Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Feminist YA list update

This is fascinating.  Apparently some commenters argued that some of the books weren't feminist, so Bitch removed them from the list.  Then authors like Scott Westerfeld got pissed off and asked for their books to be removed from the list in protest.

I happen to be a Scott Westerfeld fan, and I'm as anti-censorship as they come.  But I kind of think Scott is being a big baby here.  I mean, Bitch isn't banning or censoring or in any way telling people not to read those books--they just decided to take them off the list.  And to my mind, they can put whatever books they want on their list, whether the authors like it or not.  They could make a list of the 100 Worst YA Books of All Time if they wanted to. 

I say suck it up, YA authors, and save your vitriol for actual book challenges.  They are plentiful enough.

Thanks for the link, Brandy.

1 comment:

  1. Now that this controversy has been all over my Google Reader for the last week or so, I'm going to say--I kind of agree a little bit with both sides. Sure, it's Bitch's list and they can do whatever they want with it, and the authors on (or bumped off) the list should indeed suck it up.

    On the other hand, the bulk of the controversy was about three of the books in particular being "triggering" due to their (wildly differing) handlings of sexual abuse. Most authors who demanded to be removed from the list should let it go--this isn't their fight. But Westerfeld made the argument that if books were being removed for being "potentially triggering," then his book should be removed for the same reason (apparently Uglies is a trigger-book for cutters?).

    This isn't to imply that Bitch magazine handled the situation well, as evidenced by the aforementioned shitstorm in my Google Reader.

    All of this is a long way around saying: both sides are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. It'll be a cold day in hell, I'll bet, before Bitch releases another recommended reading list.