#it’s a booktok book I shouldn’t expect good things but I liked the first two books

[emeraldcreeper]

I had such high expectations for the probably final book in this romcom series but goddamn is the main character so exhaustingly upsettingly fucking stupid, it’s fun it’s a romcom it’s catnip for me but goddamn is it frustratingly ohhhh but we can’t actually date it’s fake dating and Shakespeare themed but queer and feminist and written by an insufferable millennial woman I can only presume. She used to write good, but this one is missing the good sexual tension cause the love interest barfs at the thought of sex and cries post orgasm in the most sad wet kitten way that’s not even hot in an aw I wanna take care of the wet kitten way, she does want the sex she likes it ostensibly she’s just Bad At Taking Affection, and the main character is so insecure about sex and romance and having a relationship at all it’s not even fun to have a sex scene happen, it’s just clashing insecurity and wetness, I miss the I hate you fucking and the ah your friends hate my guts fucking, the artsy cry fucking is just sad and not even a little horny

#it’s funny but god it’s tiring #I want more hatefucking less yearn not fucking #it’s also millennial uhhhh diverse I guess #it’s constantly going this person with this race and this gender and I go #okay! why? why’d you list 5 descriptors for this person we’re never seeing again #I am sated with descriptions of my favorite characters being in disgusting love #but also there’s like 2 distinct scenes of #have you considered you’re This Label? #and it’s never right #it’s like someone’s mom read how 2 be a good ally to ur lgbtqia+ kid #and went okay! I get it now! #it’s a solid 3/5 book but god the first two books were leagues better #way better sex scenes and actual tension #it’s a booktok book I shouldn’t expect good things but I liked the first two books #usually booktok romcoms treat me right I had an awesome streak of like 5 of them that were all good

[luminescent-wanderings]

Okay not to be a Boomer on main but I genuinely think one of the problems that I sometimes see in online Book-Culture sub spaces (like on YouTube, TikTok, etc) is an unwillingness to engage critically with media beyond the scope of identifying the problems within it. To expand, this can sometimes extend to a willingness to ignore the ideas of a person who engages with a piece of media that is considered “problematic” because of their interest in that work, which is not always equal to “this is good, it has no flaws, and should be held on a pinnacle.”

This isn’t to be broad reaching and say every person on BookTok, say, does this, or that this is something that can’t be moved past, and it’s not me trying to make a character judgement against people I don’t know. But I do think that identifying authors who have written through history as “problematic” and immediately canceling them or refusing to read their works isn’t always the correct approach. In general, all media is going to be in some way flawed, especially in regards to works written in periods where prejudice was not routinely examined in the same manner as perhaps it is today. We live in a society where people are actively being oppressed, and the mentality which allows for that situation is bound to leak into the media we consume.

I think it’s great that we are seeing a trend of people identifying what’s harmful within media and saying hey, this is a problem. But I also think people forget you can engage with media that has problems within it and still find it enjoyable, useful, or valuable in some way. For example, I’ve been enjoying reading Gothic literature lately, but there are plenty of harmful tropes within the genre. Engaging with literature critically isn’t seeing the first hints of misogyny and saying “Nope, I’m done with this.” It is, rather, identifying that complex problem, considering why it is contained within that work - is it typical to the period? Is it the result of the author being a Not Good Person - I’m looking at you, Lovecraft - or is it a mix of the two? It also can be a moment of asking, “Do I believe this was done with intent, or was it an implicit bias from the result of working within a society that condones racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.?” And the thing is, none of these questions have to change how you feel about that problematic aspect. Engaging with media that has these issues (because again, all media is going to be in some way flawed) doesn’t mean you condone the issues it contains. You can appreciate a work of literature because it is well written, or because it has had a lasting impact on its genre, while acknowledging there are parts of it that are deeply flawed, perpetuate harm, and should be engaged with in such a manner that makes note of these facts.

On the flip side, this isn’t an argument for retaining the canon as it is, and saying, “well, just engage with it critically.” The literary canon of what is “good” should be expanded beyond a largely white, largely straight, largely male perspective. Nor is it to say anyone has to or should feel bound to engage with literature that they feel is harmful to them. Choose what you like, read what you like, decide for yourself what media you believe you should consume. Deciding you don’t want to read something for the harm it perpetuates can be a perfectly valid choice, but it shouldn’t be a choice that is universally expected. Again, remember that all works are inherently flawed, and there are many, including within the canon of “great works” that are flawed and contain harmful ideals. But also remember that, if you’re going to elect to engage critically with your media (as you absolutely should), what a person reads isn’t always a value judgement against them. Reading media that contains those latent issues, while also acknowledging it is deeply flawed and understanding how it can perpetuate harm, is inherently different from taking an approach of ignorance.

Acknowledging and understanding the issues within a work, and asking “how can we do better,” or, “how can this negatively effect a particular group,” is an important way to engage with your media also. No work is going to be perfect. There is no litmus test for moral perfection that any book written within an oppressive society is ever going to pass. Reading and finding positives in a deeply flawed work is not equivalent to condoning or upholding that work and it’s author as moral perfection. Nor should it be perceived as such.

#literature #long post #fandom critical #critical media engagement #reading #writing #words