Don't Worry, Cancel Culture Is Not a Thing

Over the past year and change I have heard a lot of creators wring their hands about so-called "cancel culture" and the effects it could have on them and their careers. Generally speaking, though, cancel culture exists only in the way that writer's block exists... it's a term we've come to accept as real, but the thing it describes is not what you think it is.

And if you're willing to put in the time, the energy, and the creativity to understand and circumvent the issues in the industry, neither of them will hold you back.

So take a deep breath, and screw your heads back on for a second.

People Don't Owe You Anything

The idea of cancel culture, as I understand it, is that when a public figure says or does something that people find problematic, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable, people who disagree with what was said or done withdraw their support for that person. Like, for example, when an author of a beloved young adult series keeps making anti-trans comments, so her fan base makes it a point to stop buying her merch, cease reading her books, and to move their support to other authors who write stories they like, but who don't come with baggage.

In other words, "cancel culture" is just the free market at work. You need to keep the mob happy if you expect them to cheer for you.

Win the crowd, win your royalties.

Your work does not exist in some vague nether realm, apart from the things you do and the stuff you say. It is your product, and if you do something that upsets your fan base, they are under no obligation to keep reading your books, buying your stuff, or coming to your events. It is your job to make them happy. So the onus is on you to be what your audience wants, not on them to be understanding of your situation and to be forgiving of your mistakes.

Another thing that I think gets lost in the conversation about this is that you are never going to be able to please everyone. Sooner or later if you have any success at all, you're going to end up disappointing or angering someone. What you need to do is stop and ask if you're doing it for the right reasons, and to make your thoughts and positions clear for those deciding whether or not to support you.

Respond Thoughtfully For Best Results

As an example, let's go back to Rowling's work. She was often criticized for her depictions of strict gender roles, relatively few characters who weren't white (even fewer of whom were important in the series), and almost no female characters with agency. Those criticisms didn't stop her from selling millions of books, nor did it stop her fan base from growing, but there is also no denying it's a blind spot in her series.

How you respond to that criticism can make a big difference in how you're perceived.

Once that is pointed out, you could say something like, "That is a valid point, and one that did not occur to me while writing this series. Now that I have fleshed out the world somewhat, and I have been made aware that this is something my readers care about, I will keep it in mind going forward." That might be something of a milk toast answer with no specifics attached to it, but if you back it up by writing a more diverse cast in the future, you'll prove to your fans that you're listening to them, and that you are trying to make them happy.

What you don't do is argue that it's your book, and you can write it however you want. You don't angrily tell your readers to go read someone else if they don't like your book. And most importantly, you don't belittle them for the willingness to criticize. None of that helps you. Listen to the criticism, determine if it is viable, and then once you've thought about it consider if you need to take action on it.

If the criticism is valid, address it. If there's a way you can keep your audience happy without sacrificing your artistic vision, then it can only help you to do it. You're not obligated to bend with the whims of the market, but you gain nothing by pissing off the people who buy your books, and pay your bills.

And if you don't want your income to be impacted by your political views, then keep them to yourself. Because we didn't "cancel" Orson Scott Card just because he said some things we disagree with. Readers stopped supporting him because his platform allowed him to undermine gay rights, and he actively gave money to organizations that tried to remove protections for LGBTQ+ people. Huge swaths of people refuse to eat at Chick-Fil-A for the same reason. They don't want to be party to that.

But How Are You Supposed To Learn?

I've seen this criticism several times. That if you just yank away your support, how are creators supposed to recognize they made a mistake, and do better?

Well, I'm not an economics expert, but generally when the actions you take negatively impact your income, you figure out pretty damn fast what you did wrong, and that maybe you should stop doing it if the impact is big enough.

Looks like you need a little motivation.

Generally speaking, "cancel culture" refers to people who have an audience, and a platform. If you want them to listen to your criticisms, and take you seriously, you defund them. Because that makes it clear there are real repercussions for the actions they've taken, things they've said, etc., and that they need to adapt if they want to keep your support. And if it's a hill the creator is willing to die on, then readers who disagree will part ways with them.

It is not the job of your customers to educate you, or to make you a better person. It is your job to give them a product they want, and to make sure they don't have to question where their money is going once they hand it over. And, generally speaking, it's not all that hard to do. Write a good story, pay attention to problematic tropes, and try to be on the right side of history.

Contrary to popular belief, if people like a thing you've made, they will not just shit can you the instant you say something offensive, or release something with a problematic description. People will bend over backwards to help the creators they like. So stop clutching your pearls, and worrying about someone "canceling" you because you didn't present exactly the right blend of diversity in your sci-fi novel, or because you had a villain use a slur because you wanted to make it clear they were the bad guy.

If you want people to cancel you, generally speaking, you have to try. Especially if you're making something they really want to enjoy.

Edit: "But What About Organized Mobs!?"

So, this has gotten more conversation than I expected, and a constant point people keep bringing up are, "What about mobs of organized people who try to take down your work and ruin your career? Doesn't that prove that cancel culture exists?"

Not really, and for a very important reason. By the definition we're using, you actually have to support something before you try to take away your support. Nine times out of ten when you see organized groups of people trying to ban something, they're not fans of that thing who were disappointed by a creator. Those Internet hate mobs who tried to drive Anita Sarkesian off the Internet weren't fans who disagreed with the direction her work had taken; they were enraged trolls who didn't want to hear a woman's opinion on their precious video games. Those angry mothers who tried to ban Grand Theft Auto years ago weren't huge supporters of Rock Star who wanted their voices heard; they just wanted the company to suffer. And so on, and so forth.

The behavior of groups of people attempting to ban media or behavior they don't like is not new. We've seen it with rap music in the 90s, and heavy metal in the 80s. We saw it when Christian activists targeted tabletop roleplaying games, and when advocates for sobriety got Prohibition passed. That's not a new phenomenon, and acting like it's this weird force that was birthed from the Internet is disingenuous at best.

And I would also put forth that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Because if a bunch of people who aren't patronizing your platform are upset by what you're doing, well, who cares? They have no bargaining power (in a financial sense, anyway, people can and will do awful shit, and GamerGate is a perfect example of unfettered, horrible behavior) because they can't support you even less than they are already. And if they make enough noise, they might draw people who will support you.

Like, Follow, and Stay Tuned!

That's all for this week's Business of Writing! If you'd like to see more of my work, take a look at my Vocal archive, or at My Amazon Author Page where you can find books like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife as well as my recent collection The Rejects!

If you'd like to help support my work, then consider Buying Me A Ko-Fi, or heading over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page! Lastly, to keep up with my latest, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now on Pinterest as well!

Death of The Author, And Not Supporting Disappointing Creators

There are few things that hit us as hard as finding out the person who created a piece of work that we enjoy, and which affected us deeply, is someone on the wrong side of history. As a pulp fan I experienced this early on when I looked into the lives of H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard (which only confirmed the problematic aspects that were in the text of their works), but for a lot of other readers it can take years before their favorite creators finally let them down.

And for a lot of folks, JK Rowling is finally crossing that line as a disappointment.

That facial expression should look familiar to a lot of us.

For those who aren't in the know, Rowling has been purposefully obtuse when it comes to trans people, and trans rights. Those who've read her tweets have labeled her a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) for some time now, and that has been the breaking point for a lot of fans. Especially when one considers that the series itself is often about standing up to authority figures who tell other people what to believe, and who hold up outdated notions of right and wrong, and who gets to be respected.

This week I'd like to talk about how if you're a fan of the Potter series, you don't have to leave it behind. However, you should still think about how you choose to enjoy stories to make sure you aren't propping up someone you don't want to support.

Death of The Author

Most of us have heard the term Death of The Author, but not all of us are really clear on what it means. So, if you're not familiar, the term goes back to a 1967 essay by French critic Roland Barthes. What Barthes argued is that the author's intentions, their politics, their personal beliefs and interpretations regarding their work are irrelevant when it comes time to criticize it. A critic can only read what is on the page, not what's on the page filtered through their knowledge of the author and that author's beliefs.

That seems strange, but it was common. Really common.

The effect of this is two fold. The first is that it allows us to take the story on its own merits, and to discuss it based on what is and isn't included. Any talk of whether certain characters are gay or straight, bigoted or not, relies entirely on what we see in the story. Author's intention and, "Well, in my mind they were always..." are excluded from the discussion, which removes a lot of frustrating clutter from discussions surrounding a story.

The second effect death of the author has is that it relinquishes their hold on the story in a spiritual sense. The story is not just the property of one person's, whose sole interpretation must be regarded as the one true way of reading a text. The story belong to those who love it, and who read it, and you can love the story without loving the person who penned it.

That Author Still Gets Paid, Though...

While it's true in an intellectual sense that an author does not have the sole claim to the meaning of a story, or the ability to claim a bunch of stuff not on the page should be taken into consideration, the author usually does still have a legal right to that story.

As well as to all the merch that comes with it.

Books are just one part of the formula, after all.

That's why, even though you don't have to bury your love of a story or your enjoyment of a fandom when an author reveals their problematic nature, you do have to consider what your purchases as a consumer are funding. When you buy a book, a tee shirt, a movie, etc., some of that is going to end up back in that author's pockets.

Again, as a pulp fan, I had the advantage that most of the authors I found problematic were already dead, so I wasn't supporting them with any purchases I made. Still, it's important to consider alternative sources for your books. Whether you check them out at the library, or buy them from resale shops, that flow of money stops before the author gets any. The same is true when you buy art or crafts from smaller, independent artists. If someone at a convention is knitting Ravenclaw scarves, your purchase isn't going into Rowling's bank account; in all likelihood, it's just going to the artist so they can pay rent, buy food, etc. Fan fiction archives are legion, and fan meetups are a great way for you to come together, and bond over this thing you really love.

Just remember to be careful with your money. Death of the author may apply to their spiritual hold on a story, but it won't apply to their income unless you make the conscious choice to to that.

Also, if you're looking for alternative stories to read and enjoy, my novel Crier's Knife is still out there. Also, I've heard some very lovely things regarding K.A. Applegate, the author of the Animorphs series!

Like, Follow, and Stay Tuned!

That's all for this week's Business of Writing! If you'd like to see more of my work, take a look at my Vocal archive, or at My Amazon Author Page where you can find books like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife as well as my recent collection The Rejects!

If you'd like to help support my work, then consider Buying Me A Ko-Fi, or heading over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page! Lastly, to keep up with my latest, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now on Pinterest as well!

The Uncomfortable Sexism in Robert Jordan's Work

When most people think of Robert Jordan, they think of his Wheel of Time series. While I read the first ten books of that series (I drew the line at a character whinging for a third of an entire novel about how his wife had been kidnapped by a relatively small number of desert warriors, rather than sending a messenger to the demigod that was his childhood friend and summoning every wolf on the continent to go get her back), my first exposure to Robert Jordan as an author was actually his contribution to the Conan mythos.

This was the book, in case you were wondering.

I found The Conan Chronicles at my local library when I was in 7th or 8th grade, and when I was done chewing through that volume I grabbed the sequel, The Further Chronicles of Conan. Each of these tomes had several novels in them, all of them penned by Robert Jordan. From slaying bandits and outwitting sorcerers, to toppling thrones and splitting skulls, these books hit all the high points I was looking for as someone who was already a fan of the character, and who had read several of the classic pulp stories by other authors. I even remember thinking at the time that Jordan's stories managed to deal much more even-handedly on the very problematic depictions of race that was endemic to the era when Conan first raged onto the pulp fiction scene.

However, the me who had such a fondness for those books was a teenager who wasn't old enough to drive yet. I recently found a copy of The Further Chronicles of Conan at a convention, and out of nostalgia bought it. The more I re-read those old tales, the more I realized something... as a writer, Jordan's depictions of female characters is really problematic.

And, since I have you here, I figured I'd do an autopsy on it so we can see what we can learn.

Welcome to the Party (Better Late Than Never)

I'm aware that I'm far from the first person to have this revelation about Jordan's works. In fact, one could argue that a basic reading of the gendered magic system in the Wheel of Time setting should have been the first gigantic red flag. However, I'm willing to go a step further on this.

I often found Jordan's depictions of female characters more sexist than Robert E. Howard's were.

Damn bold thing of you to say.

Now, to be clear, Howard is still extremely problematic when it comes to many of his female characters, especially those who exist in stories alongside his most famous barbarian. His stories are replete with heaving bosoms, great sighs, and women being slaughtered for no reason other than to drive Conan into a killing frenzy. The body of work's got bugs. However, Howard's female characters often have drives, goals, motivations, and at the very least gave their consent before being ravished by the titular Cimmerian.

I can't say the same for Jordan's stories.

Jordan makes a big deal in practically every one of the six novels in those two collections that Conan will never take a woman against her will. That's spelled out to the audience repeatedly in the text in his own dialogue or inner thoughts... but immediately following that sentence we have our hulking protagonist crushing some woman to his obscenely muscled chest, and kissing her as she tries to push him away, or strike at his head.

This phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's bad enough, however, Jordan's works also take the "traditional" fantasy outfits worn by many female characters (that is to say fetishized fantasy gear for the male gaze that sold magazines back in the day), and cranked it up to 11. Howard's stories often had the serving women in diaphanous garments, or made it a point to mention the temple's maids wore revealing robes, but Jordan's stories repeatedly draw the reader's gaze back to it. Not only that, but it goes into greater, and at times almost obscene details about how tight a certain noblewoman's breeches are, or about how a certain robe clings to a character's body. Points for absurdity goes to the character of Karela the Red Hawk for dressing in what amounts to a literal chainmail bikini, while supposedly being one of the deadliest and most feared bandit leaders in this part of Turan.

Speaking of The Red Hawk...

While absurd and overly sexualized, Karela as a character (since she recurs in more than half the novels in these collections) is also ground zero for another of Jordan's bizarre habits when it comes to female characters. In short, they get instantly (and occasionally violently) wishy-washy as soon as they're in the presence of a man.

You're already thinking of character names, aren't you?

The most obvious example in his own series was the character of Nynaeve, and how whenever she was in the presence of the dark-haired warrior Lan she was immediately torn between being a strong independent woman who don't need no man, and wanting to simper and pout at him to get his attention. We also see it with the character of Min, who is a street-running, knife-throwing punk rock tomboy, but as soon as she's in a dress near a boy she likes starts arguing with herself about whether or not she should be more feminine to catch his eye.

And so on, and so forth.

It's also one of the defining features of the character of Karela, the Red Hawk. For those who haven't come across these books, The Red Hawk is the most feared bandit leader in all of Turan. There's a huge purse of gold on her head, and her men are brutal, savage, and they follow her like a pack of dogs. Also, since this is a Conan story, she is of course a beautiful red-headed woman in literal boob plate (held in place by fine chains constantly strained to their limits by the fullness of her chest, Jordan points out several times). That's par for the course in the Hyborean setting. However, as soon as Karela is manhandled by Conan (grabbed and kissed against her will as she tries to stab him, which then somehow turns into passionate sex in a gorge) she instantly becomes two different characters. One is the hard-edged, in-control, Powerful Woman... and the other is a moony-eyed wench who just wants to let go of who she is, and submit herself entirely to this Powerful Man.

This is not a momentary crisis of character; this is Karela's constant state over multiple books. The same state of attempting to be sexless and aggressive (while often still being beautiful to observers), versus being completely submissive to the will of a strong man that so many of Jordan's female characters struggle with.

Now, let's contrast Karela with another character from one of Howard's later short stories; the pirate captain Belit.

Appearing in the short story Queen of The Black Coast back in 1934, Belit is described as a beautiful woman dressed in rather revealing garments, but who is nonetheless a feared Black Coast pirate. Her crew attacks a ship Conan is a passenger on, and he kills many of the pirates rather than surrender. Conan is about to die when Belit demands her crew stop. She struts right up to him, looks him up and down, and the two of them instantly recognize the savage and barbaric instincts in the other. More importantly, Belit demands, in words, that Conan come to her, take her as his queen and lover, and the two of them will make the Black Coast tremble at their feet.

While that's a little melodramatic, and more than a little camp, at no point in time does Belit put up resistance that Conan (or any other strong male character) needs to overcome through force. She says what she wants, and becoming Conan's lover doesn't change her essential nature in any meaningful way. She is still fierce, proud, dangerous, and one night she grabs Conan by the back of his neck, looks him right in his blue, northern eyes, and tells him in no uncertain terms that if she were dead and he still fighting that hell itself would not keep her from his side.

If that sounds familiar to the speech given in the film Conan the Barbarian, that's because it was essentially lifted from this short story.

Belit is far from the only lover Conan has throughout Howard's works, and they've come in all shapes, sizes, and nationalities. From blushing maids who asked him to be their first, to jaded mercenaries, to witch women with uncertain motives, these characters were all unique in their own way. More importantly, none of them suddenly had a crisis of self when they admit they are attracted to Conan, or when they go further and are intimate with him. There were plenty of other problems in the text (especially when they came from non-Caucasian ethnicities), but this specific pitfall was one the older stories managed to avoid.

Hot Take: Make Your Characters Individuals With Agency

I've been turning this over in my head for months trying to figure out what lesson I would suggest other writers take away from this. In comparing and contrasting the two sources, my advice to anyone is to make your characters individuals, who have their own wants, goals, and agency. Because while their relationships with other characters should be important, even intimate relationships shouldn't completely define who an individual character is. And if a night of rough sex had after questionable consent turns someone into an obsessive, violent stalker, that shouldn't be written of as, "Women, am I right?"

Also, since this might still need to be said, if you want your audience to know your protagonist respects people's consent, have them use their words. If you don't, it's sort of sending the exact opposite message you're trying for.

That's all for this week's Craft of Writing! For more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, or at My Amazon Author Page where you can find books like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife!

If you'd like to help support my work, then consider Buying Me A Ko-Fi, or heading over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page! Lastly, to keep up with my latest, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now on Pinterest as well!