Week 7 Prompt
Prompt:
For our prompt this week, I want you to think about fake memoirs, author mills (James Patterson), and celebrity inspired book clubs. Basically write a readers' response to one of the articles you are reading for this week (see syllabus or links in this post for readings) - or talk about a time when a book or author that made headlines affected you personally or your work.
For our prompt this week, I want you to think about fake memoirs, author mills (James Patterson), and celebrity inspired book clubs. Basically write a readers' response to one of the articles you are reading for this week (see syllabus or links in this post for readings) - or talk about a time when a book or author that made headlines affected you personally or your work.
Personal thought before I get started! In the past, before the national news and
internet, imagine how much harder it was to prove that a memoir was false? Today, a Facebook friend would be, “That is
not the way it happened!” call up the news and within 24 hours the memoir may
be questioned. It must be so much harder
to write memoirs in the digital age!
Even if a person (witness) wasn’t there, it doesn’t take much to cloud
the “truth” with just a baseless claim.
We see it every day!
I am going to avoid the celebrity book club articles
to respond to; I am SO over celebrities telling me how to think, act, read,
vote, dress, etc… (I can keep going for days!)
If you think about it, they lie for a living; pretending to be someone
else. So how do I know what they read is
what they personally like or is it just another role to play? (Time to move on, Shannon!)
What I am going to talk about is the article, “‘Bad
Feminist’ author Roxane Gay pulls book deal over Milo Yiannopoulos.” The big issue, perceived hate speech, is
still protected under the first amendment!
What is hate speech to one person (such as, “Make America Great Again!”)
may simply be a moto of having American pride to another! That is the problem with speech, just like
book reviews, it is all subjective based on personal beliefs and
experiences.
The publisher has a right to publish what it wants
and that is why different divisions and labels exist. Different labels appeal to different people
based on personal beliefs. Just like the
publisher has the right to publish what it wants, Gay has the right to object
and remove her book from their deal. She
can retain her opinion that “he doesn’t have a right to have a book published
by a major publisher…” but honestly, why is it fair to make that claim against
anyone’s freedom of speech? Just because
you don’t like a person, his/her beliefs, or his/her speech; it doesn’t give you
(or anyone for that matter) the right to infringe on someone else’s personal
freedom of speech. On the flip side, she
has the right to say he doesn’t deserve a book deal. Simply, if you don’t like the book or its
subject matter, don’t buy it or read it or give it any publicity!
We used to understand that just because we don’t
agree with each other; it doesn’t make us enemies or we automatically hate each
other. It just meant that we disagreed
with each other; oh well! We moved
on! Simply put, books should not be
banned and speech should not be controlled because in the end; it really is all
subjective!
Resource:
“‘Bad Feminist’ Author Roxane Gay Pulls Book Deal
over Milo Yiannopoulos.” CNN Wire, 2017. EBSCOhost,
www.ulib.iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgsr&AN=edsgcl.478936480&site=eds-live.
You are correct that we have the right to free speech and this speech should not be controlled. I think a lot of people forget though that yes, you have a right to free speech but this also means you have the right to experience the consequences of that speech. You don't get to say inflammatory and discriminatory things and then get upset when people don't want to deal with you anymore. And there are certain circumstances where exercising your right to free speech will still get you in trouble (try yelling "bomb" in an airport!).
ReplyDeleteExactly! You can say what you want but you also have to deal with the consequences of those actions!
ReplyDeleteI agree that Milo has the right to free speech. What I don't necessarily agree with is that publishers should give him a platform. He has the right to share his views, but I would think the publisher should be selective about what views they are associating themselves with.
ReplyDeleteThe publisher did decide to not publish the book and he ended up going with an independent publisher.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Shannon, I'm not particularly interested in following the advice of celebrities. I do, however, think it's a good thing when celebrities use their influence to advocate for positive things like encouraging people to read and engage with writers and ideas they might not otherwise be exposed to!
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to quickly respond to your statement "why is it fair to make that claim against anyone's freedom of speech?" I would say that it's nobody's inalienable right to have a book published by a major publishing firm, but that a publishing deal is earned by presenting a piece of writing with valuable ideas. Gay clearly didn't think that spewing hate speech entitled a person to a book deal, and I don't think it's encouraging censorship to suggest that people like Yiannopoulos not be given a platform. Like you said, a person is perfectly entitled to practice their free speech however they want, but they shouldn't mistake it for censorship when others react to their statements in kind.
Great insight and it caused some good discussion comments from your classmates. Full points!
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that "hate speech" depends entirely on those hearing and perceiving it. What can mean something to a certain person has an entirely different meaning to the next person.
ReplyDelete