Political Correctness

Young Adult Fiction Author Cancels Book Publication After Social Justice Crowd Says It Isn't Woke Enough

To paraphrase Ray Bradbury, social media is full of people running around with lit matches.



A first-time author of young adult fiction, Amelie Wen Zhao, has decided not to publish her book Blood Heir after progressive critics in the YA community decided that she was guilty of a litany of crimes: racial insensitivity, plagiarism, and more.

According to two accounts of the kerfuffle—one by Jesse Singal in Tablet and another by Kat Rosenfield in Vulture—these were largely unfair smears, levelled in bad faith by social justice zealots. Rosenfield has written previously that the YA community is sometimes subsumed by "toxic drama," and Zhao's fate appears to be a prime example.

The trouble began last week, when a YA influencer claimed that Zhao was "gathering screenshots of people who don't/didn't like her book." Such behavior is far from improper, but some on the progressive left consider any attempt to engage with their tweets to be a form of harassment. (See: Jacobinghazi.)

Others accused Zhao of plagiarism because one of her characters implores another not to "go where I can't follow," which is a line from The Lord of the Rings. To my mind, this single line does not constitute plagiarism, and could even be considered an homage.

Some objected to the themes of the book, which is a sort of revisionist fantasy treatment of the legend surrounding Princess Anastasia of Russia. Some thought the book was ham-handedly referencing American chattel slavery, though as Singal writes,

based on the published tweets, no one could explain exactly what it was about Zhao's treatment of the subject that was offensive. "[I]t is also HIGHLY troubling that no one in the process of publishing or editing Blood Heir saw a story about slavery, trafficking, and race relations and thought to bring in a sensitivity reader, or even several," noted one member of the community who didn't level any specific critiques about the book's handling of these subjects. "[T]o put something that resembles chattel slavery SO CLOSELY is distasteful," opined another, the implication being this simply isn't a subject to be written about. Among other critics, there seemed to be a lack of understanding that "slavery" doesn't mean "American slavery" and that the concept has a broader context and history than that. "[R]acist ass writers, like Amélie Wen Zhao, who literally take Black narratives and force it into Russia when that shit NEVER happened in history—you're going to be held accountable," said one contributor to the pile-on. "Period." (Parenthetical after the period: Russia has its own recent history of what is certainly one strain of slavery)….

I didn't have access to an advanced copy of the book and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything so I emailed Oh, the YA writer whose tweets to Zhao as a fellow author of Asian descent had castigated her for her lack of awareness and cultural context. Oh has read the book, and to her credit, given that we had been arguing about this on Twitter, she sent me a thoughtful and civil response, but one that didn't really contain any new or compelling evidence Blood Heir can be fairly called a racist book.

Of course, some on the progressive left balk at any attempt to blend different cultural settings and traditions, or tell new stories that are inspired by rituals or clothing belonging to an ethnic group of which the author is not a member. Some even complain if any of a book's characters are repugnant—even if the point is to shed light on those characters' odiousness. (Singal and Rosenfield both point to a previous social media outrage concerning the YA book The Black Witch, derided as racist because some of the evil characters did in fact do racist things.)

It's Zhao's book, and she can decide not to publish it if she no longer wants to. This was to be the first volume in a trilogy for which the author received a $500,000 advance, so opting not to publish is going to cost her quite a lot of money. But given how off-base these criticisms were, it seems like a terrible shame to capitulate to them.

Last year my colleague Eric Boehm argued that our society resembles Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Boehm pointed out that the famous science fiction novel is misremembered as a mere warning against government censorship. In fact, it's a treatise against the sort of society where everything that provokes anyone is deemed problematic. Bradbury wasn't worried that the government would start burning books out of nowhere; he worried that people would demand the bonfires. Censorship grow out of political correctness, weaponized by each aggrieved person against everyone else.

"There is more than one way to burn a book, and the world is full of people running about with lit matches," Bradbury wrote. In our age of daily, context-free viral outrages, it's a prescient warning.

NEXT: Atlanta Spent $23 Million Building a Pedestrian Bridge for the Super Bowl That Pedestrians Can't Use

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. She is probably a libtard who was foisted upon her own petard by her own kind, so I am just going to sit back and laugh and watch the left eat their own.

    1. We need a new expression: foisted upon her own libtard

    2. It’s “hoist”, BTW.

      1. Works either way for me

    3. Must be, because otherwise she’d have to laugh and take it in stride. It’s not like Rush Limbaugh cares what the critics say about his goofy historical fiction books where he inserts his Mary Sue.

  2. Here’s your YA fiction: a bunch of SJW tweens take on the world and finally rid it of every bad, nasty, mean thing ever, so they can happily spend the rest of their lives in silence, smiling and drooling at each other, free of oppression.

    Go with that.

    1. Well, they would have to look at each other since their iphones would no longer work.

      1. “… since their iphones would no longer work.”

        Fine! Grumble … grumble.

        “and finally rid it of every bad, nasty, mean thing ever, AND resurrect Steve Jobs so he can run Apple the Way it Was Meant to Be!”


    2. The society in Demolition Man is basically a progressive dream.

      1. Ha, I made that same reference the other day.

      2. One of the most prescient movies ever made.
        It fills me with happy happy joy joy feelings, which helps hold the murderdeathkill urges at bay

    3. Marvel’s Runaways?

      1. Unless the TV-adaption went in a very different direction, the Runaways have never really had a happy ending. So that TV-adaption caveat aside, no.

        That said, there was a run of Young Avengers that ended with a big ol’ non-adults-only party after they saved the multiverse from a threat that adults literally couldn’t see. That was also the one where America Chavez calls out Kate’s straight-cred.

        1. My main beef with the first season was that the whole season was literally just preamble and prologue setting up for the actual plot, which I’m guessing maybe starts in season 2? It’s pretty quirky but aimed at a younger audience so it never really clicked with me. Also it’s way over-stylized and probably won’t age well, but what do I know? I’m not tempted to pay $8 a month for Hulu just to see if it gets better.

      2. Mmmm, Runaway.

        Tom Selleck, missile bullets, and robot spiders.

        With Special Guest . . . GENE SIMMONS!

  3. I am dumfounded she would do this. Writing a book is a big deal. Every wannabe writer is always going to write a novel and very few people actually do. And most people who do write crap that is never published. That someone would go to the effort of writing a novel that turns out to be good enough to not only be published but have some actual media talk about it before it is even published and then not publish it because of some assholes on Twitter is just unbelievable.

    I would really like to hear more about why she is doing this. I would have sex with Nancy Pelosi as my parents watched for a $500,000 advance on a novel. How can she walk away from that because of a bunch of SJW assholes? Pissing those people off is a bonus. I would take $250,000 rather than $500,000 if doing so allowed me to piss those animals off. This entire thing is just unbelievable. There has to be something else going on.

    1. I would have sex with Nancy Pelosi as my parents watched for a $500,000 advance on a novel.

      What would you do for $1,000,000?

      What would you do for $25,000?

      What would you do for $50?

      1. Nothing for $50. Not a lot for $25,000. A million is negotiable.

        1. You cuck. I’d eat her ass for the story.

          1. My wife would eat you alive. Good luck. You will send her back. Trust me.

            1. You’re married to Nancy Pelosi?

              1. These kinds of negotiations going on here will get Reason.com banned for being a “sex slave” trade site!!!

                Now y’all cut it out!!!!

                1. Under resurrected Comstock Law republicanism, that is not at all farfetched.

                  1. Habk Phillips once again demonstrating he has no knowledge of the current zeitgeist and instead falls back on ancient, and no longer relevant tropes. It seems the sex trade laws were passed with bipartisan support and praised by the progressive left. But keep it up Hank, don’t let facts stand in the way of you making yourself look like an uninformed idiot.

                  2. resurrected Comstock Law republicanism
                    The Republicans are trying to make birth control available over the counter, and the Democrats oppose that, and that means Republicans support Comstock Law principles?

                    Do you live in a mirror world Hank? Is today opposite day?

              2. A revelation that would pose more questions than it might answer.

            2. Holy shit, John is married? Why are we only learning about this now?

              1. Holy shit, John is married? Why are we only learning about this now?

                This is not new information.

        2. John, what would your novel be about? Give us a taste. Crusty needs to cleanse his palate.

          1. Hopefully very attractive and highly sexed lesbians. Porno-type though, not the IRL junk.

        3. This is the greatest subthread in H&R history.

          1. You would have loved the Sugarfree years.

      2. “Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
        Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
        Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

      3. Would you do Pelosi for $1,000,000?
        Would you do Pelosi for $25,000?
        Would you do Pelosi for $50?
        Would you do Pelosi for $5000?
        Would you do Pelosi for $10,000?

        I’m so gross…

        1. Specifics count… Can I wear a blindfold? If so… $5,000 ain’t so bad! And nobody said I have to do a good job. I could always just “save up” my man juices for a week or two so it’ll be over in all of 2 mintues!

    2. Agree. Can’t be real.

    3. I would have sex with Nancy Pelosi as my parents watched for a $500,000 advance on a novel.

      *** starts GoFundMe for John ***

      1. I think we’ll have to add quite a bit to cover the amount if lube needed, because I am pretty sure that is one dried up bitch.

        1. Ahem. John can take it out of the $500K.

          1. The promoters have to cover the costs or no deal.

            1. If we are covering the cost, I stipulate that we also webcast it and heavily promote it.

              1. Also in the contract are we stipulating with or without a paper bag?

                1. For John – paper. For Pelosi – plastic.

                  1. Ok, I laughed.

                  2. That was where I was going.

          2. I know a guy who can hook John up with a 55 gallon drum of lube. Just Sayin’.

          3. If he has to pay for this own lube he won’t have anything left!

        2. So dried up she’s gone to seed.

          1. Literally like pounding sand.

        3. He never specified who was gonna get penetrated.

          1. Well, he’ll probably want lube in either case. Unless he isn’t opposed to taking it dry. Maybe he likes it that way.

      2. We’re talking full intercourse right? Cause in front of the parents would cause most people some issues. Maybe if your mom’s hot though.

      3. How much for a threesome with Pelosi and Hillary.

        1. A golf buddy asked the question “which would you rather do, eat HIllary’s pussy or the asshole of a dog?” I said the dog, because I know it’s only got just dogshit in it.

    4. Yeah, I don’t understand either maybe she’s just going to tweak it with a bunch of white cis hetro male villians and lgtbxyz antifa femist poc heros and then publish.

      1. Pretty much.

    5. For $500 grand, I would have sex with Harry Reid while my parents watched.

      That is some serious money.

      1. Nice entrance, Lurker Kurt.

      2. How much would you pay to not watch your parents have sex with Harry?

      3. For 500k, I’d have sex with your parents while Harry Reid watched.

    6. You have weird fantasies, John.

      1. Would you care to share your normal fantasies?

        1. Apparently, it’s trying to give away free love and not getting any takers.

    7. She’s Chinese. Did she grow up in China, with the idea that if something gets a lot of criticism, it is effectively forbidden, and the right thing to do is always to back down?

    8. Would you have sex with your parents while Nancy Pelosi watched?

  4. So slavery never happened in Russia? Do these people literally not know the word Slav was given to them by Germanic people, notably Scandinavians because they were targeted for the slave trade? Also, serfdom, which was pretty much chattel slavery existed in Russia into the early 20th century, it was the last European country to abolish this form of slavery.

    1. Slavery only happened in Amerika Hitler.

      1. Yep, Hitler led the Confederate states in the Civil War, before planning the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

        1. Did he plan the attack on PH before or after he founded the most powerful organization in our country, the KKK?

          1. I thought the most powerful organization was the NRA?
            I just can’t keep up anymore; maybe I need two keyboards?

            1. NRA=KKK didn’t you know?

              1. I know socialists try to pull that lie off, but they then need to explain all the black drug dealers killing black drug dealers with guns. Is T-Bone a KKK member? Sounds like a movie to me – – – –

                1. Or the fact that the NRA sued Texas because it was denying concealed carry permita to African Americans (they joined the ACLU for that one when the ACLU actually stood for something). Or the fact that Karl Malone was on their board of directors. Etc.

            2. It’s not white peoples fault that most of the other ethnicities in the USA are a bunch of faggot cucks and don’t like guns! Outside of their criminal elements of course.

              Seriously, WTF is wrong with Asians and shit? Guns are friggin’ sweet.

              My theory on gun rights being turned to dogshit in most peoples minds is that it is entirely because of urbanization. City dwellers just don’t have the opportunity to have fun with/use them for useful things, so without the familiarity, they’re all irrationally terrified for no reason.

      2. No, seriously.

        America is the only place that every had slavery. You can look that up. Google that stuff. Go ahead..

        And black people are the only people who were ever slaves. Because racism is unique to the African American experience, and is solely because of white racism. That’s a fact. You can look that up. Go ahead… google that stuff.

        You need to check your white privilege and go get educated.

        1. It’s funny, but there are biblical apologists who make claims pretty close to what you’re facetiously making here.

          Basically, they argue that because slavery, as practiced in America in the 18th and 19th centuries, is very different in form then slavery, as practiced in in the ancient world (Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, Mediterranean. Circa 2000 BC to 1000 AD), that you shouldn’t treat the Bible’s statements on slavery (ancient variety) to say anything at all about slavery (American variety).

          It’s a sophistic argument intended to deflect criticism of the Bible for it’s pro-slavery passages.

          But long story short, there are serious, presumably sincere, people who think we shouldn’t treat all slavery as the same and that American slavery was uniquely evil and horrible and so unlike the morally acceptable ancient slavery the Old Testament talks about.

          This doesn’t say much about the current topic, but I like sharing.

          1. HL Mencken offered a cash reward to anyone able to identify a passage in the Bauble speaking ill of slavery. No takers, and this was odd because the magazine also collected sth like 1000 reports of soldiers who would have died had not their breast pocket Bauble stopped the Hun’s bullet.

            1. HL Mencken offered a cash reward to anyone able to identify a passage in the Bauble speaking ill of slavery.

              Besides the Book of Exodus?

              1. Don’t ruin their ignorant internet atheist circle jerk.

                1. Eh, the point of my little anecdote was not to make any claims as to what the Bible does or doesn’t support (let the apologists hash that one out), it was to point out that what Cyto said in jest, has been very nearly said by others seriously.

                  “Fact weirder then fiction” and all that jest.

              2. Besides the Book of Exodus?
                Asshole, destroying the narrative like that. Next your going to quote Corinthians 7:21 or something, jerk.

          2. And the slavery happening in modern Africa is what again?

            1. Mostly not talked about. We’re Americans, it takes a lot before we pay attention to anything outside our borders.

              1. I would ask if honestly most 1st world countries really pay much more than lip service attention to what goes on outside their own borders (second and third world probably pay even less as their main focus is on survival, at least for the majority of their population)? Most people have only superficial, bumper sticker understanding of other countries and cultures.

            2. If Obama and Hillary had a baby, it would look like the slave trade returning to Libya

          3. The rules of slavery as laid out in the Bible were fairly benign and humanitarian, compared to many of their contemporaries.

            1. The Jewish Old Testament bit anyway.

              The New Testament focuses on how we are slaves to sin, but that Christ has bought humanity’s freedom and liberated us from it. The biblical imagery of freedom from the bondage of sin, was applied to physical bondage by William Wilberforce and other early abolitionist.
              It’s no secret that the abolitionist movement and the early evangelical movement were one and the same thing. The same applied to the evangelicals and the civil rights movement in the US.

              It’s absolutely insane how modern anti-theists get away with blaming low-church Christianity for slavery and opposition to emancipation when the opposite was true. Particularly since it’s biggest proponents of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries were the “Unchurched” and the Deists.

              I suppose this is why the post-modernists oppose historicity. It ruins the narrative.
              Just look at how Tony forms his hatreds.

          4. But here’s the thing… ARE all forms of slavery wrong?

            I don’t think so.

            I am 110% okay with permanently enslaving, and ACTUALLY putting to brutal work, legitimate criminals. Like child rapists or whatever. I have no problem with that. What about violent communist revolutionaries who actively took up arms and brutalized your population in an attempt to overthrow the government? They’re kinda legit soldeiers, but kinda political prisoners too… Perhaps limited term brutal slavery is in order? Etc.

            Other ancient ways, like simply enslaving an entire defeated army, or taking random people as slaves from a territory are a lot dicier… But there may even be situations outside of the above that are valid.

            1. That said, I DESTROY people who try to trot out the bullshit “Only white people ever enslaved people!” nonsense.

              My main points I usually bring up are: The entire ancient world, everywhere had slaves.

              The Arabs not only enslaved more blacks than whites did, but ALSO enslaved MORE WHITES than whites did blacks. They also castrated 100% of their black slaves.

              Blacks and Arabs still had slavery AFTER every single white country had outlawed it, and the British literally fought wars to end slavery in Africa, and fought the caste system in India.

              And finally, I ask them who the last people to own slaves in the United States were… I then inform them that it was actually Indians in the western states, who gladly held other Indians, white, or blacks as slaves.

              I don’t think I’ve ever had anybody still giving me lip by the end of that list. If I ever do… Well they’re clearly a moron.

              1. Yes, the “five civilized” tribes continued, legally to own slaves for decades after the civil war. I understand that they were fairly brutal slave owners too.

                1. Yup. The moral of the story: People in general are dicks, not just white people.

    2. What these people literally do not know is stunning.

      Also, on the link to the Cornell U library, showing a map of Soviet forced labor camps:
      “Maps of the Soviet forced labor camps, the “Gulag,” are some of the most dramatic and best-known Western propaganda images of the Cold War, among “the most widely-circulated pieces of anti-Communist literature.”

      Propaganda? Fuck Cornell.

      1. It’s astounding really.

      2. Technically speaking Cornell is right, it is propaganda under the purest definition of the word, however, that doesn’t mean the pictures are inaccurate. The best propaganda is that which is also undeniably true.

        1. Yeah, this. Propaganda is just information circulated to support a certain position or policy. It can be, and often is, true.

        2. The best lies are those that resemble the truth.

          1. It’s a bell curve. Lies that closely resemble the truth are effective. So are lies that are so outrageous that people can’t believe anyone would make that shit up. Wishy-washy lies in the middle, neither easily believable nor so unbelievable they must be true, are ineffective.

    3. That was against white privileged people, but black unprivileged people, so it doesn’t count.

    4. The Greeks got a lot of slaves from Russia. They were a prime source when the Egyptians were still the major player, way before the Romans even learned to write weird numbers.

      At least that’s my memory of ancient histories I have read. But slavery was pretty much the norm everywhere in one form or another.

      One thing I only learned recently was that the surge in black slavery only came about once Vasco de Gama opened up routes to West Africa and sugar cane in South America and the Caribbean increased demand for cheap labor; East Africa was not as populated, the Arabs were too few to need many slaves, and everyone else got all the slaves they needed from the age-old usual sources.

      1. Maybe brush up on your ancient history

      2. Actually, the Arab world enslaved FAR more blacks than whites did, and over a longer period of time. They also castrated all their black slaves (keepin’ it old school!). They also enslaved more white people than whites did blacks. The Arabs LOVED them some slavery. They also kept slavery legal until after all western countries had outlawed it.

        But yeah, people usually just enslaved whoever they happened to come across/war with. Irish slaves were very popular with the vikings!

        1. From what I understand slavery is still practiced in much of the middle East despite being technically illegal.

          1. So they say. There are also several African countries where it is widely practiced. Too lazy to google, but one country the UN even says something like 20-30% of the population is effectively in a form of slavery.

    5. Actually, it was the other way around: the word “slave” came from the name of the people, who lacked a strong state in the Dark Ages to protect them from slave raiding. Slavs named themselves from the word “slovo”, meaning “word” or “language”– ie people who spoke language. In contrast, their Western neighbors were “nemtsy”, “dumb people”– ie those who did not understand language.

  5. Why should *fiction*, much less *fantasy fiction*, be held to, um, moral standards?

    If you don’t like the themes or the characters, don’t read it.

    1. Lovecon89 will never get a high school diploma with that kind of attitude.

    2. If you don’t like the themes or the characters, don’t read it.

      You think that’s going to stop SJWs from infiltrating the genre and then killing it off like the parasites they are?

  6. Oh look, America’s favorite white male millennial writer steps back to take a sober look at an issue that he has a white male has business opining about, and I wonder what his conclusion will be?

    Yeah, I am not even going to bother reading this one.


    1. Excellent privilege-checking. Well done!

      Except you didn’t admit to your own racism. So you need to do some more privilege checking. You gotta acknowledge your own racism, man….

  7. Amelie hardly seems insensitive – far from it:

    “BLOOD HEIR is written with a diverse cast, many of which are beloved and dear to a third-culture kid like myself….
    All of them are outcasts; all of them are displaced, somewhat, by the sole virtue of being who they are….
    BLOOD HEIR is an examination of what makes us different from those around us….
    It is a journey of self-acceptance, and a realization that we cannot change who we are or what we are born with, but we can choose what we do with what we are given. It is a story of friendship and love that extend beyond prejudices. And above all, it is a call to action: a message to young readers that it is our choices, not our birthright or race or title, that ultimately define us. Each of us has the choice ? and more than that, the responsibility ? to stand up and fight for what we believe is right.

    We live in a world where I see so many others hurting, like me; where I see fear used as a weapon by those who choose to hate; where I see the age-old monster of prejudice drawing lines between those who are different.”


    1. a message to young readers that it is our choices, not our birthright or race or title, that ultimately define us. Each of us has the choice ? and more than that, the responsibility ? to stand up and fight for what we believe is right.

      I found the problem.

      1. it is our choices, not our birthright or race or title, that ultimately define us.

        Yep. Heresy. Extreme right-wing propaganda. Burn the Nazi.

      2. There’s no room for identity politics.

      3. What she doesn’t realize is that it IS our birthright and race that ultimately define us!

        I think many libertarians are being VERY slow to realize that this hardwired biological imperative HAS NOT ever really been overridden, and everything built upon the premise that it can be is doomed to fail.

        We PRETENDED that things like race/culture etc didn’t matter for a few decades, while ignoring that it very much DOES matter. Now that things have returned to business as usual, white civilization is being utterly destroyed by all the non whites we foolishly allowed into our lands.

        It would be NICE if that shit didn’t matter… But at the end of the day it easily trumps bullshit platitudes about how none of it is real or it doesn’t matter.

        This will be the downfall of the west, and considered one of the greatest follies in human history by the Chinese when they’re running the world in 100 years. That is IF whites don’t figure this out soon enough to save our civilizations. We’ll see…

    2. I prefer the prequel BLOOD HAIR, a journey of self-absorption, and a realization that we cannot change who we are or what we’re born with (like XX, XY), but we can choose to make things good and bloody for everyone who fucks with us, the way Nancy Allen and John Travolta did in Carrie.

  8. I think it would be easier to work in this environment if we could codify the rules. Perhaps our progressive friends on the right could put their Internet Hayes Code into writing.

    1. Well now you know that will never happen; much better to leave that field of grievance wide open and easily applied as and when needed.

      1. They do prefer their rules to be living. Makes persecution easier when the standard is adjustable.

    2. I meant on the left, but given their increasingly creepy behavior “on the right” works well too.

      1. If you could provide evidence of the increasingly creepy behavior from the right?

      2. Such as?

    3. The rules are already “codified”.

      “He who writes the check, makes the rules.”

      Simply put, the only thing that stopped this book from getting published as originally planned is the author over-reacting to criticism. I have seen nothing suggesting the publisher cared about the fuss and forced it.

      That she cares and has chosen to delay things (whether to let things die-down, or for re-writes/edits) is her choice, but it’s not because she violated any “rules”. Because the only “rules” that matter is the publisher’s willingness to publish.

    4. When books of etiquette first came out, aristocrats were aghast that traitors were giving away the secret handshakes that would allow new money posers to infiltrate polite society. The last thing “our progressive friends” would want is for their rules to be clear and available so that just anyone could pass for woke.

    5. The problem is that this really is roaming bands of only vaguely associated groups, which are in turn made up of individuals. They rarely belong to something as codified as a party or movement with a manifesto. There’s things you could perhaps call individuals out on, as an individual generally has a stance, but in aggregate it’s a million moving parts that does not necessarily agree with each other on everything.

      So, basically, they’re individuals doing individual actions.

      1. Progressives are very much a hive mind, and rarely individuals (Tony provides an occasional exception, though he’s still very much a type).
        But just because they are a hive mind does not mean that the hive is of one mind

  9. You know who else-

    Crud. This one’s too on the nose for even me.

  10. Slate has an article that’s quite skeptical of the Twitter mob criticism. So let’s not accuse the entire left of being on board with this nonsense. Apparently the black character at the center of the accusations of anti-blackness isn’t even black?

    1. From what I read in other summaries of this story, she’s described as “tawny” or “bronze” which is pretty ambiguous. But apparently a couple black YA writers interpreted this as meaning she was black and according to some people I saw on Twitter, if a black person thinks a character is black-coded, they must be right.

      I’m still astounded that there’s this much outrage over what essentially amounts to (as far as I can tell): A fantasy world where racism doesn’t exist but slavery does (which apparently is bad because it steals black narratives and enforces the idea that racism doesn’t exist in our world?) and a supporting character who may or may not be black has a dramatic death scene. I challenge anybody to write a fantasy story that mentions race and doesn’t somehow send problematic messages in this crowd’s mind (and of course if race is not mentioned that in and of itself would be problematic).

      1. That racism is a component of slavery is kind of a peculiarity of the end of slavery in the West. Slavery from Greco-Roman times used to be that anyone could be made a slave. It was Christian ethics steadily reducing what sort of person could be enslaved that theories of racial superiority became the justification for keeping black Africans as the last class that could be kept as slaves.

        1. “Christian ethics”? Surely you can do better than that. Slavery is and always was a byproduct of wars and economics. Conquering a region or a country meant conquering its people, and conquered people were ordinarily enslaved. As expansion went south, the regions and countries to be conquered were populated mainly by black people, who therefore became subject to slavery. The slave trade blossomed there for the simple reason that black people in Africa had no meaningful public advocates. All that said, it was the Christian ethics of Queen Victoria that led to the abolition of the slave trade for Britain.

          1. Well, Christian ethics and the rise of machinery that made most of the slave trade as practiced by Britain obsolete. And the fact that their control over India meant they didn’t officially need slaves in order to acquire the unfinished goods that slaves were usually used to obtain.

            1. It was “Christian Ethics” that brought about the abolition movement in Britain, and the US. Slavery was abolished in England, and the Empire, long before it was fully Industrialized.

              You seem like a colossal idiot

              1. One of the things people get wrong about Britian is that Britian was a enthusiastic part of the slave economy until after the Napoleonic wars. One of the reasons slavery came to America, while it was a British colony was because the crown encouraged it. In fact, contrary to popular belief, England didn’t exactly end slavery in 1833 and practiced slavery in some colonies (albeit it using such techniques as blackbirding as it was called) into the 20th century. And the treatment of the Irish and to a slightly lesser extent the Scottish wasn’t exactly what you would describe as free.

                1. Pretty much.

                  I still don’t get all the whining. Everybody enslaved anybody they could. Blacks held white slaves in North Africa, as did Arabs.

                  Strangely you don’t see white people bitching like little girls about it.

                  All these people are just a bunch of pussy sore losers because their ancestors got punked in the last round of massive global conquest. Deal with it pussies! The Arabs overran half of Europe for fucks sake, and took tons of slaves home. Mongols slaughtered Europeans too. Etc etc etc.

                  That’s just how shit goes down. Man up, and quit whining. Otherwise we may have to have a repeat just to shut you all up! *GASP*

          2. I am meant that chattel slavery of Europeans by Europeans was largely being eliminated because most Europeans were Christian and the Church discouraged enslaving fellow Christians. Subsaharan Africans were safely heathen and fair game.

            The slave trade that developed in West Africa was remarkably similar to the Viking slave trade in Ireland in the Medieval period, with the endlessly fighting clans selling captives to the outside group.

            1. Ah, I see what you’re saying.

              I was just about to go all William Wilberforce/John Brown on your ass.

            2. Let us not forget the invention of indentured servitude! That was a nifty little legal device to get around that sort of silly thinking! 🙂

        2. “It was Christian ethics steadily reducing what sort of person could be enslaved that theories of racial superiority became the justification for keeping black Africans as the last class that could be kept as slaves.”

          All I hear is “I know nothing about the abolitionist movement in America. Like at all.” Maybe it was that same Christian ethic that led the Catholic Church to condemn slavery in the 1500’s? It must have been a ploy or something.

          1. I was referring to the Church discouraging Christians enslaving other Christian’s, which largely eliminated European on European chattel slavery once the Norsemen were Christianized.

            1. So we’re ignoring that slaves became Chirstian? Voodoo is one such offshoot, by the way.

              1. No, Christianizing the heathen was originally why it was allowed, once that proved unsustainable was why the justification evolved into notions of racial inferiority.

            2. Slavery was replaced with serfdom during the high middle ages. Serfdom was slavery in all but name. You had little to no protectiona under the law, belonged to your Lord and was bound to him, you could be traded or sold to another Lord, and you had no rights as a Serf.

              1. Serfdom was not quite slavery, the lord had reciprocal duties to the serf, and the rules had varying degrees of harshness from England to Russia. Again, we are talking about a cultural evolution on human rights and individual dignity over several centuries.

    2. “Slate has an article”

      Who cares.

      1. Slate would publish articles supporting raising kids for food, if they thought it would further assist their political tribe to do so.

    3. “” So let’s not accuse the entire left of being on board with this nonsense.””

      That would be a fallacy of generalization. Which, btw is one of the anti-Trumper’s favorite tools. Along with guilt by association.

      The left loves doing it to others, they can’t complain when it’s done to them.

  11. Zhao is a sniveling coward. If she likes totalitarianism so much she should go back to communist China.

  12. Also, The Lord of the Rings? Shouldn’t that book make these people’s heads explode upon its mere mention? Almost no women characters, enemies that are thinly veiled racial caricatures, not a single bisexual trans elf that I’m aware of.

    1. Tony sees a hideous evil creature in a movie and thinks “those are black people”. Yet he remains convinced that everyone but him is racist.

      1. If minorities are portrayed as monsters, then monsters symbolize minorities.

        QED, racist!

      2. I was really expecting him to take a more anti-theist tone. LOTR and Narnia are both think veiled Christian Biblical stories/themes. Disney ruined the Chronicles of Narnia because they tried to do away with Lewis’s Christian themes. Jackson down played them in the LOTR, which I felt was a disservice. The accusations that LOTR is racist I find are generally from those who have never read the books but have only seen the movies.

        1. It takes an exceptionally damaged, intellectually deficient individual like Tony to look at a work of fiction that is expressly not based on the real world, but in fact is based on a totally created reality, and then insist that the fake reality is a map for actual reality.

          I get that themes may have some real world resonance, but fuck man it’s a FANTASY, close reading it is moronic.

          1. The biggest theme, besides Christianity and good vs evil, was the dangers of industrialized war. Gee why would a decorated veteran from WWI (British at that) write about the dangers of industrialized war if it isn’t racism?

        2. If you knew ANYTHING about C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, you would not have written this. Lewis would agree, Tolkien would absolutely not agree at all. Does the author’s opinion matter, might be a relevant question.

          1. Except he stated that undoubtedly the LOTR, and all the tales of Middle Earth had Catholic themes, originally unintentionally but purposely in later works. In fact he stated he specifically placed them in during the second revision, Tolkeins letter 142 for reference.

            1. So who is it that Tolkein’s words disagree with, since in his own letters on the subject state he purposely included Catholic themes in the works?

              1. The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic
                work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or
                have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the
                imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However
                that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have
                consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I
                was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to
                my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty
                resulting from it.

                Exert from letter 142 to Father Robert Murray, SJ 1944.

      3. John reacts with lurching defensiveness even when I was being obviously sarcastic, yet only liberals are racists because they hate white people.

        1. Filed under “shit that never happened.”

          1. Shit that did happen, however, is that LOTR is a little bit racist. But it’s okay because it’s old.

            1. You are fucking stupid Tony.

              1. Water is wet, Tulpa

            2. Example please?

            3. Orc-phobic.

              Oh, and while it’s not necessarily relevant (like that stops anyone) – WTF is it with the Drow? And do they still have that rule where you can be a half-orc but not a full-blooded orc?

      4. I think he was trying to be funny.

    2. No womxn characters? Eowyn slew the witch-king of Angmar. Galadriel was the ruler of Lothlorien and described as the mightiest and fairest elf left in middle earth.

    3. >>not a single bisexual trans elf that I’m aware of.

      Ha! Very funny!!

      Is this the real Tony or some imposter?

      1. Tony is generally pretty good on free speech and censorship stuff. Just because someone is wrong about most things it doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything.

    4. “”not a single bisexual trans elf that I’m aware of.”‘

      Someone sounds disappointed.

    5. The cave trolls were white.

    6. “not a single bisexual trans elf”

      How could you tell?

  13. The only thing more offensive and outrageous than her characters, is Trump.

    1. You really can’t help yourself, can you? Just once I’d like to see you say something relevant

      1. You sound like a whiny bitch.

        All good now?

  14. Just more proof that the lefties are the censors, not the religious right like the medial tells us non-stop.

  15. Common phrases that are basic expressions of simple ideas that can easily be independently arrived at, spoken or written (“The rains came”) cannot be copyrighted.

    “Carter resolved to go with bold entreaty whither no man had gone before ….”
    — H.P. Lovecraft, “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath” 1927

    “… To boldly go where no man has gone before ….”
    — Star Trek: the Original Series 1966

    1. “Others accused Zhao of plagiarism because one of her characters implores another not to “go where I can’t follow,” which is a line from The Lord of the Rings.”

      Never in the history of literature one character has asked another character: Don’t go where I cant follow?
      Except in Lord of the Rings? That might be the first time some readers read the sentiment maybe, but is a stretch to call it either a plagiarism or homage.

      On the other hand, if Zhao cannot take unfair baseless criticism from self-righteous crusaders she should avoid publishing literature.The cruft comes with the turf.

    2. There’s also such a thing as a literary reference.

  16. I tried to to follow the attached document on Jacobinghazi and holy fuck is it hard to follow what these people were all accusing each other of.

    This culture and die in the ash heaps. What a waste of human potential.

  17. As a left-libertarian and social justice advocate, I see nothing wrong with any of this. If Drumpf’s government had stepped in and legally prevented the publication of a book, I’d find that troubling. But that isn’t what happened here.

    Potential customers politely informed the author of the problematic nature of her work, and she’s listening to the criticism and trying to do better. This is the free market in action. We Koch / Reason libertarians should celebrate.

    1. Talk to Tony; he seems to be quite on board.

      1. Tony and I tend to agree on almost everything except the minimum wage and billionaire tax rates. (He would raise both; I wouldn’t.)

    2. “As a left-libertarian and social justice advocate”

      Nice. More oxymoron’s and contradictions in only eight words than I could manage.

      Beats: ‘I am not bothering anyone’ hands down.

  18. Publish the book!
    Never apologize, it’s a sign of weakness.

    Welcome to the revolution.

  19. “Where I go you can’t follow”

    Rick Blaine

    Tolkein, another cultural appropriator. This must stop now if not sooner.

  20. Such behavior is far from improper, but some on the progressive left consider any attempt to engage with their tweets to be a form of harassment.

    Yeah, that’s not how struggle sessions work. When you’re being harshly criticized for your lack of wokeness, it’s not a debate or a dialog, nobody wants to hear your “arguments” or “excuses”, there are no arguments or excuses for your wrongthink. You must realize that these people are lecturing you for your own good so that you can see the error of your ways and repent of your sins – they do this because they are filled with love and compassion and care deeply about you. And don’t think for one second that groveling and begging for forgiveness is sufficient to make up for your transgressions, that’s just the first step on a thousand-mile journey of wokeness. Some day, after years of participating in and even leading struggle sessions against the heathen unwoke perhaps you shall be accepted as one of us, but you damn well watch your step, you’re on notice that we’re watching you.

  21. From everything I’ve seen, the issue really is that the author over-reacted.

    People criticizing stuff? Normal.
    Author not liking it? Normal.
    Author possibly cancelling, more likely pushing back publishing to give more time for edits and re-writes? Most likely an over-reaction.

    Trying to make bigger cultural claims from one person’s over-reaction seems like a stretch to me.

    That said, what would y’all do? Even if you think the critics were wrong, Free Speech, yo. And the answer to bad speech is more speech. That the author didn’t take criticism well shouldn’t be a sin for the critics.

    Do you want a culture where people are afraid to voice their criticisms of things because they’re afraid someone will throw a tantrum? What is it y’all are looking for here?

    1. Cool. So, you’re good with the Christian Right doing this shit with books that offend their sensibilities, right? Or, nah, you just are good with your religion imposing its own beliefs, but not others?

      1. So, you’re good with the Christian Right doing this shit with books that offend their sensibilities, right?


        I pretty much rolled my eyes and ignored it when they went ape-shit on Harry Potter, roll my eyes and ignored it when the whine-boys complaining about how Star Wars was going “full Feminazi”, roll my eyes and ignored it when Million Moms objects to everything from a gay couple included in a montage to a “Shipped my Pants” commercial.

        So long as it’s just speech, I might think it’s stupid, but I don’t really care. When I start to care is when you’re talking about pulling books from libraries.

        I mean, if you look really hard (and know the other screen names I’ve used since the 90s) you might be able to go way back and find something I said in high school or early college to the contrary, but my Free Speech views have been pretty constant for a good long while now.

        1. All the examples that you used were complaints. There were not organized campaigns to end printing for Harry Potter before it was even published or any of the other examples that you used. If the Religious Right had organized a campaign to stop publication of Harry Potter before it came out you would no doubt hold the opposite opinion of what you are stating now.

          1. Yeah, no. Even if it raises to the level of an organized boycott, I’m still A-OK with it. Boycotts are speech dude.

            That said, it was a self-righteous circle-jerk on Twitter by an insular group that regularly goes off the rails. They have about as much real-world influence as One Million Moms.

            That said, neither of the articles linked to by Soave claims that the twitter mob was trying to stop publication. The second one explicitly says things didn’t get that far. So all you have is that people complained obnoxiously.

            So swing and a miss dude. Like Zhao, you’re blowing this out of proportion.

            1. Looking forward to your inevitable complaints the next time conservatives announce some useless boycott. You religious zealots are all the same in your hypocrisy.

              1. Whatever helps you remember me.

                That said, Reason doesn’t really cover conservative boycotts very often. They have to be pretty unusual or unique in some way before Reason will do a story on ’em. So if you really want to see me comment on one, you’d be better suited e-stalking me to a different site that does a more consistent job of reporting on conservative culture warriors.

                And even then, you’ll probably be disappointed. Because frankly while Joe.My.God. does regularly report on the antics of One Million Moms, I don’t tend to comment on them. Because I really don’t care.

                1. “That said, Reason doesn’t really cover conservative boycotts very often.”

                  You cosmos are delusional. I’ll give you that.

                  1. @Just Say’n

                    Meaning “cosmopolitan” or “cosmotarian”? I mean, neither is correct, but I’m curious just how wrong you are about me.

                2. That’s because conservatives don’t boycott very often, though they really should. It’s speech, right? Google it!

            2. It was an “insular group”. And there are evangelical pastors who declaim far too much. But don’t confuse them with the body of Christ that you loosely lump under the banner of “religious right”. By and large we are people who have opinions on things people do, but do not condemn them or seek public answers to their behaviors. Ultimately each person must stand alone before God, and their eternal fate is in His hands alone. It is all I and my brothers and sisters can do to do our best to conduct our walk in faith and love; I have neither the time nor the intelligence to try to tell others what to do or how to do it.

              1. Cool. Now do the Faith of Wokeness, which has quickly supplanted the Religious Right as the prudish complainers in our society.

    2. What is it y’all are looking for here?

      The same as when I accidentally run across asian midget corprophilia porn- tut to myself, wonder who would actually be into this, wonder why this has been filed with Blood Angel fanfiction, and move on.

      The issue is less the criticism as much as the attempt to enforce a monoculture. While the calls for public decency fit within a pharisees’s interpretation of free speech, it ignores the spirit of the idea- giving people space and the benefit of the doubt. One of these things is not like the other. One of these increases the level of speech.

      The criticism isn’t even that the writing sucks or the story is contrived, but that it doesn’t fit within a framework of allowable topics.

      Yeah, you are free to raise any objections you want.

      And I am free to say “I told you so” when the madness of the crowds descends upon you.

    3. They have a right to criticise, she has a right to pull the book, we have the right to point and laugh.

      A bunch of silliness is on display, why not have a chuckle?

      1. A bunch of silliness is on display, why not have a chuckle?


        But as I said: Trying to make bigger cultural claims from one person’s over-reaction seems like a stretch to me.

        Simply put, Soave doesn’t think this is silliness, and is not having a chuckle. And many of the commentators here aren’t either.

        1. Is your argument that this anecdote does not fit into any larger cultural pattern?

        2. Soave is crushing on her, and wants to ride to her rescue. Now it all makes sense, right?

        3. This person is a moron for saying they will pull the book… But perhaps they were getting behind the scenes orders, or threats, or whatever on this stupid thing too that made them go that route.

          Any which way, all of you people that view EACH of these incidents as single, individual happenings is a moron.

          This is all part of a broader trend of the left trying to force self censorship via public harassment/shaming.

          That is NOT a good thing. And terrifyingly they’ve been INCREDIBLY successful at it up til now.

          If Trump hadn’t come along, I tremble to think about how much further the PC madness would be already. Say what you like about Trump, but simply the fact that he had the balls to say “Fuck you fags!” to the lefty thought police on a number of issues has been a great thing in and of itself.

          People need to start pushing back on these people every single time they try to pull this shit. People need to start insulting these people back, calling them morons and pussies and cowards and commies etc, making their lives a living hell, until they learn to shut the fuck up with these over the top criticisms. Everybody just chuckled and ignored them for years, but more or less obeyed their nonsense so as not to offend them… And this is where we are because of that behavior. We must push back. Fire with fire!

  22. Digital book burnings to own the….Asian immigrant?

    We all know that if the Christian Right had ever done anything like this there would be denouncements from all major publications. The Faith of Wokeness gets away with this shit, though.

  23. Of course, some on the progressive left balk at any attempt to blend different cultural settings and traditions

    Which is ironic because that is literally what Wakanda is (a conglomeration of numerous, distinct, African cultures and traditions) and Black Panther is supposedly the most woke movie in the history of ever

    1. That might be because they are too ignorant to know that.

    2. “”a conglomeration of numerous, distinct, African cultures and traditions””

      All filtered through an incredibly American colored lens, stereotypes than even a 1950s National Geographic would be embarrassed by. But it was directed by a Black dude and stared a bunch of Black dudes so it’s okay that it was basically a H Rider Haggard movie with special effects.

      I mean, absolutely no one in the audience gasped when the “bad” African tribe had the gorilla as their totem and chanted like gorillas. No one. If white dude made this movie his skeleton would still be on display in the gibbet he was sentenced to.

    3. Which is ironic because that is literally what Wakanda is (a conglomeration of numerous, distinct, African cultures and traditions)

      Really? The original Wakanda was a deliberately and intensely isolationist society, to the point that they built a massive wall and a John Galt-like cloaking device to keep out not just Evil White Men, but other Africans as well.

      1. Not to mention that the ultimate conclusion of the movie was that Wakanda becomes a bunch of colonizers instead of outright conquerors. Are those better than a walled off utopian society that gives literally zero fucks about the world? Notably, they gave zero fucks about any of the world ending scenarios that occurred previous to the ONLY one that directly hurt them.

        Flip the races, and people would have shit a brick.

      2. I think he’s talking about it as a fictional creation, not it’s in-universe history.

  24. *that* is some prior restraint on free speech. awesome.

  25. I wonder why more people don’t respond to these sorts of whacko critics by completely ignoring them.

    I don’t even comprehend what’s “insensitive” about 19th-century slavery in America when an Asian is writing about Russia in the early 20th-century. I doubt it makes any sense to anyone besides the dingbat complainers?so why play into their desire for exposure by even addressing their opinion?

    It’s like when a severely mentally-challenged person you’ve never seen before comes up to you and mumbles something unintelligible. The right response is to smile and nod and quickly back away. No need to get angry but also no need to get stressed out.

    1. I imagine most people do. The second linked article includes references to previous books targetted by similar twitter-storms… that all are currently published and available.

      The only thing unique to this story is that the author over-reacted and the book is in limbo.

      1. She showed no courage at all, and if for that reason alone her work deserves not to be read. Put it this way: She’s no Solzhenitsyn

        1. “The people who complained about a book that they haven’t even read aren’t at fault, it’s the new writer who was receiving backlash from press publications that is at fault.”

        2. She showed no courage at all, and if for that reason alone her work deserves not to be read.

          Didn’t you just write, up-stream, that “I have neither the time nor the intelligence to try to tell others what to do or how to do it”?

          Or are you going to try and claim that saying her work doesn’t “deserve” to be read isn’t trying to tell people to not read it?

        3. Solly was also born prior to the communist takeover and his parents were steeped in the tradition of private ownership. Zhao was born in 4th generation communist China. There’s a wee bit of difference.

    2. “I wonder why more people don’t respond to these sorts of whacko critics by completely ignoring them.”

      You’ve never tried to market a book, is my guess.

      1. Really? Because controversy never sells books, right?

      2. Or heard the fact that today the majority of works are self published and marketed?

        1. Zhao advanced herself half a million.

          1. Zhao didn’t advance yeraelf shit. She was advanced $500,000 by a publisher, who she had a contract with. Fuck, add lack of reading comprehension to your intellectual inabilities.

            1. Just FYI, the publisher in this case was a subsidiary of Penguin Publication.

            2. “Zhao didn’t advance yeraelf shit.”

              Thanks for pointing that out. Where would I be without you and Bobby?

              1. You were the asshole who claimed “Zhao advanced herself half a million.” So without me and Bobby poiintong out your lack of knowledge you’d be blissfully unaware of how intellectual bereft you are.

  26. A “sensitivity reader”? Oh for fuck’s sake…

    1. Oh wow, I just googled it. It’s a real job that real people have gotten paid for.

      1. What else are you going to do with your gender studies with a minor in African American studies degree?

  27. More progressives eating their own. Only a matter of time before a single progressive is left. An incredibly obese progressive with bits of raw flesh still dangling from zis teeth.

  28. “[T]o put something that resembles chattel slavery SO CLOSELY is distasteful,”

    Well, that’s it. Books can no longer be about people, because that resembles slaves, who also are people. Every author who writes about characters can turn in his, her, or (pronoun)’s typewriter.

  29. Uh…good post, Robby.

    Twitards need to have their Internet revoked.

    SJW outragetards are some of the silliest, most provincial loons I’ve ever seen. The lack of self awareness is fucking amazing.

  30. I didn’t think someone kowtowing to political correctness was still news.

    The next abortion murder in the US is only 1 of 750,000 this year. That’s murder and its not news.

    Denying men due process isn’t news.

    Letting a child decide they’re another sex and receive sterilizing cosmetic surgery and hormone treatment isn’t news anymore.

    Denying white men equal opportunities with affirmative action isn’t news anymore.

    Common sense is news.

  31. A first time author receives a half million advance and declines to publish? Are you sure you’re not being taken in, yet again, on some kind of literary hoax or publicity stunt? I keep telling you Bobby, journalism is more than regurgitating stories from elsewhere. Get yourself a telephone and call Zhao for an interview. It needn’t take too much of your time and it bolsters your credibility.

    1. I don’t know. But if the book isn’t published she’ll repay the advance. That’s the standard behavior there.

      1. “she’ll repay the advance”

        You’re kidding, right. A first time author paying back a half million? You don’t know any authors, do you. Doesn’t this story raise any issues of credibility with you? Fake news etc?

        1. Yes, that is how they work, that would be the standard legal requirement.

          You’re saying she will flee the country or something? It could be something else, but these types of questions are part of that process.

          1. “You’re saying she will flee the country or something?”

            Is that what you think I’m saying?

            1. I’m trying to clarify what you’re saying.

              I said it’s standard if the book is cancelled to pay back advance. You are saying obviously she won’t. So I put forth a scam scenario, that she is taking the advance and running. This is done to clarify what you are getting it.

              You are making it clear you think it is a scam in some way. Please elucidate on what possible things you think might be at play.

              1. “Please elucidate on what possible things you think might be at play.”

                You ever think they might be marketing a book they paid half a million in advance for? A little controversy is good for free publicity. We’re both discussing Zhao and her work, something we’d never do absent the article, just as we never discuss the first novels of the thousands of other writers who are making their debut. You can call it a scam if you like, but misleading someone who’s buying your product is an old and venerable tradition in market societies.

                1. How can you publish something that has been withdrawn from my publication? Next you’ll claim Apollo 11 didn’t actually go to the Moon but instead the whole thing was staged in Hollywood.

                  1. “How can you publish something that has been withdrawn from my publication?”


                    1. Yes, because a publisher is going to give you a second chancd. Fuck you are stupid stick to your narrative no matter how many holes there is in it.

  32. “[R]acist ass writers, like Am?lie Wen Zhao, who literally take Black narratives and force it into Russia when that shit NEVER happened in history?you’re going to be held accountable,”

    Is the Black narrative slavery? It’s almost too silly if that’s what they mean, so I feel I need to confirm that they’re saying slavery has never occurred in the Slavic countries.

    1. “so I feel I need to confirm that they’re saying slavery has never occurred in the Slavic countries.”

      I hope that’s not all you feel the need to confirm. The very first sentence seems dubious to me.

      1. Which first sentence are you referring to?

        1. The first sentence that begins with “A first time author…”

          1. And you think that is not the causal element here? That the criticism is not why she’s doing this, and that she has an ulterior motive of some sort?

            1. “And you think that is not the causal element here?”

              I don’t know or care. If it’s important to you, you should be berating Bobby for his sloppy journalism. The pieces just don’t add up to me, and it’s got my spider senses a tingle. You’re free to swallow it whole if it’s to your taste.

              1. The doctor already told you what that tingling is and provided you with the special shampoo. FYI those are members of the insectia family not the arachnid family.

    2. The best part about that line is that these same people think it’s awesome when black characters are inserted into historical timelines and areas where they never existed, like medieval England or the Trojan War, because MUH DIVERSITY #MOVIES SO WHITE.

      1. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. This is a post with a lot of odd moving pieces. The easiest type of story to make a polemic post about.

      2. We fought a civil war over black actors playing white parts and vice versa.

        1. Was that sarcasm or just another sign of your lack of intellectual honesty?

            1. Well at least you admit you lack intellectual honesty

    3. “Is the Black narrative slavery?”

      Stolen from Africa
      Brought to America

      That never happened to no Ruskie.

      1. Really? The Vikings never kidnapped them and sold them? Or the Greeks before them? Or the Teutonic Knights after them? What history did you read?

      2. Maybe you out to study the Barbary states and the Ottoman Empire.

        1. “Barbary states and the Ottoman Empire.”

          These are Mediterranean slavers, not american slavers.

          1. Fuck you disingenuous idiot. You stated Russians were never transported away from their Homeland as slaves. However, the examples I provided did exactly that. But because you are a disingenuous fuck you will try to twist it to state you meant Russians were never transported as slaves to America (may want to read about the Russian colonies in Alaska before going down that path). Because if you honestly make this latter argument it is obvious that you have no intellectual integrity. That you change your tune as soon as someone calls out your uninformed bullshit.

            1. “You stated Russians were never transported away from their Homeland as slaves.”

              There were never Russian slaves stolen from Africa and brought to America, no matter what you were taught in school.

              1. What the fuck? Do you deny that Russians were kidnapped from their Homeland and sold into slavery in foreign lands? It doesn’t matter a bit if they were in Africa and transported to America (which is just a stupid fucking deflection on your part), they had a similar experience as African Americans and the reference to black narrative is just fucking asinine. Because guess what, blacks weren’t the only ones kidnapped from their Homeland and transported to foreign lands and sold into slavery. But you are to obtuse to understand that.

    4. I haven’t actually bothered to run the search, but has Google removed all references to all the slavery in all the times that were non-black nations enslaving non-black nations?
      Like Rome never took non-black slaves?
      The Egyptians never took Israelite slaves, only blacks?
      All viking slaves were black, even the ones taken from England?
      And can it be found that there were slaves at times other than the founding of the USA?

      1. I just tried it. If you just search “slavery”, you get page after page about US slavery. But, if you search “Roman slavery” or “Russian slavery” you do get results that do mention race.

  33. I don’t know who’s advising the blacks on 21st century civil rights strategy, but this militant crap doesn’t work. The people with all the power, whom you are trying to go up against, will take that power and go home instead of listening to people whine and nitpick.

    The gays insinuated themselves into equality and acceptance by pretending to be wholesome normals like WIll & Grace or magical decorating elves you wanted in your life. You persuade, you don’t demand.

    1. Except cakes. It’s ok to demand those.

      1. I’m talking about dealing with the normal people of mainstream America, not Christians.

        1. Christians aren’t mainstream Americans? Considering 75% of Americans self identify as Christian, I would say they are about as mainstream as it comes. Fuck Tony you are an imbecile. Do you ever think out what you say before you say it?

          1. Yes. Do you ever consider not talking before you ruin a perfectly good joke by being an idiot?

            1. How am I the idiot here? Also, it wasn’t a perfectly good joke. It was a fucking imbecilic joke and I doubt you thought it out before you said it. Instead you just looked like an idiot, and jn a sophomoric approach to cover your embarasment you resorted to a rather peurile I know you are but what am I report.

  34. Hail the Sad Puppies, for they knew their foe, and it’s name was Political Correctness.

    1. And before that it was jocks and other cool people.

      1. Guess what Tony, John Hughes movies were fiction not reality.

      2. Guess what Tony, John Hughes movies were fiction not reality.

  35. “Don’t go where I can’t follow,”

    Samwise Gamgee is the ultimate hero in the story.

    The rest is commentary.

  36. I can’t really decide whether this was an act of cowardice, or a prescient decision not to eventually get shipped off to the camps.

    1. It’s not going to be these whiny losers shipping people off to the camps.

      1. Then who will?

        1. The power elite.

          1. Which these people are becoming, hint which three newly elected Representatives do we hear about on a nearly daily basis? Are they not part of this class? Isn’t that there supposed claim to fame?

            1. No, I would not call a freshman congressman a power elite.

              1. They are when they are forming the narrative and helping to steer their party. Obama was a freshman senator too.

  37. People just need to start saying “Fuck You” to these angry mobs of wokeness. That’s the only response they deserve. All of their complaints were utter bullshit. And even if they weren’t, it’s a fucking work of fiction. You want YA fiction that fits with your values, go write some.

    1. Gov. Northam is blowing an opportunity to do that right now.

    2. Yup.

      We need to not only ignore these people… Ignoring them, while more or less doing what they wanted to seem polite, is what got us to this point in the first place.

      We do indeed need to outright tell them to go fuck themselves. And worse. Because if we don’t this level of crazy will be the new normal, and they’ll push the fringes to fuck all knows where… They’re already talking about abortion up until birth and normalizing pedophilia… So I don’t even want to THINK about where these lunatics will take things next…

      1. Who is talking about “normalizing pedophilia”? And what is “normalizing”?

        1. Normalizing is the act of making something previously weird/degenerate/taboo “normal” and acceptable in polite society, more or less. Like being a tranny, for instance. This was a weird thing 20 years ago, even if people didn’t absolutely hate trans people, it was still weird and not really discussed much in polite society.

          A small subset of crazy lefties has been normalizing pedophilia in recent years… Sob stories in major publications about people who are attracted to kids… The picture that was just in some magazine the other day where a naked adult man was posing with an 8 or 9 year old little boy done up in drag…

          This kind of stuff ALWAYS starts on the fringes, then hits the “mainstream” counter culture, then goes mainstream, and before you know it if you dare criticize it YOU’RE A NAZI!

          I’m not saying making Pedophilia Great Again is the very next line item on the leftist agenda… But with where things are going, I wouldn’t rule it out either.

          1. Actually, I think it euthanasia are the next thing. Canadian journals just ran two stories about how great their nee euthanasia laws are and how much money it is going to save their socilaized medicine.

            1. Oh yeah. They’ve been working on that one for a lot of years. They’ll probably be able to get that made “normal” before being a pedo. That’s the thing though, they always have various things in various stages of acceptance, so they always have to be pushing a new crazy thing along the way.

  38. Patrick Stewart as Othello is pretty rad.

    1. Oh, I see – he’s the sole white person in an otherwise all-black cast. How woke.

      Remember when Picard won the Enterprise from Billy Dee Williams in a card game?

  39. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.geosalary.com

  40. The solution is to not write books for young adults. If they want good stories, they should just read adult books.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.