?
Sneer is a facial expression of distain.
Scoff is appropriate.

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

Yes, some writers do. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneer

jtony.com•65 days ago

It kind of depends on the novels, doesn’t it. Plus there is a long literary tradition of writers having strong opinions. Not to mention that writers have a platform they should use for good. Your take on this lacks perspective and nuance.

onviewlesswings.bsky.social•65 days ago

Implying readers are stupid for liking a particular thing isn't using a platform for good. Why dunk on the quality of someone else's work? What good does it do?

jtony.com•65 days ago

Again, it depends on the work and the author, doesn’t it? Among a lot of other things. I believe if you know the situation fully, you are stupid if you give Joanne Rowling one cent of your money. Because, not even considering the quality of the books, she is the representation of evil in our time.

gordonvincent.bsky.social•65 days ago

I would quibble, not stupid, but rather evil.

jtony.com•65 days ago

I understand the quibble and respect it. I say stupid because supporting her is self injuring, and not in a good, fun way.

onviewlesswings.bsky.social•65 days ago

But that is a different case. I'd actually argue that implying readers are stupid for liking those novels still isn't a good look, if it comes from a perspective of sneering because the books are not great literature. That's what we're talking about here. With Rowling there is a very specific 1/

onviewlesswings.bsky.social•65 days ago

additional dimension: I think her views & actions are abhorrent & would not put any money her way & have no desire to read or watch any works or anything associated with her works. And I disagree that it is OK to knowingly put money in her pocket when she is funding what I see as hate. So I 2/

onviewlesswings.bsky.social•65 days ago

would disagree with readers who do that: I think that is a poor ethical choice. But I wouldn’t sneer at them on the specific basis of them liking popular novels, or even those novels AS popular novels. Or, to put it another way, those who sneer at people who read popular novels because you think 3/

tinker-iffy.bsky.social•65 days ago

Find a good number for it, but

Sneering at and dehumanizing your own readers is also a bad look. Funding things to take away their rights makes it a worse look.

Someone missed that memo.

She shall not be named. lol

twistedbyknaves.bsky.social•64 days ago

This is the version of Godwin's law for any discussion about authors.

johnnyhallydaye.bsky.social•65 days ago

Literature is like music.
There is that which you like, and that which you don’t.
Not enough people read books, so if it be popular novels, so be it.
Writers that sneer, should have more integrity.

jtony.com•65 days ago

Your take on Harry Potter and Joanne Rowling? How about 50 Shades and other marketing driven novels? What if an AI novel becomes popular? There’s so many “shades” here you’re missing.

johnnyhallydaye.bsky.social•65 days ago

I'm not a writer...
I don't sneer at the Potter person for their writing.
50 shades was fanfic, where a lot of popular writers start out.
Ai is a completely different kettle of fish.
Don't feed the Ai monster.

jtony.com•65 days ago

The point of the post was whether or not it is ok for WRITERS to post such opinions. Your point seems moot.

jtony.com•65 days ago

As for the 3: Joannne Rowling is evil. Knowing this, giving her money is stupid. 50 Shades was originally fan fic, but the novel was honed into a demographic money grab. AI will eventually publish something popular. Are you saying it is ok to call those fans stupid for liking it?

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

My point was that most people should be able express an opinion - even a negative one - bout a book without sneering at the audience.

jtony.com•65 days ago

My point is this is an over generalization which ignores very important subtleties. Sometimes you are an asshole for sneering at the audience. Sometimes it is important to remind the audience that they are better than they’ve been told & should do better. Sometimes whole audiences make poor choices.

catnip726.bsky.social•65 days ago

Except for that "fifty shades" stuff...we can sneer at that, right? That was bad.

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

You may well think that, but it still might help to consider *why* it became so successful, and what some readers found in it that they hadn't found anywhere before.

handle.invalid•65 days ago

Agreed, all writing has an audience - hate speech been getting popular nowadays... sad to see classics fall by the wayside

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

Which classics do you you think have fallen by the wayside?

handle.invalid•65 days ago

Try The Monk by Matthew Lewis

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

I’ve read it. It’s still in print.

jpeghotdog77.bsky.social•65 days ago

If that popular novel promotes a whole load of bullshit and the readers of those novels promulgate that bullshit they will get sneered and worse.

queenforagay.bsky.social•65 days ago

Pretty sure that her tweet is referring to a novel’s style or supposed literary merit, not whether it promotes hate. Two different things.

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

Completely different things, and an entirely different conversation.

queenforagay.bsky.social•65 days ago

Exactly!

dou.gg•65 days ago

My mother was a librarian and she taught me that more important than what people read is that they are reading. Reading is not a given. Celebrate people reading.

Later you can direct them towards the good shit, if they ask.

joannechocolat.bsky.social•65 days ago

Absolutely.

twistedbyknaves.bsky.social•64 days ago

I have read very little Enid Blyton: what I have read, I loathed. The protagonists were one dimensional entitled thugs;the antagonist was subhuman in his villainy. The plot was flat and clichéd. As I recall. It was half a century ago.

The child to whom I had to read it was charming and bright.

twistedbyknaves.bsky.social•64 days ago

I try not to sneer at the writing in any case. A lot of people found an exhilarating freedom in the breaking of petty rules and eventual triumph of virtue.

Who am I to judge it or them?

Doesn't mean I have to like it, though

mrduplicity.bsky.social•65 days ago

*L'enfer, c'est les autres* - Sartre

whippedfeta.bsky.social•65 days ago

Fuck JK Rowling!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply