YABookgate

That's fair. And if I'm a philistine, I'm a philistine. (I probably am, come to think of it.) 🤷‍♂️

But in my defense if I'm reading Pew! Pew! Pew! Space Operas I don't really want to feel like I'm reading one of those 19th century British authors allergic to paragraph breaks and addicted to smothering descriptions, either. And that's kind of how Wright has always come across to me.
Hey I'm fine with being a philistine. (See my posts on the rifftrax/mst3k thread.) I've got no tastes so no room to critique you there.

But I mean that's also authors. If I want a light hearted hack and slash fantasy, I'll pick up a degenerate light novel or pulp from the old days, I'm not going to pick up Tolkien. Ya gotta know what you're ordering from. LoL ;)

Likewise even John's "lightest" stuff involves depths that scholars don't dig into. If you want the lighter pew pew we do have threads for Wendig and Tomilson. :D (I haven't checked out any of the pulprev guys yet.)
 
Not just overseas writers mind you - there is a quota for more "diverse" authors from the Anglosphere as well. So if you're American/British white, male, or some combo of the three, congrats... despite constituting more than 90 percent of all submissions, most publishers cap off total new authors they'll sign from those demos to 50 percent, quite often less. Oh, and if you signed with Tor, they will not spend a single dime to promote you.

I've literally passed brilliant work up the chain only to have it rejected because a white guy wrote it.
Is there even any hope for white guys to get work published anymore? I've heard stories of publishers banning pseudonyms and demanding links to social media so they can vet you for correct political opinions as well. Every agent I see online is looking for 'diverse, minority voices' with some flavor of LGBTQ slathered on top. Some even go so far as to say they aren't interested in CIS male authors as a rule.

I guess indie publishing is the only hope? Pretty disheartening, for real.
 
Is there even any hope for white guys to get work published anymore? I've heard stories of publishers banning pseudonyms and demanding links to social media so they can vet you for correct political opinions as well. Every agent I see online is looking for 'diverse, minority voices' with some flavor of LGBTQ slathered on top. Some even go so far as to say they aren't interested in CIS male authors as a rule.

I guess indie publishing is the only hope? Pretty disheartening, for real.
On the other hand this is a great opportunity to invent yourself as a a gay disabled woman of color and build up a social media profile in one of the greatest fictional work stunts of all time.

Don't limit yourself to a book, write your magnum opus across ALL of social media. Let Twitter be your canvas!
 
Is there even any hope for white guys to get work published anymore? I've heard stories of publishers banning pseudonyms and demanding links to social media so they can vet you for correct political opinions as well. Every agent I see online is looking for 'diverse, minority voices' with some flavor of LGBTQ slathered on top. Some even go so far as to say they aren't interested in CIS male authors as a rule.

I guess indie publishing is the only hope? Pretty disheartening, for real.

Among the big publishers, its not impossible - but aside from Baen, which is the only major trad publisher that will take submissions from anyone year round even without an agent, and who openly had no quotas, you had either have one hell of a resume, one hell of a novel or one hell of an agent.

Aside from that? Small press and indies. There are plenty of white guys putting out stuff trad pub refuses to touch making six figures while authors for Tor ear cat food.

Its gotten to a point I've told some authors who submit to us to submit a book with Baen or an indie that's a good fit just because even if I love the book, they're too straight/male/white to clear up the chain.

We had a black Marine with a KILLER mil scifi book we had to turn away because he refused to bend on not making more characters gay.

I checked in with him a month ago. Baen kicked his book from the slush pile to editorial almost immediately. I'm rooting for him.
 
Aside from that? Small press and indies. There are plenty of white guys putting out stuff trad pub refuses to touch making six figures while authors for Tor ear cat food.
Good grief. Tor's overhead sitting in that building in Noo Yawk must be borderline insane, too. IIRC when MacMillan (Tor's parent) abandoned the Flatiron building they moved into even MORE expensive digs, can't remember if it is near Wall Street or Central Park. They better hope Brando Sando keeps grinding out 87 books a year.
Likewise even John's "lightest" stuff involves depths that scholars don't dig into. If you want the lighter pew pew we do have threads for Wendig and Tomilson
Nah, fuck those two. H. Beam Piper, Simon Greene, Edmond Hamilton, etc. I couldn't make it fifty pages into Scalzi's Foundation ripoff, gender neutral pronouns and all. (Didn't hate the Old Man's War series until the book with the Mary Sue girl.)
 
Relevant.
2022-03-03 20.27.57 bookriot.com fb164808e1be.png

It’s been a common scene recently: at a school board meeting, a parent will read out a passage from a book shelved in a high school library and exclaim some version of, “There is sex in this book!” This, we are led to believe, is a slam dunk. High school libraries should not carry sex books. Teenagers should not read sex in books. Sex is automatically inappropriate content for teenagers. But is it really age inappropriate?

I’m reminded of a book challenge I read recently for It’s Perfectly Normal, a book about puberty aimed at ages 10 and up. In the book challenge document, the person filing the complaint had painstakingly taken pictures of every instance of nudity. The anatomical text, they explained, was fine, but the illustrations were unnecessary.

But what could be more age appropriate for a kid going through puberty than a book that discusses puberty? How can illustrations that teach children the names of their body parts be inappropriate? And how is a book supposed to give any useful information about puberty without mentioning the mere existence of sex or nudity?

55% of American teenagers have had sex by the time they’re 18, and 29% are sexually active. Whether or not adults want that to be true, sex is part of many teenagers’ lives. And whether or not they’re having sex, it’s absurdly naive to think that they’re only encountering the topic in school library books.

While there are no concrete stats available for American teens, a study of European teens across six countries found 59% had watched porn, and 24% watch porn at least once a week. The information teens would get about sex education from the books in their libraries would be much more safe and realistic than learning from porn.

Reading about sex can serve different purposes for teens. It may be educational: to learn about consent and safer sex practices. It can model a healthy relationship to sexuality, including establishing boundaries and getting clear consent.

For teens who aren’t having sex, or who are unsure about their sexuality, books can be a safe way to “dress rehearse” sex with no stakes. Reading about sex can allow them to think about how they might feel in that situation, and gauge whether it’s something they want to pursue. This is a much safer strategy than just jumping into a scenario they’re not sure they’re mentally or emotionally prepared for.

It can also just serve the same purpose sex does in adult fiction: because it’s realistic for those characters and suits the story. It doesn’t have to be educational. Many teenagers have sex, and there’s nothing wrong with being able to see that reality in the books they’re reading. YA books don’t just exist to mold teens into perfect citizens. They’re for entertainment, to provoke thought, and to play all the other myriad parts books do in our lives.

(Side note: high school libraries are not carrying pornography. None of those books exist solely for sexual interest, and it’s ridiculous to think that an isolated comics panel or paragraph in a book is where teens will be looking if that was their main objective. Having sexual content is not the same as being pornographic.)

Having sex as a teenager isn’t ethically wrong. It’s not a crime. For every person, they’re going to have different boundaries about when it’s safe and comfortable to do so, if they want to at all, and they shouldn’t feel pressure to have sex. But acting like the very topic is scandalous and shameful does not make those choices easier. Giving teenagers the information to make their own informed decisions makes for better outcomes.

Many of the people protesting sex education books or sex in YA will say that it’s a discussion that should be between a parent and their child — an old abstinence-only education talking point. The truth is, many (most?) teenagers do not feel comfortable talking to their parents about sex. And with the over-the-top displays of outrage we’ve seen in these board meetings from parents on the topic, how would they? As nice as it is to imagine that every student will be able to walk up to a trusted adult in their life and ask any questions on their mind about sex, it’s not realistic.

Besides, even if that was true for most students — even if, somehow, 90% of teens felt perfectly comfortable asking their parents for birth control tips — that shouldn’t be how we build our public school systems. We should be watching out for the students who don’t have a safe support network. What about the teens who have difficult relationships with their caregivers? Why should they be left with no resources to educate themselves? Modeling an education system around the idea that every student has an ideal home environment is worthless.

Lev Rosen, author of Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts), has seen his book frequently challenged even before the most recent wave of censorship. His book addresses questions about sex that real teens across the U.S. have asked. He explains:

Teenagers want to know these things. Giving them answers and telling them not to be ashamed of their desires and how to pursue them safely and consensually isn’t hurting them, it’s helping them take control of their bodies and wants.
In addition to the fact that sex is an uncomfortable topic for most teens to broach with their parents or guardians, questioning your sexual orientation or gender can be even more confusing and isolating. Books allow for that exploration without having to talk to your family about labels that you’re not even sure fit you. For students with homophobic or transphobic families, these books can be a lifeline to let them know that they’re not alone, and that they will be able to find a community.

For queer kids in particular, Rosen worries about the effect that the homophobia and transphobia amplified in these school board meetings will have on them:

Imagine being a closeted student and watching some mom of your peer — or yourself — cry about how she’d be horrified if her teenager came home with a book about a queer person. That means if you went home and said you were queer, you’d be hated, probably more than the book.
In addition to sex education books, puberty books, and sex in YA novels, these book banners also object to the mention of rape or abusive relationships. They argue that students should be protected from this content. But 10% of American teens report having experienced sexual violence — 15% for girls — and 8% have experienced physical dating violence.

What message are we sending to kids and teens who have experienced sexual assault, that their experiences are too shameful and inappropriate to even acknowledge? How can their own life experience be age inappropriate? And how can we protect teens from unhealthy romantic relationships when we won’t even acknowledge they exist?

It’s a sign of how pervasive abstinence culture is that saying a book in a high school library has sexual content is supposed to be inherently scandalous. Teens deserve to access to these books, both for practical purposes and because they should be able to read stories that are relevant and interesting to them, not just the sanitized 50-year-old classics the adults in their life want them to read.

Of course, the topic of sex in teen books is in some ways a smoke screen. Book banners know that saying they want to ban a book because it has queer content or because it has a Black main character is likely not going to be received well, so instead they insist they’re just outraged about the sexual content or profanity, and that’s it’s a coincidence all the books they object to are queer and/or by authors of color.

Look, talking about teenagers having sex or reading about sex or thinking about sex is uncomfortable. But don’t let that discomfort rob students of valuable resources. Being a teenager is hard enough. We don’t need to make it worse.
 
Having sex as a teenager isn’t ethically wrong. It’s not a crime. For every person, they’re going to have different boundaries about when it’s safe and comfortable to do so, if they want to at all, and they shouldn’t feel pressure to have sex. But acting like the very topic is scandalous and shameful does not make those choices easier. Giving teenagers the information to make their own informed decisions makes for better outcomes.
In many states it is ironically enough, and only through prosecutorial laziness and the omni-pervasiveness of the offense makes it unpunishable
 
Last edited:
It’s been a common scene recently: at a school board meeting, a parent will read out a passage from a book shelved in a high school library and exclaim some version of, “There is sex in this book!”
I don't think they're complaining about Suzy and Bobby doing the horizontal bop after Prom, though. Maybe these people are opposed to that too, but given the current state of YA there's doubtless far easier targets to quote for outrage. The whole genre now seems to be marketed to middle age cat ladies looking for their next Fifty Shades bean flick fix or to consist of books written to rot on the shelves unread, but also as proving some political point or another.

As an aside, The post quote function didn't work, I guess that glitch is back.
 
It's not really a condemnation of him that he uses more precise terms you're unfamiliar with. Besides there's plenty of stuff he's written that are for simpler readers.

(I never understood why authors had to be condemned for the reader's lack of vocabulary. Try reading to expand your world for once.)
My quibble with the Wright that I have read (ie: Hugo nominated stuff through the Sad Puppies campaign) was not that he was using big words or technical terms but that they seemed to be used particularly without context and for obfuscating effect rather than enlightening effect - the Obscure Academic Phrase Gotcha.

Maybe it was the story I read, but there was a big passage of description of munitions, which was all well and good, but I wanted the story to interrogate further WHY they were using that particular combination of chemicals and ballistics in that situation, but it was like ten pages of : "this cut-and-paste phrase sounds cool and in the story it goes boom-boom."

Not to say that boom-boom stories are fun, but they aren't hard SF and there was not the hyperfocus on the science that one might get from say, a Neal Stephenson. I wonder if it might be that Wright is a lawyer by trade (and obfuscation is perhaps hardwired into the profession) and Stephenson's an actual engineer ... he would explain for ten pages the reasoning behind magnesium in your projectile or whatever.

But then I haven't read enough to form a proper opinion, but I remember that in the Sad Puppy instance Wright's offering was a very weak "hard" SF story to challenge the narrative that we were missing out on great SF stories due to people ignoring right-leaning writers. They really could have found a better challenger in that instance.

Nah, fuck those two. H. Beam Piper, Simon Greene, Edmond Hamilton, etc. I couldn't make it fifty pages into Scalzi's Foundation ripoff, gender neutral pronouns and all. (Didn't hate the Old Man's War series until the book with the Mary Sue girl.)
I just can't fuck with gender neutral pronouns. I can't, it's so goddamn clunky. In my latest project I have a gender-neutral (people) and I'm just going to settle back on "he/him" because I did a few pages of they/them and it's like pulling teeth.

Edit to add: this is probably becoming a de-facto publishing discussion thread rather than YA in general. But YA drama is such a bellwether for everything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My quibble with the Wright that I have read (ie: Hugo nominated stuff through the Sad Puppies campaign) was not that he was using big words or technical terms but that they seemed to be used particularly without context and for obfuscating effect rather than enlightening effect - the Obscure Academic Phrase Gotcha.

Maybe it was the story I read, but there was a big passage of description of munitions, which was all well and good, but I wanted the story to interrogate further WHY they were using that particular combination of chemicals and ballistics in that situation, but it was like ten pages of : "this cut-and-paste phrase sounds cool and in the story it goes boom-boom."

Not to say that boom-boom stories are fun, but they aren't hard SF and there was not the hyperfocus on the science that one might get from say, a Neal Stephenson. I wonder if it might be that Wright is a lawyer by trade (and obfuscation is perhaps hardwired into the profession) and Stephenson's an actual engineer ... he would explain for ten pages the reasoning behind magnesium in your projectile or whatever.

But then I haven't read enough to form a proper opinion, but I remember that in the Sad Puppy instance Wright's offering was a very weak "hard" SF story to challenge the narrative that we were missing out on great SF stories due to people ignoring right-leaning writers. They really could have found a better challenger in that instance.
Now I'm confused which round this was because as I recall in Sad Puppies 2 the JCW offering was "one bright star" which is a fantasy/Narnia sequel not a hard scifi at all.

Ever compared his Nightlands fanfiction to the original?
I just can't fuck with gender neutral pronouns. I can't, it's so goddamn clunky. In my latest project I have a gender-neutral (people) and I'm just going to settle back on "he/him" because I did a few pages of they/them and it's like pulling teeth.

Edit to add: this is probably becoming a de-facto publishing discussion thread rather than YA in general. But YA drama is such a bellwether for everything else.
There was a 3rd gender introduced in a scifi book that used the pronoun "ae" and the derivatives from there.

I was always disappointed even the crazy pronoun crowd never embraced this old callback. It just goes to show how limited and small their worldview and awareness is.
 
Now I'm confused which round this was because as I recall in Sad Puppies 2 the JCW offering was "one bright star" which is a fantasy/Narnia sequel not a hard scifi at all.

Ever compared his Nightlands fanfiction to the original?

There was a 3rd gender introduced in a scifi book that used the pronoun "ae" and the derivatives from there.

I was always disappointed even the crazy pronoun crowd never embraced this old callback. It just goes to show how limited and small their worldview and awareness is.
Apologies, unfortunately I can't remember off the top of my head - the SP thing was a while ago and it might have even been a story on his website. I guess I was probably hoping for something more as he was talked about a fair bit at the time, but if he's more on the soft/fantasy side, that would perhaps explain it.

I've read so many books which deal with the 3rd gender, which to be honest I suspect most people have no problem with if the actual individual/species does have a legitimate third party to the biological process of reproduction.
 
I just can't fuck with gender neutral pronouns. I can't, it's so goddamn clunky. In my latest project I have a gender-neutral (people) and I'm just going to settle back on "he/him" because I did a few pages of they/them and it's like pulling teeth.

Edit to add: this is probably becoming a de-facto publishing discussion thread rather than YA in general. But YA drama is such a bellwether for everything else.
I'm personally fine with gender-neutral, since my language actually only has that for third person pronoun. That said, all my life I've only been taught there were only two pronouns in English, He and She, so using something like They always triggered that something is wrong in my head. Funnily enough, as far as I know, people are only still taught there is only He and She in English here, lol
 
Apologies, unfortunately I can't remember off the top of my head - the SP thing was a while ago and it might have even been a story on his website. I guess I was probably hoping for something more as he was talked about a fair bit at the time, but if he's more on the soft/fantasy side, that would perhaps explain it.
Oh it literally depends. I've read about a half dozen of his novels and several shorter works and they vary from lighter fantasy stuff to harder scifi.

There are things you could play a drinking game of with his stuff and it doesn't always work, but I enjoy writers that will try creative stuff.

I've read so many books which deal with the 3rd gender, which to be honest I suspect most people have no problem with if the actual individual/species does have a legitimate third party to the biological process of reproduction.
Bingo. What bugs me about today is that so many seem stuck in this "must be like today" mentality that they miss truly creative opportunities. Like I ranted about in the Star Trek thread, the showrunner for ST: DS9 said they should have done more with a "gay relationship" between Bashir and Garak. They completely miss that Odo on the show literally does not have a gender (he's sentient jello without genitals). So how are his relationships not gay relationships?

Interspecies Reviewers may be a trash anime, but I at least respect them for actually running with their premise and examining interesting ideas that would result from completely different species interacting and fucking.

I swear I could remember a time when YA books would actually explore and expand the imagination, not leave you trapped in your own world, jerking you off.
 
Some Sanderson salt:

View attachment 3057839View attachment 3057841View attachment 3057842View attachment 3057842View attachment 3057843View attachment 3057844
What a salty bitch further proof that pronouns in the bio = opinions in the trash

edit: There was a blog post by Scalzi but I don't post stuff by irrelevant retards.
"Bro, I've read countless post-modern theory and tick several diversity checklists. I must be creative."

Tell me, could this thing write a Mormon character that wasn't simply a cardboard cutout villian? Would she provide depth, understanding to him despite disagreeing with his ideas? See why he thinks that way and probe at his heart as a mirror to herself. No, her 'diverse' worldview is simply her own shallow wants.

All authors are biased. They create villians who they fundamentally disagree with, but a great one is fully formed and goes beyond the knee jerk. Diverse worldviews less, intelligence more.
 
Last edited:
All authors are biased. They create villians who they fundamentally disagree with, but a great one is fully formed and goes beyond the knee jerk. Diverse worldviews less, intelligence more.
Speak for yourself. I've always written villains that I could agree with too easily. You just imagine "what would I do if I didn't care who would be hurt?"

aka the MovieBob method of villainy.

I've actually found it generally annoying how shallow people make villains nowadays. They're so cartoonish you start wondering how any evil is done in the first place.
 
"Bro, I read countless post-modern theory and tick several diversity checklists. I must be creative."

Tell me, could this thing write a Mormon character that wasn't simply a cardboard cutout villian? Would she provide depth, understanding to him despite disagreeing with his ideas? See why he thinks that way and probe at his heart as a mirror to herself. No, her 'diverse' worldview is simply her own shallow wants.

All authors are biased. They create villians who they fundamentally disagree with, but a great one is fully formed and goes beyond the knee jerk. Diverse worldviews less, intelligence more.
Hell, Sanderson himself once said he was criticized by fellow church members for making a villain that was a religious leader. His response was, "As a religious person myself, the abuse of religious power terrifies me. That fear helps me create a better villain."
 
Some Sanderson salt:

View attachment 3057839View attachment 3057841View attachment 3057842View attachment 3057842View attachment 3057843View attachment 3057844
What a salty bitch further proof that pronouns in the bio = opinions in the trash

edit: There was a blog post by Scalzi but I don't post stuff by irrelevant retards.
I vaguely remember a quote by some "literature person" who said that people shouldn't be so goddamn moralistic about even high-literature books - it was all shlock and entertainment. Everything.

Wanting diversity and massive social commentary in a Sanderson book is like wanting an alien invasion in a Cormac McCarthy book, it honestly is not the genre for that stuff, and you're SUPPOSED to go elsewhere for it. Complaining that Danielle Steele got the Hard Science wrong in some plot involving a plane crash. "McDonalds didin't have Nasi Goreng on the menu, one star!" bullshit.

As much as the people loudly claim pro-diversity in YA media, they go off and secretly read Flowers In The Attic or Brandon Sanderson.
 
Back