Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BookTenTiger" data-source="post: 8117188" data-attributes="member: 6685541">I am a firm believer than we should preserve all art, even offensive art... But publishers are not museums, and it is not their responsibility. If you firmly believe that the old Oriental Adventures (to pull out a well-trod example) should be preserved... buy it and preserve it! But it is not a publisher's responsibility to continue to publish or sell materials that can now be identified as problematic. And if the authors of that material disagree... they can find other publishers, self-publish, or sue! We have literal systems in place to protect free speech, but the free market is not one of them.The case with Zhao is sad and troubling. However, I would argue that looking at it in the context of a cultural shift is important. These conversations around representation in publishing, especially in YA literature, are relatively new. And in this case, the publishers got it wrong. On the other hand, the author still got published and we are still talking about the conversation around her work, which means publishers and critics can do better in the future. If you examine the case as a single, isolated event it's frustrating and sad. Seen in the larger context of a cultural shift in YA literature, it's still frustrating and sad, but it's part of the longer process of bringing representation and diversity to a traditionally monocultural institution.I guess what I'm arguing here is that context matters!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BookTenTiger, post: 8117188, member: 6685541"] I am a firm believer than we should preserve all art, even offensive art... But publishers are not museums, and it is not their responsibility. If you firmly believe that the old Oriental Adventures (to pull out a well-trod example) should be preserved... buy it and preserve it! But it is not a publisher's responsibility to continue to publish or sell materials that can now be identified as problematic. And if the authors of that material disagree... they can find other publishers, self-publish, or sue! We have literal systems in place to protect free speech, but the free market is not one of them. The case with Zhao is sad and troubling. However, I would argue that looking at it in the context of a cultural shift is important. These conversations around representation in publishing, especially in YA literature, are relatively new. And in this case, the publishers got it wrong. On the other hand, the author still got published and we are still talking about the conversation around her work, which means publishers and critics can do better in the future. If you examine the case as a single, isolated event it's frustrating and sad. Seen in the larger context of a cultural shift in YA literature, it's still frustrating and sad, but it's part of the longer process of bringing representation and diversity to a traditionally monocultural institution. I guess what I'm arguing here is that context matters! [/QUOTE]

Verification