• 1
Angry, seething, vaguely amused... just wish I was in any way shocked.

I'll happily put my savings on the author being straight, but with gay friends who totes approved or... something.

Pretty much sums up my emotions - well not the vaguely amused since I had to read the damn thing (an experience I wouldn't wish on anyway).

Yes she is and she uses gay family as her human shields.


Hold my earrings, I'm going in.

Thing is, I've seen this flip done well before, with race. It CAN be done, and it can make for a very compelling story that makes people actually THINK. Instead, we get this.

I'm still on the fence because I haven't seen it work though a lot of people advise Noughts and Crosses to me.

Want me to hold your coat?

Noughts and Crosses is the only time I've ever seen it work. It was mandatory reading in school, and it pretty much blew my mind because it really made me think. Probably helps that it wasn't written by a well-meaning white woman...

Take my coat, sure, but it probably won't fit you :p

I've just finished reading Noughts and Crosses and I'm afraid I don't know if it entirely works. It is a black/white binary world devoid of other minorities, there are barely any redeemable black characters and the examples of racism are all quite overt ones taken from the Jim Crow era. i wish it had focused more on the subtle racism that many people still experience on a day to day basis and is still mostly acceptable today.

Where it succeeded I feel was in examing white privilege (or black in this case) in the main female character through her "well intended but badly thought out" actions.

I think my main confliction with Noughts and Crosses is that a white teenager reading the book would need to see a white person being oppressed to feel empathy for what people of colour experienced in Jim Crow segregation. Why isn't reading these stories through a black point of view enough?

I haven't read that book - but my co-blogger and reviewer has and reviewed it and wasn't too thrilled.


"Why isn't reading these stories through a black point of view enough? "

I just dislike the idea of "creating empathy" by using privileged faces - because it trains us to have empathy... for the privileged. It's hard to look at Noughts and Crosses and not think "isn't it awful... when white people are treated this way" or Out and hear "it's terrible when straight people are abused like this".

When the ACTUAL REAL LIFE abuse of real marginalised people is not seen as sufficiently hear rending? That's a problem. Especially since we already have an issue with minorities not being listened to without a privileged person backing them up or speaking for them. This just adds to that "look, you can care, a white/straight person has validated their pain!"

Why the fuck do you do this to yourself?

In this case because I had enough people buzzing around fawning over the idea that a) I had to check if it was even remotely possible to do this right (which I doubt) and b) I wanted to at least try to speak out and counter the positive buzz if/when it turned out to be as bad as it was especially as it's being pushed as an amazingly wonderful GBLT YA book - that gives me chills.

I've abandoned a lot of books and even genres and sub-genres because of the grey hairs they cause but this, with it's marketing as being so pro-gblt and so damn SUPPORTIVE and EMPATHIC, could not let it go past. Discrimiflips are also a severe pet hate of mine. And 'tis part of what we do at Fangs.

Your fortitude is admirable.

This is what rum is for. And not staying up all night with fury festering

I wish I could be shocked at this... fucking straight people, I swear.

May I ask how you feel about Forever War?

I haven't read it to know exactly how it is handled. The fact it was written in 1974 makes me wary, but it also sounds like homosexuality isn't the primary focus or a clumsily handled primary message. I can't say it looks ideal by any stretch - with gay normativity being a dystopian thing apparently

IIRC, it's how society back on Earth copes with the need to end population growth. The bold heroes are in an almost aggressively het bubble; initially they bunk up in het couples that change every week or so, to build binds across the whole team or something. They choose to start relationships instead. I assume that's a reaction against some of the 60s hippy stuff about future relationships.

I wouldn't read it if I were you because the gay society is not portrayed as especially healthy, it needs the het warriors to hold up a mirror to it or something (actually, don't read it because I found it unrealistic *while* I was reading it, and my teenaged self just didn't do that, I just chomped up everything back then, and suspended disbelief and critical faculties while reading)


It's about the experience of coming home from deployment in the Vietnam war and having the world get different increasingly faster so that your farther and farther out of sync with society put into a future science fiction universe.

I think the previous end of deployment was significantly more dystopian what with the health care situation. I'm not defending the depiction of homosexuality, but I was interested in Sparkindarkness' take as it handles the flip differently than the homophobic screed reviewed above, the context being really different.

(Editted because I realize I was unclear as to what I was referring too.

Edited at 2013-01-24 09:23 am (UTC)

I'm puking blood here.

That was my reaction. blood and vital organs

  • 1

Log in