Should Classics be Forgiven for Prejudicial Attitudes?

It's hard to deny that times - and literary expectations - were very different in the eras of Austen, the Bröntes and even Dahl. Different things were considered acceptable, and there's no getting away from that when you read classics. Attitudes we'd call sexist, racist and ableist (plus a bunch of other -ists, I'm sure) are woven throughout lots of the narrative, just because no-one batted an eyelid at them at the time.

But does that mean those attitudes should be forgiven or ignored by modern-day readers?

On the one hand, well. Some of the 'dodgy' things that happen in those classics really are dodgy. In The Secret Garden alone, all these things happen (and it's still one of my favourite classics, but it's kind of tricky to ignore all the prejudice going on). If you're trying to avoid spoilers, maybe don't read the last part of this list, but I tend to assume that once a book's been out for several hundred years it's fair to analyse the whole plot:

• The main character refers to native Indians as 'servants' who are 'not people'. 
• Not only that, but her flawed personality is blamed on growing up in a country full of black people, not 'respectable' whites. 
• No, I'm absolutely serious. I quoted all those words.
• She also hates black as a colour and is dressed in white to signify her change from being disagreeable to agreeable. Subconscious racism? Maybe?
• There's this bedridden boy named Colin - good representation, right? - well, no. He is taken out into the garden, and after a few short weeks he jumps out of his wheelchair. And walks. For some reason, everyone's reaction is 'oh, isn't it wonderful!' not 'something weird's going on we need to call a doctor like, now'.
• This also implies that all you need to cure a disability is a good attitude! Anyone can do it! If you have a disability, you must just have a bad attitude! 
• What about this do you think is making the disabled girl growl?

I'm going to have to stop listing these before I get angry. I can still remember identifying with Colin so strongly when I first read the book, and then he was snatched away from me, the thing that I empathised with him for most just magicked away. And while that was the thing that offended me most, I know other people could have been horrified about a lot of other things. Honestly, knowing that books have so much power to hurt people makes it difficult to forgive the pain they cause.

However, we can't deny that, while many classics might have elements we don't agree with, they are amazing stories. They've stood the test of time. And if we don't forgive them for the things that were never really intended to hurt us, then how are we going to experience those amazing stories? If they were edited to make them more politically correct, it would mess with the heart of the story - that editing would be a form of censorship, which ... well, isn't generally considered a good thing. Some people might even argue that if you're going to do that, you might as well pull the books of the shelves altogether.

That said, the tolerance of prejudicial attitudes in classic books sets a double standard. We expect modern-day writing to be tolerant and - in the best case - reflective of the diverse world we live in. It doesn't always work out that way, or I guess we wouldn't need things like the #WeNeedDiverseBooks campaign. But those expectations are super super super important for making sure that we as humans move forward with our art, not back - and if we say that certain books don't apply? I guess it could set a dangerous precedent.

Yet if we think about it, those expectations come from our desire to de-normalise discrimination in the world - it's especially important for children's and YA books to be inclusive because they help us form our opinions. But classics are usually enjoyed by people who read A LOT, or read them for classes where they are guided through the themes by a teacher who really knows their stuff - and that means readers know the context of what they're reading. To erase that would be erasing a part of history, and refusing to admit that prejudice used to be so acute (and still is in many places) through literature would be as bad as the fact it existed in the first place.

So what do you think we should do with those attitudes? Just forget them? Forgive the authors for not intending to hurt their readers? Or neither forget nor forgive, just realise the context of the work and accept those attitudes as a part of the whole? 

Please share your opinions in the comments. LET'S HAVE A CHAT, YOU GUYS!

View Post

Why It's Okay to Judge Books by Their Covers

I judge books by their covers pretty much every time I choose one.

Maybe that does make me a horrifically shallow person. If I'm so aesthetic about books, I must be super judgemental about other things, right? According to the old saying, I must be vain and materialistic and generally miss out on a load of super-cool things because I'm too busy being critical about the way they look.

Um ... not really? Because, for a start, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who does it. Bookstagram alone is proof of that (and I'm just going to insert a shameless link to my Instagram here) - what we're basically doing in blogs and social media pictures is showing off some beautiful art. But should that beautiful art be allowed to represent books in such a massive way? By making covers such a big deal, that's what we're doing.

And I don't think that's a bad thing.

The thing is ... covers can be gorgeous, but they're also marketing tools. I repeat, COVERS ARE MARKETING TOOLS. If I miss out on a book that's actually perfect for me because the cover didn't look like my sort of thing, I would argue that's not my fault. The marketing didn't do its job.

That logic isn't perfect. Books also have blurbs and recommendations and even just the author's name on the spine to help with the marketing, and they can be misleading too. But the cover is usually what we see first, and doesn't that make it more imp?

*presses finger to ear* Yes, I'm hearing that it's definitely more important.

I mean, have a look at this beautiful cover of Everything, Everything. It is undeniably gorgeous and - to be honest - what drew me towards reading it in the first place. But what it does very skillfully is demonstrate the genre of the book (YA Contemporary / Romance) ... it doesn't exactly say horror, does it? It's the same as picture books often being drawn with simple colours and shapes to appeal to kids, and dystopian covers involving lots of darkness and shadows and Gothic lettering.

The annoying thing, I guess, is that this near-obsession with covers can lead to elitism. (I know, it sounds totally weird, but hear me out.) Self-published books can be just as good as traditionally released ones, but because the author's paying for everything, they often can't afford the best cover designers, and this can mean that we shallow humans don't end up grabbing the book. The marketing still wasn't doing its job, and I would argue it still wasn't the reader's fault - but that doesn't make it the author's fault either.

What's great (and I mean really, really great) about the new digital revolution is that anyone can be a cover designer - and there are dozens, probably hundreds of websites out there to connect authors with the one who can realise their dream. It's a slow process, but places like 99 Designs and DesignCrowd are bringing us into a lovely future where readers can experience amazing books that they would have missed otherwise.

And in this lovely future, Bookstagrammers have lots more models to work with.

***

In the comments: Do you guys think it's okay to judge books by their covers? Or is it just too elitist for your taste? Are you afraid of missing out on stories you'd otherwise have loved?

View Post

Why I Call Equality Between Genders Feminism

I've never really talked about feminism on this blog before, and it's a contentious issue for whatever reason, so forgive me for being a bit nervous.

Yesterday, I logged on to Twitter to find that the #1 trending UK hashtag was #IAmAFeminist, thanks to this beautiful Tumblr post by Holly Bourne (who is one of my absolute role models, but I've already talked a lot on this blog about her and her books, so I'll get back to the point). To see an issue I'm passionate about be highlighted so publicly was really exciting for me, so I wrote a tweet of my own. This is it:

I didn't really have room for any explanation in 140 tiny characters, but just to clarify I didn't mean that all people who don't identify as feminists are sexists. I meant that everyone who isn't a sexist - and thank goodness that's an awful lot of people - fit my definition of feminist, even if they didn't label themselves as such.

And then, pretty soon after (no more than a couple of minutes after, actually, so somebody must have been paying attention) I got a reply from someone who thought I was a sexist for using the word feminism because it has a "fem" in it.

I kind of get that. I've struggled with whether or not to use it in the past: whenever I have debates with internet peeps or other kids at school or even my parents about the whole issue, whether or not the term feminism is inherently sexist is one of the first things I ever discuss. When I first started calling myself a feminist, I honestly hadn't given it much thought - people online were using that word to describe beliefs I agreed with and wanted to fight for, so I used it too. And then, the people around me started questioning if it was the right word to use.

So I thought. For a long time.

"Think before you speak. Read before you think." ~ Fran Lebowitz

And after looking at other feminists' explanations of why they think it's a valid name for the movement, I came up with my own. This is my opinion, and I'm going to explain it as logically as I possibly can to make it easy to understand, but it's also a topic I have very strong beliefs about, so sometimes irrationality can seep in. Soz.

In my point of view, the "fem" in feminism describes the nature of the sexism it's fighting against. Males and females (and people who don't identify as either, while we're at it) experience sexism for displaying female attributes: for girls and women, it's usually simply their lack of Y chromosome, but for boys and men, it's behaviour that society considers somehow 'girly'.

The "fem" in feminism describes how the movement fights for those attributes, be them physical behavioural or anything else, to be acceptable. To be equal. To have so little differentiation between them and the norm that they're not female attributes, just attributes.

"Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it." ~ George Carlin

The "fem" in feminism does want both sexes to be equal, for both sexes to be listened to. It wants an end to toxic masculinity and the preconceived notion that guys can't be hurt by girls as much as it wants an end to the gender pay gap and catcalling.

And that's why #IAmAFeminist, not just a believer in egalitarianism or gender rights or simple equality. I'm not saying that people who choose those labels for themselves should be any less respected for their beliefs and actions, I'm justifying why that term forms part of my personal identity.

(FYI, if you're looking for a movement that believes women are better than men, you're in the wrong place. That's misandry, not feminism.)

So, I just want to end this blog post explaining why I wrote it. I believe that people have the basic right to choose whatever label they want for them and their personal beliefs. I also believe that this whole debate about whether gender equality should be called feminism is kind of pointless. Shouldn't we be arguing about how to tackle the issues this movement wants to tackle instead of arguing about what it's called?

"We're never, ever, ever going to be able to fly as high unless we're both in support of each other." ~ Emma Watson

If the person who wrote me that tweet is reading this (and I will have sent them a link) I'm not going to kick up a fuss if you still disagree with me. But I hope that you can see it's pointless to keep telling off feminists for a word that isn't meant to hurt anybody, and that maybe you can start having conversations with them about how to make society better for everyone.

If not, never mind. I hope I could help someone else see instead.

***

In the comments: Okay, this section of the post is going to be a bit longer than normal . . .

You're just as welcome to leave a comment if you disagree with me than if you agree with me. I love discussion and I really want to understand, if not agree with, your point of view. But I'd really appreciate it if, no matter which side of the conversation you're on, we keep things as peaceful as we can. (It's an emotional topic, I know, but trying will go a long way) I don't want any personal attacks, on me or anyone else, because they aren't helping us in what I assume - and hope - is our common goal: to make this world equal for everyone.

I'm also going to say that, in general, I always reply to comments on this blog, and I will do my absolute best to. But if, for whatever reason, your comment hits me in a way that means I can't react with a clear head, I reserve the right not to react at all. I don't want to make things any more heated.

View Post

What's the Best Way to Read Series? Together or Apart?

Series. Often, we love them; sometimes, we hate them (although let's be honest - they're still books. We mostly love them) and we ALWAYS hate having to wait for the next one to come out. 

Or, at least, I do. You wouldn't expect anything else from Miss What-Even-Is-Patience.

So, is it better to wait until you can hoard them ALL, and read the whole mega-story together? Once you start, you don't have to wait for anything. No cover reveals teasing you, because you already have them all (bought at the same time, so they match perfectly and everything). No gnashing your teeth because the ARCs have all been given out already, so you actually have to wait for release date. Sure, you hung back at first, but that was easier because you hadn't started yet. There's a difference between waiting on an interesting premise and waiting on a story that's already fused into a part of your soul.

The problem with this theory - which is very good, in theory - is that it's unrealistic. You might be willing to hold out for two to three years on that premise by yourself, but you also live in a connective world of book maniacs who are going to be squawking about that series all over social media. They'll want to talk to you about it . . . and then you'll have to be the party-crasher who's "waiting for the whole series to come out". Wouldn't you rather have one book now then have to wait three times as long for three?

Maybe. Maybe not.

What's annoying about reading books that far apart is that you forget details. Sometimes very big ones. (Sometimes whole characters, but that was one time and I'm just going to gloss over it.) This isn't just frustrating: it can also hamper your enjoyment of a perfectly good book because you can't quite recall how it all fits together. If you're a reviewer, that could change your opinion quite drastically (although obviously, it's still your opinion. Don't be afraid to write it.) Reading together, there's no gap with which to gamble on your memory.

When you eliminate the forgetting issue, however, it could be argued that you're robbing yourself - like the rotten thief you are - of the anticipation. No midnight book signings. No sneaking into bookshops to see if your baby has managed to worm onto the shelves a few days early. Where's the excitement? And isn't that torturous wait kind of delicious at the same time? Not to mention the fact that, however you slice it, it's not like having to re-read books to remember every detail is a bad thing. It just means more reading!

Huzzah!

Gee, it's not like these arguments go in circles or anything, is it? I find that my opinion can completely flip depending on what angle I look at this issue from, which I guess makes my advice difficult to take.

Of course, you should still at least listen to it because I will one day be your overlord. Not doing so wouldn't end well for you.

I honestly think that, if I could, I would read all series together. It's just easier for me because of the whole memory thing, and the waiting really is easier if you can promise yourself all three at once. That said, since I became part of the blogosphere (and joined the howling book-newsfeed that is Twitter) I've been reading a lot more trilogies as they come out just because it's more realistic if you want to have conversations with other book people.

I guess it's also a little dependant on the kind of series: if each book leads directly on from the last, or does a lot of important but subtle foreshadowing, then you can get a lot of benefit from reading together, but if they have different POV characters or big timeline gaps in between or something similar, then the convenience of experiencing them apart might come into play more.

Ah. Just realised that I might have accidentally sounded a little serious during that post. Normal service will be resumed on Wednesday, I promise!

So, what's your opinion? Is it because of things I've touched on here, or do you have your own reasons? Tell all - I promise that the comments section is a safe space here, and whatever you say you'll be listened to.

View Post

Does Popularity Make a Blog Successful?

You amazing people may already have seen my excitable tweeting about this, but Bloglovin' is holding an August Follower Challenge - any blog with less than 10,000 Bloglovin' followers can enter, and the three who grow their fanbase the most will get featured on the website. It's halfway through already, but it sounds like a fun idea. And, if you want to, you can follow me! *puppy eyes*.

***

Urgh.

For some reason, I do not feel like blogging today. But I shall, because I'm a good little person and I'm actually starting to like you minions (just kidding, I always liked you). I also have this thing going on called the Big Blogging Bonanza, so I will write words. About blogging.

Does popularity make a blog successful?

The internet seems to think it does. I mean, have a look at this - I Googled 'How to Make Your Blog Successful', and here are the results. They all mentioned something to do with popularity (although one then says it isn't everything).

Fluke? I think not. Take a look at a Yahoo search with the same keywords, especially the bottom:

Ask.com:

Aol search (I've scrolled past the ads):

And, after looking at some of these posts, I can see their point. I'll probably be book-marking some for future use, when I want to meet some more fabulous people. The problem is that we seem to have mixed up the words 'successful' and 'popular'. To me, a successful blog makes its blogger and readers happy; it doesn't matter whether those readers are a group of ten or ten thousand.

Of course, we all want as many people as possible to read our stuff, which is why we spend a lot of time publicising and search-engine-optimizing and organising bloggy link-ups. But I think it's important to remember that readers are not the be all and end all. A blog is your thing. A blog should make you happy. That's why, when you see a piece of advice you don't feel like following, because blog memes aren't your thing or pictures make you frustrated or you don't have the money for your own domain name, don't follow it.

If someone else wants to have complete control over a blog, they may as well write their own.

I know that blogging makes us all want to tear our hair out sometimes (see the top of this post, where I basically complain about having to write it) but that shouldn't be because of dwindling pageviews or because you're only fourth up on a keyword search.

If you're having one of those days, when you curl up into a ball and sob because no-one seems to care about the stuff you are ripping your soul out for, don't feel ashamed. I was having one of those days today too. Just try and remember what you started blogging for, what got you excited about it in the first place. Remember that feeling of power and relief when you wrote your first post.

The fact is that somebody does care. You care.

Make sure you keep caring, because I can guarantee that, no matter how few readers your data says you have, there is someone out there who will eventually read your posts. As long as you keep trying, keep commenting on other blogs and meeting new people, it'll happen someday.

A successful blog is the best online presence its blogger can come up with, and publicising is a part of that. It's just not the most important part.

***

Why did you guys start blogging, if you blog? And non-bloggers - what support do you have for us? We're a sensitive bunch, and sometimes we need it.

View Post

Books versus eBooks

Finally! It's finished!

eBooks hit the big time almost a decade ago, when Amazon released the Kindle in 2007. Since then, a whole host of eReaders have become available, including the Nook and Kobo. However, the debate still goes on: which is better? Print or electronic books?

To work out which comes on top, we're going to play. . .

Are you ready? Each of these reading situations is easier to get round using either Books or eBooks, and at the end we'll add up which medium is more convenient. Let's go!

#1 - Reading in bed when you're supposed to be asleep
Mum, Dad, if you're reading this. I have . . . um . . . never done this. I . . . promise?

Are they gone then? Because I do this all the time. And I have to say that the eBook wins hands down. You can get these cases with lights in, so you can hide under the covers without having to hold a torch or risk having the bedside light on. Not to mention that eBooks are much lighter than most print ones. It's basically more convenient, and you're less likely to get caught.

#2 - Reference books
By reference books, I mean the kind that don't have to be read in order. The kind you flick through or have to keep looking at the contents page. For this kind of thing, the traditional book wins every time. They're much easier for bit-by-bit, scatty reading.

#3 - Pictures!
Yes, I know you can get Kindles (and probably other eBooks) with colour screens now, but books are still better. The pictures are glossy when printed in books. You can see them in detail without having to click on them, zoom in and lose the text you were reading. Not to mention that most eBooks are still black and white, which is incredibly annoying.

#4 Bringing a book on holiday
There is only one annoying part about taking an eBook on holiday with you - the section of plane take-off when you have to turn off all devices. However, most airlines are stopping doing that now, because they've realised that they don't actually need to. At last.

Taking an eBook on holiday is absolutely brilliant. It fits in your pocket, there's no glare on the screen, and, as long as there's WiFi, you have a literally limitless supply of books. Even if you don't, it only takes a bit of foresight to download as many as you need before you set off, and then they can be accessed anytime. There's no massive debate with your parents about how many books are permitted, and it's much lighter.

Just don't. Forget. The charger. The battery might last eight weeks, but only if you remember to plug it in, which you won't with the whole holiday excitement. Not if you're like me, anyway...

#5 Lending a book to someone else
When I got my Kindle in 2011, I was really excited about the so-called 'Kindle Owner's Lending Library'. It would never replace a true library, of course, but still.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless you're an Amazon Prime member. And even if it did, are we really going to give up going to the library?

Books win on this one.

#6 Running out of room
We've all been in the situation where our already-creaking bookshelf refuses to take any more books. There are stacks around most of our bedrooms, and eventually, eBooks are more convenient. A Nook can hold up to 1,000 books, and that's one of the smaller memory sizes.

In short, eBooks could save you from the ever-imminent danger of bookshelf collapse. And they're cheaper than a new bookshelf.

#7 No WiFi. I repeat, no WiFi.
No-one should have to live without WiFi. This picture shows what I mean:

But, in the probably rare instance that you have to live without WiFi for a while, then an eBook isn't really going to help you. It shouldn't be true, but unfortunately. . .

#8 Being caught without a book
One of the worst bookworm problems is finishing a book unexpectedly quickly. You might be bored on a train, have nothing to read during English class, or be stuck having to talk to the people you'd brought a book to avoid in the first place.

For this, eBooks are perfect. You can buy a new book, if WiFi is available, and if not, you can dig into your stocks of unread books, or re-read an old one. That's why I always keep the complete adventures of Sherlock Holmes on my eBook just in case - they're pretty good, actually.

THE OVERALL WINNER - DRUMROLL PLEASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Is neither, because they both scored four. I'm not being very helpful here, am I?

So, the definitive answer on which media you should use is both.

Ah, well.

View Post