Dust and echoes

[dolorosa_12]

In the past couple of days, two stories have been making the rounds, discussed as emblematic of the intense toxicity and problems with Twitter, specifically Twitter as used as a marketing tool and social space for the SFF and YA publishing communities (of which there is of course considerable overlap).

The first is an interview with Isabel Fall, an author whose debut short story (under that nom de plume) and very identity were the subject of a hideous Twitter pile on early last year. Content note for discussions of transphobia, dysphoria, misgendering and harassment.

The second is an essay by YA commentator and critic Nicole Brinkley. Its title is 'Did Twitter Break YA?' which I assume speaks for itself.

As you might imagine, as someone who find Twitter pretty close to unbearable, and who wrote an essay last year about the problems inherent in an entire profession blurring the lines between marketing tool and social circle, these two posts resonated a lot.

That being said, putting the blame solely at Twitter's door, rending metaphorical garments about the evils of 'the algorithm' and 'parasocial relationships' and calling it a day doesn't really get to the heart of the problem. Twitter is a tool, and, like all tools used by human beings, those human beings bring the best and the worst of themselves (as individuals and as groups/communities) to the platform. The problems I've witnessed with YA and SFF Twitter certainly reached fever pitch on that platform, but I witnessed versions of the same blowups on Tumblr, and on Livejournal and personal blogs before that. I'm seeing a lot of authors jump ship to Instagram (which is of course entirely their right), but unless there is some serious soul-searching, they risk bringing the same problems with them to the new platform.

The problem with what the SFF community did to Isabel Fall was not Twitter: it was bullying, weaponising/gatekeeping of identity and authenticity (ironic given the subject of Fall's short story), and a discomfort with representation of marginalised identities/experiences that did not toe the party line. Twitter was the medium. There are people who participated in the pile on who have only offered qualified apologies, filled with special pleading, or who have not apologised at all. They hounded a trans woman back into the closet! They tried to police the identities of those who said they enjoyed Fall's story! That's not Twitter's fault — that's people choosing to be awful, to gatekeep and harass.

The problem with 'toxic YA Twitter' is not Twitter (nor is it really the open secret that most YA is bought by adult readers and is therefore written with that readership in mind): it is the fact that publishing has created this fevered atmosphere of scarcity in which it's a prudent marketing strategy to weaponise and gatekeep identity, representation and authenticity and direct Twitter mobs towards the competition. (And this ties into the wider problem of doing away with specialist marketing departments and expecting authors to handle their own marketing using social media.) Twitter, again, is the medium.

I don't have any easy solutions, because many of these problems have sprung from very worthwhile, sincere intentions — a desire to push against structural inequalities in publishing, a desire to create more stories for readers who deserve to see their lives mirrored in fiction more frequently, and to see those stories succeed. But the solution to these problems is not to rigidly define 'good representation' — that leads to people's experiences being erased, identities being policed, and Twitter mobs being directed at those whose representation is deemed to be insufficiently pure.

I do not seek a world absent of critique, negative reviews, or a wide range of reactions to every single story. But I do seek a world in which the first weapon in the arsenal of critique is not identity policing. I seek a world in which the behaviour of people in the SFF and YA communities is given greater weight in determining their character than the community's reaction to the content of their fiction. And I seek a world in which the intentions and moral character of SFF and YA readers who enjoy messy stories, dark stories, morally grey or villainous characters, and the kinds of relationships they'd never enjoy in real life are not constantly called into question.

Comments

[dolorosa_12]

A lot of the people who are now making noises about 'toxic Twitter' and what an awful place it is for authors are those who have gleefully led or participated in pile ons in the past, and appear only to be upset about these things now because they're directed at them and their friends. (Cat Valente in your link being the prime example!) There are also several people implying that the toxicity is solely coming from readers and the easy access to authors that they get via social media, whereas most of the worst instances of Twitter pile ons that I can think of were instigated and led by professionally published authors, and other promininent figures in the SFF and YA publishing communities.

To be fair, I am not reading every single reply directed at those who apologised (or 'apologised'), and no doubt there are some people who've leapt into the situation in order to shit-stir or settle their own grudges, but asking for accountability is not bullying.

I genuinely believe a lot of people involved in the mobbing of Isabel Fall feel that this sort of behaviour is acceptable as long as it's directed at the 'right' target, and if Fall hadn't outed herself as trans (in much the same way as Becky Albertalli felt pressured into outing herself as bi, etc, etc) they would continue to feel entirely justified in their behaviour. And many — rather than offering an unqualified apology — seem to be self-pityingly angling for absolution. They want their friends and community to tell them that they were right to have reacted in the way they did to the title of Fall's short story, and that their motives were pure.

[kore]

Also, this essay was really well-written! I forgot to say that, and should have.

There are also several people implying that the toxicity is solely coming from readers and the easy access to authors that they get via social media, whereas most of the worst instances of Twitter pile ons that I can think of were instigated and led by professionally published authors, and other promininent figures in the SFF and YA publishing communities.

Yeah, it seems like there's a lot of punching down either by people who feel the Need to Speak because they have such a big audience (Scalzi used to do this a lot), or people who rather disingenuously claim not to realize they obvious power and influence they have (Warren Ellis recently claiming "I was just this guy and had aaaabsolutely no idea people looked up to me or would feel they couldn't say no to me" was really something). Which is again not something that Twitter started but Twitter really rewards, with the follower count and likes and RTs and quote metrics all being visible, and what drive most of the engagement.

And many — rather than offering an unqualified apology — seem to be self-pityingly angling for absolution. They want their friends and community to tell them that they were right to have reacted in the way they did to the title of Fall's short story, and that their motives were pure.

Yeah, I think I'm seeing that with most of the apologies -- the idea that either the person apologizing was hurt and lashing out, or just trying to express concern for people who were hurt.

[nyctanthes]

I genuinely believe a lot of people involved in the mobbing of Isabel Fall feel that this sort of behaviour is acceptable as long as it's directed at the 'right' target, and if Fall hadn't outed herself as trans (in much the same way as Becky Albertalli felt pressured into outing herself as bi, etc, etc) they would continue to feel entirely justified in their behaviour. And many — rather than offering an unqualified apology — seem to be self-pityingly angling for absolution. They want their friends and community to tell them that they were right to have reacted in the way they did to the title of Fall's short story, and that their motives were pure.

The article seems to argue that while the behavior wasn't at all justifiable, it was explainable by the transphobia that is endemic on social media; and of course the system of Twitter. Which...even giving the benefit of the doubt that these are the two primary reasons for Fall being the victim of an internet mob, still doesn't explain why similar incidents have happened and will continue to. When I was googling the article for further background, I kept bumping into the case of the 20-something PR person who tweeted about AIDS and Africa back in 2014 (or so). Though I'm sure many people feel she deserved what she got.

I think there is this tendency on the part of the wider public to view each incident as sui generis (despite talking about broken Twitter). In the aftermath we unpack the particulars of the communities and individuals involved, the material that set off the storm, what the intention behind it was, what could have been done differently. We look for explanations. But while the communities might be different, the specific reasons different, the material different, the resulting behavior and impact on the individual at the heart of the storm seem to be quite similar. And there is always far too much focus on the victim and them proving their worth.

[dolorosa_12]

The article seems to argue that while the behavior wasn't at all justifiable, it was explainable by the transphobia that is endemic on social media; and of course the system of Twitter. Which...even giving the benefit of the doubt that these are the two primary reasons for Fall being the victim of an internet mob, still doesn't explain why similar incidents have happened and will continue to.

Bad experiences with transphobia may certainly explain why — for example — Neon Yang decided to get involved, but I don't find it convincing when it comes to cis people like NK Jemisin, who admitted she gave her own take on the story without having read it. If nothing else, I hope that this episode will teach people to look before they leap, and just approach Twitter with a bit more thoughtfulness, and approach each situation asking themselves if adding their own hot take is actually going to be helpful.

I think there is this tendency on the part of the wider public to view each incident as sui generis (despite talking about broken Twitter). In the aftermath we unpack the particulars of the communities and individuals involved, the material that set off the storm, what the intention behind it was, what could have been done differently. We look for explanations.

Agreed, which is why I think it's important to look at who was involved, and whether there are any long-term patterns of behaviour — a lot of the people who leapt into the fray in the Isobel Fall situation are names I recognise from the past fifteen years of online conflicts and pile ons, predating Twitter in some cases. This is why I'm so insistent that focusing on toxic platforms is a huge mistake: we need to look at people (individual bad actors, and bad group dynamics) and focus on their behaviour.

[lirazel]

And doesn't a lot of this come back to the idea that people have to have pure motives for writing? Like, if you're going to write about abuse, that's only acceptable if you've been abused. But...why? I agree that people who are abused have insight into that experience that people who aren't don't have...but the idea that only certain people can write about certain things has become so prevalent these days. (Also sorry: I'm all over this comment section! You don't have to reply to all of my comments!)

[kore]

(It's OK, I am all over the comments too. I think this is stirring up A LOT of various stuff for all kinds of people, gatekeeping and evangelicalism and censorship and identity policing and online mobbing and gender and Lord knows what all else, like a terrible stew.)