 |
| Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). Created by David Huyck and Sarah Park Dahlen. See full citation in Bibliography. |
This semester, for SOC 2 at Santa Rosa Junior College, I compiled a Literature Review that examines: How does “cancel culture” affect efforts toward greater diversity in children’s and Young Adult publishing?
INTRODUCTION:
Among authors, readers, librarians, educators, and others, a grassroots social movement seeks greater diversity in literature for children and young adults.
Specifically, the movement addresses a disparity that favors books about white, male, heterosexual, and able-bodied protagonists. This paper looks at literature in scholarly journals, trade publications, and the print news media to examine the effect of “cancel culture” on efforts toward greater diversity in children’s and Young Adult publishing.
“Cancel culture,” in the realm of children’s and Young Adult literature, refers to the online harassment of authors who write about people from marginalized communities. Such an incident might begin with a single negative review, which quickly becomes amplified as other readers re-post and “pile-on.”
WHY REPRESENTATION MATTERS:
In a landmark essay, Bishop (1990) touted books’ ability to serve as “Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors” into another person’s life.
“Books are sometimes windows, offering views of worlds that may be real or imagined, familiar or strange. These windows are also sliding glass doors, and readers have only to walk through in imagination to become part of whatever world has been created by the author. When lighting conditions are just right, however, a window can also be a mirror. Literature transforms human experience and reflects it back to us, and in that reflection we can see our own lives and experiences as part of the larger human experience.” (Bishop 1990).
The problem, as related by Bishop, is that, while reading becomes a “means of self-affirmation” for some, non-white readers have found it futile to seek their mirrors in books. “When children cannot find themselves reflected in the books they read, or when the images they see are distorted, negative, or laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which they are a part. Our classrooms need to be places where all the children from all the cultures that make up the salad bowl of American society can find their mirrors.” (Bishop 1990.)
Many contemporary activists toward greater diversity in books make reference to Bishop’s metaphor. For example, in their 2018 study, “Messages Matter: Investigating the Thematic Content of Picture Books Portraying Underrepresented Racial and Cultural Groups,” Aronson, Callahan, and O’Brien state:
“When children find themselves reflected in a book mirror, or when they catch a glimpse of people different from them through a book window, what are they seeing? What types of portrayals are they encountering, and what do those images convey? Messages matter. Books and the ideas they present have influence over the minds of people who read them; not all diverse books convey the same message, and not all messages have the same effect” (Aronson 2018:165).
This issue has significance for me, both personally and professionally. Personally, I’m a member of a marginalized group. (Being a person on the autism spectrum, I have an “invisible” disability, and I prioritize books that depict people with autism in a respectful and accurate way.) Professionally, through my work in a library, I seek to ensure that my library’s collection mirrors its customers’ diversity.
Because of my commitment to greater diversity among the protagonists of books, I’m concerned about efforts that might hinder, rather than help, these efforts. Hence my wish with this paper, to examine recent literature about the effects of “cancel culture.”
CHALLENGES TO GREATER DIVERSITY:
Industry demographics
One of the challenges affecting representation of more diverse characters in literature, is that publishing-industry staffing remains overwhelmingly white (Lee and Low 2020).
A 2019 survey conducted by Lee and Low reported that, while numbers in an earlier study “contributed to a sense of urgency that has resulted in more diverse books being published in the marketplace today — at least on the children’s book side,” the industry continues to be dominated by cis-gender white women and people who identify themselves as straight or heterosexual.
Lee and Low did note that more people self-identified as having a disability between its 2019 and 2015 surveys, but acknowledged that how the question was worded, may have helped account for the gain (2020).
The Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC) in the School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, tracks representation of minority characters in children’s books. CCBC figures for 2018 showed that 50 percent of children’s books that it received that year still depicted white protagonists (Huyck 2019).
An infographic by Huyck and Dahlen (shown above) illustrates a continuing disparity: 1 percent depicting American Indian or First Nation protagonists, 5 percent depicting Latino / Latina, 7 percent depicting Asian Pacific Islander / Asian Pacific American, and 10 percent depicting African / African American. In contrast to these numbers, 50 percent of books featured a white protagonist.
Children’s books were more likely to feature animals or “other” characters (27 percent) than ethnic minorities (Huyck 2019).
Jennifer Baker, production editor at Teachers College Press in New York, observed that while discussions were taking place around more authors and illustrators of color, “It was very interesting what wasn’t being talked about: Who are the editors? Who are the agents? Who are the production editors? Who are the marketers, the contributors, and all that stuff?” (Maher 2019:10).
Effects of ‘cancel culture’
Another challenge affecting greater diversity is “cancel culture’s” harassment of authors who have written books about people from marginalized communities. In this literature review, I will draw attention to both objective, and subjective elements, of how efforts toward greater diversity are affected by online reviewers and the “pile-ons” that amplify negative attacks toward the writers of these books.
OBJECTIVE DOCUMENTATION:
Among articles I surveyed, Benedictus comes closest toward providing quantitative figures about how widespread the problem is.
While most articles focus on two or three books, which were written by specific authors, Benedictus relates that when he was looking for people to interview for his article for The Guardian, he “approached 24 people, in several countries, all writing in English. In total, 15 authors replied, of whom 11 agreed to talk to me, either by email or on the phone. Two subsequently withdrew, in one case following professional advice. Two have received death threats and five would only talk if I concealed their identity. This is not what normally happens when you ask writers for an interview” (Benedictus 2019).
Without citing actual numbers, Rosenfield stated that her attempts to report on YA Twitter’s “Toxic Drama” were “met with intense pushback.”
“[S]everal influential authors instructed their followers not to speak to me; and one librarian and member of the Newbery Award committee tweeted at Vulture nearly a dozen times accusing them of enabling ‘a washed-up YA author’ engaged in ‘a personalized crusade’ against the entire publishing community … With one exception, all my sources insisted on anonymity, citing fear of professional damage and abuse” (Rosenfield 2017).
From the articles I read, here is a list of authors and books that were targeted by online criticism.
- John Boyne, author of My Brother’s Name Is Jessica : Boyne, who is gay but not transgender, was subject to insults on Twitter for his appearance and his sexuality. “Some critics proposed a boycott of Boyne’s novel, which was not withdrawn. Others made veiled threats to his safety” (Benedictus 2019).
- E.E. Charlton-Trujillo, author of When We Was Fierce : Publication of the book was postponed “amid increasing controversy” around the “use of a made-up dialect along with what some deem as stereotypical characters” (Barack 2016). Jennifer Baker, creator of the podcast Minorities in Publishing and member of We Need Diverse Books, found the book “glaringly offensive.” “‘When We Was Fierce was highly problematic from the inaccuracies to this very arm’s length approach, [and] the stereotyping of black characters specifically,’ she says. ‘The made up dialect the author used was so egregious, it is horrible’” (Barack 2016).
- Keira Drake, author of The Continent : The book, which had circulated for seven months pre-publication in advance reader copies, was criticized and called “racist” for Native American stereotypes. Drake initially tried to defend herself, but “as the day went on, I realized, ‘Oh, my God. Oh, it’s so true.’ Drake contacted her publisher, Harlequin Teen, and asked to push back the publication date so she could make revisions.” Printed hardcovers were destroyed, and a new version of the book was released March 27, 2018 (Mason 2018).
- Laurie Forest, author of The Black Witch : Objections to this book, apparently launched by a single blogger, “largely centered around the book’s racist characters saying racist things as part of a story in which the protagonist learns to overcome her racism” (Singal 2019, p. 60). Based almost solely on that one blogger’s opinion, “the novel became the object of sustained, aggressive opposition in the weeks leading up its release” (Rosenfield 2017).
- Kosoko Jackson, author of A Place for Wolves : His book was touted as an #OwnVoices book, “a hashtag attached approvingly to books in which the author shares a particular marginalized identity with his subject” (Graham 2019). And Jackson, who “worked as a ‘sensitivity reader’ for major publishers of YA fiction” (ibid), was part of “a small and informal but intense online community that scolded writers who ran afoul of these values in their work or online” (ibid). But a pre-publication review on Goodreads raised several concerns, including the book’s “use of a recent genocide as a backdrop to romance, the way some early fans fetishized it as a ‘cute gay love story,’ that it was not written by a Muslim, that it ‘centers’ privileged Americans, and that the villain is an ethnic Albanian, among other concerns” (ibid). Other readers then chimed in, causing the criticism to snowball. With the savaging of his book, Jackson became “demonized by the community he once helped police” (ibid).
- Laura Moriarty, author of American Heart : Received backlash against her fifth novel, American Heart, concerning what the online critics described as a “problematic white-savior narrative” (Moriarty 2018: 67). The book, about an American girl trying to help a Muslim woman avoid Muslim-American detainment camps, received a starred review on Kirkus that was written by a Muslim woman. Kirkus later retracted the star in response to the online backlash and asked the reviewer to reflect on her language. The review now states, “It is problematic that Sadaf [the book’s Muslim-woman main character] is seen only through the white protagonist’s filter” (ibid).
- Gareth Roberts : His contribution was removed from a Doctor Who anthology after past comments of his about trans people were shown to the book’s publisher. Roberts is gay, but not trans (Benedictus 2019).
- Amélie Wen Zhao, author of Blood Heir : Zhao said her novel—which addresses a theme of slavery—was written from her “immediate cultural perspective” as an immigrant from China to the United States. Online critics, however, accused Zhao’s book of promoting “anti-blackness and blatant bigotry.” The groundswell of criticism prompted Zhao to request that her publisher cancel publication of her novel (Flood 2019). Zhao’s novel was released “five months after its original street date” (Kirch 2019:14).
“Objective” data also includes the demographic makeup of publishing, and the percentage of books published each year that feature diverse protagonists. Both of these are mentioned by this paper among “Challenges to Greater Diversity.”
SUBJECTIVE THEMES
A variety of themes are conveyed and addressed in the articles I read. Some articles address more than one of the themes I’ve listed below. They include:
Accuracy of representation
“Diversity in books seems easy,” according to Jennifer Baker, creator of the podcast Minorities in Publishing and member of We Need Diverse Books. “They’re getting books with this content. But they’re not making sure this content is respectful, responsible, and accurate” (Barack 2016).
In an interview with Bittner, author Kosoko Jackson argues for the importance of “intersectional diversity.” “I wanted to write a book where queer Black boys could see themselves as nuanced characters with the same emotional arc, attractiveness, and moral questions white characters always get to experience in YA” (Bittner 2019:72).
Concerning their infographic, which is shown on this report’s cover page, Huyck and Dahlen call attention to their decision to crack sections of the minority children’s mirrors. “[W]e wanted this infographic to show not just the low quantity of existing literature, but also the inaccuracy and uneven quality of some of those books” (Huyck 2019).
Reese challenges an idea by Guardian journalist James Dawson, that the “best way to encourage diversity in fiction is to simply purchase more books featuring diverse characters and use social media channels to recommend said titles.” Reese responds that “the mirrors that Native kids get in classic, popular, and award-winning books” are distorted and inaccurate — and, as such, need to be challenged.
“We have to call out these distortions, and you should, too. Lift books that give kids accurate representations of Native people, but call out the ones that are not ok, too, so that your buds will know those books are not ok. So they won't be put onto those school reading lists” (Reese 2015).
Adult-driven drama
Teens, who make up the “core audience” of Young Adult publishing, “are getting fed up with the constant, largely adult-driven dramas that currently dominate YA. Some have taken to discussing books via backchannels or on teen-exclusive hashtags — or defecting to other platforms, like YouTube or Instagram, which aren’t so given over to mob dynamics” (Rosenfield 2017).
Hoist on his own petard?
Graham examines Kosoko Jackson’s membership in an “intense” online community that “scolded writers who ran afoul” of the community’s values. Graham relates that Jackson has now been “demonized by the community he once helped police.” As a result, Jackson and Amélie Wen Zhao are both “people of color who now see their careers hobbled in an industry that claims to be laser-focused on diversity” (Graham 2019). Singal points out that what’s especially interesting about the controversy around Jackson’s book is that Jackson had been an outspoken critic of the book by Zhao (Singal 2019:61).
‘Permission’ to write about marginalized characters
In a conversation via email between interviewer Lisa Deaderick with Jean Guerrero, author of Crux: A Cross-Border Memoir; and Nicole Johnson, executive director of We Need Diverse Books, Johnson expressed that:
“Every writer has the freedom to write the characters and stories they want to write. With that freedom comes a responsibility to authentically present their characters and settings when it is outside of their own personal experience. Further, being able to engage and respond to the diversity of reactions and feedback that will come when the story is published, will demonstrate the author’s commitment to honoring the perspectives of those with lived experience” (Deaderick 2020).
Graham cites a 2016 survey by Bowker Market Research of book-publishing employees, which documented that the industry “as a whole is still extremely, extremely white.” Graham argues that “A reckoning with these abysmal numbers and their impact is overdue,” but that instead, “we’ve gotten an increasingly toxic online culture around YA literature, with evermore-baroque standards for who can write about whom under what circumstances” (Graham 2019).
Cheaney argues that:
“All good literature broadens experience, whether it takes the reader to the Russian steppes, apartheid-era South Africa, or Regency England. A dogmatic insistence on a particular context pits cultures against each other. It also creates a class of literary cops who patrol the pages of upcoming releases and blow the whistle on ‘incorrect’ content” (Cheaney 2018:36).
Cheaney describes this trend as “diversity-for-its-own-sake,” and claims that it is especially pronounced in Young Adult literature.
Qualifications of reviewers
In her 2019 study, Moreillon argues that librarians must be “culturally competent” in order to “purchase, provide, and present authentic and accurate children’s and young adult literature,” and that “librarians who serve as reviewers for children’s and young adult book review sources must practice cultural competence as they read” (Moreillon 2019:3).
Waldman notes that “People of color face economic and racial barriers to breaking into the [publishing] industry .... The result is that the people who are most qualified to weigh in on a text’s treatment of marginalized identities are often the least likely to do so” (Waldman 2019). According to Waldman:
“A group of unpaid readers — one with an undeniable personal investment in the Y.A. community — seems to be doing much of the work of critique that is usually first the task of agents and editors, and then that of booksellers and critics. But, when these particular readers do that work, they are derided as pitchfork-wielding hysterics” (Waldman 2019).
‘Toxic’ online community
Singal acknowledges commendable motivation behind efforts to diversify publishing, but argues that the online world of Young Adult fiction is a “case study in toxic Internet culture” (Singal 2019:59).
According to Rosenfield, YA Twitter “regularly identifies and denounces books for being problematic.” (Rosenfield defines “problematic” as “an all-purpose umbrella term for describing texts that engage improperly with race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other marginalizations.”)
“Led by a group of influential authors who pull no punches when it comes to calling out their colleagues’ work, and amplified by tens of thousands of teen and young-adult followers for whom online activism is second nature, the campaigns to keep offensive books off shelves are a regular feature in a community that’s as passionate about social justice as it is about reading” (Rosenfield 2017).
Senior argues that rabid pile-ons against recent YA books are by people who have not read them, and that an early “intemperate, if highly impassioned review” of Jackson’s A Place for Wolves might have remained only “a pan from a citizen critic” if the Twitter subculture that’s “obsessed with Y.A. fiction” had not noticed the review (Senior 2019).
Twitter’s effect on publishing
Senior predicts that “If Twitter controls publishing, we’ll soon enter a dreary monoculture that admits no book unless it has been prejudged and meets the standards of the censors” (Senior 2019).
Singal argues that the “right” response to the cancelling of Jackson’s book is to consider how this “pattern” will affect other works in future (Singal 2019:62).
According to Rosenfield, some authors are tailoring their writing to avoid potential backlash. One author “scrapped a work in progress that featured a POC character, citing a sense shared by many publishing insiders that to write outside one’s own identity as a white author simply isn’t worth the inevitable backlash. “I was told, do not write that,” she said. “I was told, ‘Spare yourself’” (Rosenfield 2017).
Whose voice is amplified by publishers?
In their conversation with Deaderick, Jean Guerrero and Nicole Johnson conveyed that, while it’s not necessary for a writer to have the “lived experience of a group they’re attempting to represent,” they expressed concern that, in the case of American Dirt (a novel marketed to adults, not YA, which was published in January 2020), a white woman’s book was “elevated above stories” written by novelists who share backgrounds with the characters that Jeanine Cummins depicted in her book (Deaderick 2020).
DISCUSSION
Literature in trade magazines and print journalism tends to focus on recent examples of “cancel culture,” citing perhaps two or three instances. I could not locate documentation of exactly how many authors have been affected by pile-ons, although a couple of articles mentioned subjects’ reluctance to be interviewed out of fear of being targeted by backlash. Other articles mention authors’ tailoring their work or deciding to abandon certain subjects or protagonists.
It’s also interesting to note that, while some books were indeed “cancelled,” others were only postponed and still others were released on-schedule. It can even be argued that, in some cases, books were improved — as writers mitigated portrayals in their books that were inaccurate and stereotypical.
Ideas for follow-up inquiry include: what factors allow some authors, but not others, to successfully “weather the storm”? What about authors’ willingness to write, and publishers’ willingness to publish, books with diverse characters? Will “cancel culture” help, or hinder, books by #OwnVoices authors? And how much influence will non-professional reviewers wield when the fields of publishing and professional reviews become successfully more diversified? Will their reach, and their potential to incite online pile-ons, be diminished or eliminated? I’m interested in continuing to follow this subject as part of my personal and professional interest in efforts to diversify publishing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Aronson, K. M., Callahan, B.D., and O’Brien, A.S. (2018). “Messages Matter: Investigating the Thematic Content of Picture Books Portraying Underrepresented Racial and Cultural Groups.” Sociological Forum, Vol. 33, No. 1, March 2018: Pages 165-185.
Barack, L. (2016.) “‘When We Was Fierce’ Pulled as Demand Grows for More #OwnVoices Stories.” School Library Journal, Aug. 13, 2016. Retrieved March 31, 2020. (https://www.slj.com/?detailStory=when-we-was-fierce-pulled-as-demand-grows-for-more-ownvoices-stories)
Benedictus, L. (2019). “Torn apart: the vicious war over young adult books.” The Guardian, June 15, 2019. Retrieved Jan. 22, 2020. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/15/torn-apart-the-vicious-war-over-young-adult-books)
Bishop, R.S. (2015). “Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors.” Reading is Fundamental, Jan. 3, 2015. Reprinted from Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom, Vol. 6, No. 3, Summer 1990. Retrieved March 1, 2020. (https://scenicregional.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Mirrors-Windows-and-Sliding-Glass-Doors.pdf)
Bittner, R. (2019). “Talking with Kosoko Jackson.” Booklist, Feb. 1, 2019: Page 72.
Cheaney, J.B. (2018). “Age of Outrage: Have diversity police created a culture of censorship?” World Magazine, Feb. 17, 2018: Pages 36, 37.
Deaderick, L. (2020). “‘American Dirt’ leads to conversations about representation and diversity in storytelling, publishing.” San Diego Union Tribune, Feb. 23, 2020. Retrieved Feb. 23, 2020. (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/columnists/story/2020-02-23/american-dirt-leads-to-conversations-about-representation-and-diversity-in-storytelling-publishing)
Flood, A. (2019). “Young Adult author cancels own novel after race controversy.” The Guardian, Feb. 1, 2019. Retrieved Jan. 22, 2020. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/01/young-adult-author-cancels-own-novel-after-race-controversy)
Graham, R. (2019). “Wolves: A YA sensitivity reader watched his own community kill his debut novel before it was ever released.” Slate, March 4, 2019. Retrieved Jan. 30, 2020. (https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/ya-book-scandal-kosoko-jackson-a-place-for-wolves-explained.html)
Huyck, D. and Dahlen, S.P. (2019). “Picture This: Diversity in Children’s Books 2018 Infographic.” SarahPark.com. Created in consultation with Edith Campbell, Molly Beth Griffin, K. T. Horning, Debbie Reese, Ebony Elizabeth Thomas, and Madeline Tyner, with statistics compiled by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC), School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison: http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp. Retrieved March 1, 2020. (https://readingspark.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/picture-this-diversity-in-childrens-books-2018-infographic/.)
Kirch, C. (2019). “Responding to Criticism: Booksellers weigh in on the postponement and cancellation of titles by publishers after early readers express concern.” Publishers Weekly, June 17, 2019: Pages 14,15.
Lee and Low. (2020). “Where is the Diversity in Publishing? The 2019 Baseline Survey Results.” The Open Book Blog, Jan. 28, 2020. Retrieved Feb. 3, 2020. (https://blog.leeandlow.com/2020/01/28/2019diversitybaselinesurvey/)
Maher, J. (2019). “PW Superstar Jenn Baker on Diversity in Publishing.” Publishers Weekly, Sept. 23, 2019, Pages 10-11.
Mason, E. (2019). “This book is
Moreillon, J. (2019). “Does Cultural Competence Matter? Book Reviewers as Mediators of Children’s Literature.” Children and Libraries, Spring 2019: Pages 3-8.
Moriarty, L. (2018). “My Account: On being deemed ‘problematic.’” Wired, February 2018: Page 67.
Reese, D. (2015). “An Open Letter to People Who Are Not ‘Fans’ of ‘Call Out Culture’ on Social Media.” American Indians in Children’s Literature, Oct. 13, 2015. Retrieved Jan. 26, 2020. (https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2015/10/an-open-letter-to-people-who-are-not.html)
Rosenfield, K. (2017). “The Toxic Drama on YA Twitter.” Vulture, August 2017. Retrieved March 31, 2020. (https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html)
Senior, J. (2019). “Teen Fiction and the Perils of Cancel Culture: Readers, not a Twitter mob, should decide the fate of a book.” New York Times, March 8, 2019. Retrieved Jan. 26, 2020. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/teen-fiction-and-the-perils-of-cancel-culture.html)
Singal, J. (2019). “Teen Fiction Twitter is Eating Its Young.” Reason, June 2019: Pages 58-63.
Waldman, K. (2019). “In Y.A., Where is the Line Between Criticism and Cancel Culture?” The New Yorker, March 21, 2019. Retrieved Jan. 26, 2020. (https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/in-ya-where-is-the-line-between-criticism-and-cancel-culture)
