for future reference since I got blocked — in italics mine
My favourite part is where you said ‘you can raise two points at the same time and this white author’s plain arrogance, lack of media training, and mediocre quality being pushed with a six figure deal sits next to the wider issue of the industry expecting bipoc authors making ten times more efforts and then still ignoring their voices and their stories’ because… those are both points I was making. Like, that is the entire premise of my above post. That’s why I said ‘the main issue is’, implying that it’s the larger issue among many, and not ‘the real issue is’, which would have implied that it was the only issue. So why have you spend four paragraphs out of six in that reply of yours finding ways to justify this author? I’ll tell you why — because there’s no debate on the publishing industry being fucked, while we hold diametrically different ideas on what is excusable when writing something. And I was utterly mystified at those points of contention you raised.
So essentially you just decided that my overall point was ‘her retelling is great and amazing uwu!’ rather than ‘her publishing deal is based on privilege and not merit, and is symptomatic of the problem in publishing. This particular book is not the problem itself, and focusing on just making fun of this particular book for not engaging with the Odyssey as a source text is pointless because it should be a gateway into a larger discussion about why the fuck this book was published over all the others.’ I’m not defending the author; I’m saying that she is a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself. I’m not saying that she’s immune to criticism; you might note the first paragraph of my above comment, where I acknowledged that her comments are hilarious and weird, especially the obvious ignorance about the genre she’s writing in and her fellow authors. I’m saying that the criticism shouldn’t stop at her, or at this book. This book is the symptom of the problem, and what’s really funny to me is this: this author could have gotten away with the lack of interest and research and yet decided, with absolute arrogance, to announce to the world she just hadn’t bothered. This author is not a symptom. This author is an example with agency.
When I write that Greek myth is fluid and open to interpretation, I am not saying that all interpretations of it are inherently good. Her book might genuinely suck! I have no idea, and neither do you! It’s not out yet! Maybe it’s just 60k of absolute shit. Maybe it’s a work of stellar beauty which will change lives and raze nations. Who knows! My point is that Greek myth is part of a broader cultural context, and although we often think of it as being a series of canonical texts which one must engage with to Unlock Unlimited Access to the truths about the ancient myths, the texts we have today are just the old extant remnants of a huge oral tradition encompassing multiple canons, sources and reimaginings, and that reading the existing source material is not the be-all and end-all; it doesn’t mean that your work will inherently be GREAT because you read the Odyssey, and it doesn’t mean that it’ll be shit if you didn’t, especially as her work isn’t a retelling of it but is inspired by two characters in it. You wrote that “new interpretations of it are juicy and fine and valid” and I said sure! But probably not this one given the lack of research and interest. Would you bet on it? Personally not. Pass. Very happy to read it and confirm my opinion once it’s out though.
She isn’t the first author to not read the source material and she won’t be the last, so it’s weird to me that she’s getting more flack than everyone else, and it’s weird to me that people are focusing on that element rather than the fact that she was so clearly being set up as publishing’s new myth darling despite not having even 1% of the credentials that many more marginalised people querying similar works unsuccessfully have. Again, it truly is interesting how you’re painting this author as having no agency when the interview is about how she decided to go about things. Was she also set up? Was she also left go her own devices when facing the media? Yes. But there’s agency.
When your whole point takes mine in bad faith (I’m not an ‘anglo’ but thank you for that assumption, it really does show the position you’re arguing from I’m sorry if you’re not an Anglo! Would white native English speaker who does not have to prove they know the language they study and work in suffice in this instance? and with such poor reading comprehension I’m soand lack of awareness of Classical Reception Did you like, read my objections? Non of my objections touched upon the wider issue within the publishing industry which we AGREE ON. I was yet again mystified at how much… slack was being cut about something that really shouldn’t be an argument. Engage with your source material and do your research when writing something for publication. I don’t think anyone is saying that this author is the only problem, but again and again here people — you or these goodreads people — explaining how and why this author just didn’t do the bare minimum. It shouldn’t be an argument. Point on contentions shouldn’t exist. On classical reception — I don’t see how that’s a point in her favour at all. Shouldn’t it make it easier to engage with source material, since it’s so widely known in Western culture, instead of being lazy?
that I genuinely find it quite funny that part of your argument is about how poorly she engaged with the source text, all I can say to you is:
image
#wtf i mean i feel like you should read things before replying to them in general but especially when you're getting embroiled in discourse about someone not reading something
But I thought you could offer points of contention to me not reading your sc[gunshot].