In an email, I was asked, given the rise of book bans in schools/libraries, if it made sense for me/other authors to ask publishers to stop sending our books to affected states until they pulled their heads out - a boycott, basically. So here's why I think that's not a good idea.
First, as a strictly practical matter, it wouldn't work. Anyone can order anything online these days and have it arrive at their home. The people this sort of action would hurt would be small local indie booksellers and libraries, who are, to be clear, not the enemy in this case.
Second, while boycotts are often indiscriminate tools in terms of who they affect, in this case a boycott would work to the short-term advantage of the censors by punishing innocent local booksellers/libraries, ie, the entities the censors want to punish anyway...
... and while inconveniencing readers in these states to motivate them to act against censors is a legit tactic, remember, these readers can get books shipped to their homes, so they're often not *that* inconvenienced. Another tactic to encourage them would be better.
Third, what often does make sense in the case of censorship is to flood the zone: Make the censored material so ubiquitous and available that the censoring is futile, and the censorious look like what they are, ie, shitty tiny-minded bigots. More books are needed, not fewer.
I have never had a book removed from a library or school, but if I did, my inclination would not be to pull all my work from that state, it would be to work with people in the state to get the book into the hands of those to whom is meant to be forbidden. Because fuck censorship.
Fourth, what about boycotts in terms of personal events/appearances? Those might make more sense because in-person events can't be bought online. But as writer events are usually with local bookstore/libraries, again the question is, who is being punished with this action?
In some cases a creator boycott of states makes sense. In the *specific* case of book bannings/removals, it often makes at least as much sense to show up and make the case for books and reading in the places where they are trying to be removed and discouraged.
In my case, if a book of mine was banned somewhere, I might go out of my way to show up in that place on my next tour, with a couple of boxes of my and other banned books, you know, for the kids (NB: Do not try to get my books banned as a way to get me to visit. That's weird).
Final note: School and library boards who censor do so because they believe "think of the children" is a sufficient shield for whatever bigotry they're trying to implement. They're using children as shields, all right, but what they're revealing is something else entirely...
... namely, that they're aware their ideology *can't compete* with other, better concepts/ideas about society. You don't fight this purge of ideas with another, voluntary purge of ideas that leaves a vacuum the censors will happily fill with crap in the absence of competition.
So, no, I'll not be boycotting in these instances of censorship. I don't think it's the most effective way to protest, or to support local allies on the ground. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
And now, as is tradition, I end this thread with a cat picture. Enjoy.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, I do have a take on how this movement functions, strictly as a practical matter, and involving the Hugos and other awards. I will share it with you in further tweets in this thread.
1. The modern corps of acquiring editors, in both NY publishing and in short fiction, has SIGNIFICANTLY more women and/or (out) LGBTQ+ folks, and more diversity generally. Stories they buy reflect their interests, and the sales numbers are good, so they keep at it.
2. When the Puppy nonsense happened, people committed to more diverse storytelling either entered or re-entered the Hugo voting pool to counteract the Puppy brigade. When they were routed, Puppies and their sympathizers flounced. Those interested in more diverse stories stayed.
"We turned the planet into an overheated pile of microplastics and saddled our children with debt and shitty-paying jobs, plus we're totally cool with creeping racist fascism. Why are our kids angry and hate us so?"
The rest of the piece is smug self-congratulatory wankery and chiding generalizations, as you might have guessed from the headline, which is actually less egregious than the text. It's in the WSJ, one of the largest newspapers in the US, so the silencing is imaginary at best.
ALSO, at this point in time, with the elder millennials trudging past the 40-years-old mile marker, this piece feels like an unwanted encore by a Boomer aching to play a golden oldie to a thinning crowd, the "Freebird," if you will, of generational warfare. Clear the stage, sir.
1. Lol, no. I show off piles of books to show people what's coming out; I also give authors space on my site to promote their latest books. But the number of books I actually *blurb* - give a quote for their cover - is actually pretty small, limited to books I've read and liked.
2. Nor do I (or the authors I know) engage in simple logrolling. Do I endorse the books of friends? Sure - if I like them. I don't endorse books of authors I know if they're not to my liking. And I endorse books of authors I don't know when they come to me and are amazing.
3. I decline to endorse the large majority of books that I'm sent to blurb. Mostly because I just don't have time to read them (I warn the editors up front that might be the case) but sometimes just because it's not the book for me, even if it will be a fabulous book for others.
If you were wondering which picture of Krissy that I took this year was my favorite, it was this one. If you were not wondering, it was still this one. My preference for it exists independent of you and any wonderings you might or might not have, sorry.
This is my favorite picture of myself in 2021, I have to admit. I did not take it, however. It was taken by Olav Rokne.
1. First novel I wrote, I wrote to see if I *could* write a novel (spoiler: yes).
2. First pubbed book was a book about online finance, wrangled by my agent.
3. Second novel I went in to a bookstore to see what was selling in SF; MilSF it was!
4. It was a Crown Books, not B&N.
(For those of you following along at home, "Agent to the Stars" was the first novel I wrote; "Old Man's War" was the second. However OMW was published first, followed by Agent. Before either of those pubbed I wrote four non-fiction books.)
And obviously I'm not in the least ashamed about the story of how I decided to write OMW; I tell it all the time. I make no bones I wrote a book designed to sell to the market. I did it well enough I didn't even have to submit it. The acquiring editor came to me and asked for it.
1. Since we've been talking about how many hours a day one should be typing in order to be a full-time writer, I'll tell you the last time I wrote any pay copy (i.e., writing for pay): November 23. Since then, not a word meant for pay. What have I been doing since then?
2. One: taking a break. I'm fortunate enough to be able to take a rest between major projects, and the holiday season is a fine time to not have to stress about work, so I'm planning to keep the schedule clear of pay copy through the rest of 2021.
3. Two: Traveling. I went to @emeraldcitycon last week, where I met fans and was on panels and signed books and did various promotional things that are part of my gig as a commercial fiction writer. Marketing one's self is work! I'll do it again next week at @worldcon2021.