[ SECRET POST #3522 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3522 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Great British Bake Off, series 5]






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #503.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sarillia]

Can someone tell me if it's possible for a writer to talk about homophobic responses to their work without people complaining that they're claiming that anyone who doesn't like it is just a big ol' homophobe?

He cites several other reasons for bad reviews including the writing style (even doing a whole other post on why he likes that kind of writing but he understands that not everyone does), people being bitter about losing the old canon, and "simply that people don’t like the book".

[(Anonymous)]

Because he specifically said the bad reviews NOT talking about the gay characters were related to homophobia. "It may have been my writing, but I'm betting a lot of it is homophobia" (paraphrasing) is making an excuse.

If he had just said, "Those who hate this book for the gay characters, shame on you" no one would care. But he chose to (partially) act like those who didn't like it did so because of there being gay characters. Hence "I'm not saying it was an anti-gay conspiracy, but it was an anti-gay conspiracy."

[sarillia]

Can you point me specifically to what you're paraphrasing? I've read this post multiple times because I've seen this argument multiple times (oh god, I have way too much time on my hands) and I haven't yet found the passages that people are interpreting the way you are.

He follows up "Obviously, some of that is simply that people don’t like the book. That happens with every book release" with "Others have suggested that there may be a campaign by some Legends fangroups to 'raid' the book’s reviews to tank its ranking with these one-star reviews" and suggests that happened for several possible reasons: "Some of the reviews seem to take issue with my voice, some take issue with it being, erm, 'SJW propaganda,' others still because I’m not Timothy Zahn and because I apparently hate the prequels and the EU." He talks more about people who are upset about the new canon after talking a bit about people not liking his writing style and people being disappointed that the book doesn't answer every question. Then he finally has a paragraph at the end that begins "And if you’re upset because I put gay characters and a gay protagonist in the book, I got nothing for you." I see nothing in that paragraph that suggests people who claim other reasons for disliking the book really just don't like it because of the gay characters.

Obviously I'm putting way too much thought into this but that's because this has come up several times and I don't get it. I've spent more time on things I care about even less just to try to figure out where people are getting their arguments. Therefore I completely understand if the only response I get here is "dude, relax, no one's interested in writing you an essay".

[(Anonymous)]

For me it's a matter of context. I'm a writer. So is he. He knows what he was implying. He never says it straight out, no, because he's smart enough not to actually do that while still implying it. He starts off with not the most common complaint (writing style) but the least (gay characters). Just look at the 1 star reviews and that's what you see. All of that, those choices, matter in how people read it and react.

I generally disapprove of writers addressing negative reviews in the first place, too, so I'm probably more sensitive to that.

[sarillia]

Writers replying to bad reviews directly is one of my favorite kinds of internet trainwrecks to watch, but I just don't have a problem with people talking about them in general. It's a part of their life as a writer. If they want to talk about it on their blog then I don't mind.

I just don't see him implying what you say he's implying. And I guess I care more than I thought I did, because to me this whole argument implies that he has some ulterior motive for talking about homophobia. That he doesn't actually care, he's just deflecting criticism. And a downplaying of how common homophobia still is. But you may disagree about that implication just like I'm not seeing the one that you are.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough. :)