The View: Week of 4/25/2022

[falltime]

Monday, April 25 – Amber Ruffin guest co-hosts; Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Broadway’s “Take Me Out”); “View Your Deal” with hottest items at affordable prices

Tuesday, April 26 – Amber Ruffin guest co-hosts; Viola Davis (author, “Finding Me”)

Wednesday, April 27 – Amber Ruffin guest co-hosts; Magic Johnson (“They Call Me Magic”)

Thursday, April 28 – Amber Ruffin guest co-hosts; Andrew Garfield and Daisy Edgar-Jones (“Under the Banner of Heaven”)

Friday, April 29 – Jane Lynch guest co-hosts (Broadway’s “Funny Girl”); Darren Criss (Broadway’s “American Buffalo”)

[Prairie Rose]

AMBER!!!!! 💖💕

[Spartan Girl]

Now there’s a guest host we’re happy to see!

[Buckeye71034]

Amber should replace Whoop...

[geekburger]

Amber is a comic? Sounds like a potential replacement for the Joy seat.

Edited April 23, 2022 by geekburger

[gatopretoNYC]

Amber Ruffin! Now there's an enjoyable guest co-host!

[Back Atcha]

2 hours ago, geekburger said:

Amber is a comic? Sounds like a potential replacement for the Joy seat.

How long should Amber be willing to wait?

[TheGreenKnight]

I'm more excited about Jane Lynch, tbh. Just hope this doesn't mean Joy is off this week...

[ginger90]

This week, video:

 

 

[Haleth]

Oh, cool!  Whoopi is filming Anansi Boys* with Lennie James. Love Neil Gaiman. Looking forward to that!

(*Speaking of white writers writing about someone of another race.)

Edited April 25, 2022 by Haleth

[Bronzedog]

Why is Amber yelling?

[geekburger]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:57 AM, Back Atcha said:

How long should Amber be willing to wait?

Rumor has it Joys contract ends this August.

So far Amber is ok. She has her own show so no way she’d leave that for this.

The op-Ed conversation was interesting. Wish it could have kept going (sorry Jesse Tyler). Joy brought up counter arguments and there was some interesting debate between Sunny/Sara.

Ana’s comment (and Sara’s response) at the close of the segment were also interesting.

Edited April 25, 2022 by geekburger

[Bronzedog]

I don’t think Amber added anything to the show.

[TheGreenKnight]

Maybe it's just me--I felt the same way when she was a guest not long ago--but Ruffin has a desperate, cringe factor to her. *shrug*

I agreed with Sara on the book topic, there's a middle area where the truth is there. Someone with the lived experience who also has strong writing ability would be first choice, but sometimes people without an experience such as the Holocaust are better writers... And it seems kind of dumb to say only person who's lived the life that's being portrayed can write a story. I mean, that's just illogical. Most Holocaust survivors are passing away now--can nobody else write about the Holocaust once they're all gone? Can nobody write about anything pre-1920 because everyone that was living then is dead, too? I mean, you might as well say only viewers who are exactly like the character in the story can relate to that story.

Ana had the best thoughts as someone actually from Florida when she said DeSantis is serving his national political ambitions because causing taxes to go up and jobs to be lost doesn't help Floridians.

[Ellis Bell]

First Segment:  How dare DeSantis punish a corporation for free speech.

Second and Third Segment:  How dare white women write about a black experience.  Or how dare WOC limit a white woman's freedom of speech.  It's called the First Amendment, ladies, you know that bit you defended in the first segment.  You may not like it but they have the right to write about any subject they damn well please.  Joy finally woke up and began defending classics like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Good Earth.

Sunny was incorrect about the settlement in the Oz diet case and had to issue a verbal retraction.  Her bitchy reaction was typical of someone who hates to admit they're wrong and is forced to eat crow.   

Amber needs to dial it back a bit.  She seems to think she's on stage doing her set.

Joy's closing in on 80 and it shows when she wastes time going blank.

Ana and Sara had good talking points today.

[TheGreenKnight]

3 hours ago, geekburger said:

Rumor has it Joys contract ends this August.

Probably. Her last contract was for 3 or 5 years because they begged her back and the ratings went up when she returned. I don't buy that she's leaving except on her own terms for now. I don't think her age is a big deal at the present--maybe in five or ten years, it might be. Whoopi is much more wiped and incoherent than Joy is despite being around 15 years younger, for example, and I wouldn't say Whoopi's going anywhere.

[Ellis Bell]

Joy should run for Congress.  She'd be considered a spring chicken among that bunch of octogenarians.  Term and age limits on politicians and talk show hosts.

Addendum:  Stoners who need to be wheel barrowed out of the studio each day and dumped into the limo.

[Cozytea]

21 minutes ago, Ellis Bell said:

First Segment:  How dare DeSantis punish a corporation for free speech.

Second and Third Segment:  How dare white women write about a black experience.  Or how dare WOC limit a white woman's freedom of speech.  It's called the First Amendment, ladies, you know that bit you defended in the first segment.  You may not like it but they have the right to write about any subject they damn well please.  Joy finally woke up and began defending classics like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Good Earth.

Sunny was incorrect about the settlement in the Oz diet case and had to issue a verbal retraction.  Her bitchy reaction was typical of someone who hates to admit they're wrong and is forced to eat crow.   

Amber needs to dial it back a bit.  She seems to think she's on stage doing her set.

Joy's closing in on 80 and it shows when she wastes time going blank.

Ana and Sara had good talking points today.

Sunny wasn't wrong about the Oz case, she had to add a piece she didn't know until  Dr Oz and his people informed the show. Dr Oz is a scam artist and an opportunist, so I don't mind what you call Sunny's bitchy attitude towards him.

Of course a professional writer is more capable of writing a more thoughtful nuanced piece of work. I'm sure there are professional writers who are brilliant and and also POC. 

As was pointed out To kill a mockingbird, is from the view point of a a white little girl.  Can the white writer see how ugly and disgusting racism is, of course and can they emphasize absolutely. That is not the same thing. 

As Amber pointed out it is just recently that POC have been allowed to share their voices and stories with enthusiasm from others. Can't POC have that for a little while.for many many decades white people were in charge of telling their history and everyone elses. Take a seat for a minute.  And see where this goes.🤷🏾‍♀️

[bluegirl147]

43 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

Can nobody write about anything pre-1920 because everyone that was living then is dead, too? I mean, you might as well say only viewers who are exactly like the character in the story can relate to that story.

This made me think of the former cohost who claimed to not know about things that happened before she was born.  

A good writer is a good writer.  Back in the day writers used pseudonyms.  You didn't know if the author was a woman or a man.  White or a person of color. 

[Ellis Bell]

2 minutes ago, Cozytea said:

Sunny wasn't wrong about the Oz case, she had to add a piece she didn't know until  Dr Oz and his people informed the show. Dr Oz is a scam artist and an opportunist, so I don't mind what you call Sunny's bitchy attitude towards him.

Of course a professional writer is more capable of writing a more thoughtful nuanced piece of work. I'm sure there are professional writers who are brilliant and and also POC. 

As was pointed out To kill a mockingbird, is from the view point of a a white little girl.  Can the white writer see how ugly and disgusting racism is, of course and can they emphasize absolutely. That is not the same thing. 

As Amber pointed out it is just recently that POC have been allowed to share their voices and stories with enthusiasm from others. Can't POC have that for a little while.for many many decades white people were in charge of telling their history and everyone elses. Take a seat for a minute.  And see where this goes.🤷🏾‍♀️

This a very dangerous time for free speech in this country.  They're not asking for an equal voice, they're shutting down any form of discourse on the matter and saying this is the way it's going to be.  I suppose science fiction writers must all be aliens and Stephen King should be sued by 1958 Plymouh Furys for writing from the perspective of a murderous vehicle.

[SusanM]

6 minutes ago, Cozytea said:

As Amber pointed out it is just recently that POC have been allowed to share their voices and stories with enthusiasm from others. Can't POC have that for a little while.for many many decades white people were in charge of telling their history and everyone elses. Take a seat for a minute.  And see where this goes.🤷🏾‍♀️

Her point made me think of what happens the minute a woman wins a major award for the first time or moves up to a position of power.  Suddenly it's not about a woman succeeding it's about how men are losing out.  People can't just acknowledge that finally women have made a gain somewhere, it has to get turned around to be (as a friend of mine used to put it) "all about the mens". 

[KittyQ]

9 minutes ago, Cozytea said:

Sunny wasn't wrong about the Oz case, she had to add a piece she didn't know until  Dr Oz and his people informed the show. Dr Oz is a scam artist and an opportunist, so I don't mind what you call Sunny's bitchy attitude towards him.

If she didn't know all the facts (that the suit was eventually dropped, which is a very important piece of information) then she shouldn't have made an issue of it on the show. Whatever you think of Dr. Oz, he is entitled to have the facts clarified instead of what some might consider misinformation. 

[General Days]

14 minutes ago, Ellis Bell said:

First Segment:  How dare DeSantis punish a corporation for free speech.

Second and Third Segment:  How dare white women write about a black experience.  Or how dare WOC limit a white woman's freedom of speech.  It's called the First Amendment, ladies, you know that bit you defended in the first segment.  You may not like it but they have the right to write about any subject they damn well please.  Joy finally woke up and began defending classics like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Good Earth.

 

 

 

You present a false equivalency.

A government penalizing a corporation for speech is akin to actual censorship. This is in the wheelhouse of the First Amendment. Thanks to the First Amendment, Florida cannot silence Disney, but the STATE is exacting a financial penalty in an attempt to achieve that end.

The cultural appropriation conversation is different, because consumers and critics do not have the force of a government behind them. I wish Sunny had touched on that. Maybe Ana would have, if she had gotten a chance to speak during the second half of the conversation.

No government is telling white writers: "You cannot write BIPOC stories."

No government is penalizing white writers who write BIPOC stories.

People saying, "We don't like it when you appropriate our stories," is not censorship, and it is not akin to censorship. White writers retain the right to write BIPOC stories without government penalty. "We don't like you appropriating our stories" is criticism, and for people who care -- it's a part of the larger conversation on how to be a good ally.

When the cultural appropriation critique is effective, it can result in, for instance, fewer sales of a book, but that just means consumers are exercising choice. That's just capitalism, baby.

Whether I don't like your books because your story is boring, poorly plotted, and the dialogue is stilted -- or I don't like your books because you co-opt and exploit the lived experience of others -- and my opinion then influences others, the result is the same. I've harnessed the power of capitalism. The government hasn't imposed any sort of sanction on your speech. Readers just think your book sucks.

Side note: "White writers retain the right to write" is the start of a decent tongue twister + lesson in differentiating homophones (which aren't covered in the Don't Say Gay legislation -- yet 😉). 

[KittyQ]

Does Amber Ruffin imagine that there's some committee that approves or denies what topics/stories/themes authors can write about? Authors write about what interests them! And just because something is in someone's lane (so to speak) it doesn't guarantee that they are going to write well about it. Everyone should make their best effort to write whatever they want and if it is good then people will respond to it. 

Also, there is no singular experience for any particular event, so having a variety of perspectives can benefit a reader in understanding what they may not have experienced themselves.

Edited April 25, 2022 by KittyQ
typo

[General Days]

13 minutes ago, Ellis Bell said:

This a very dangerous time for free speech in this country.  They're not asking for an equal voice, they're shutting down any form of discourse on the matter and saying this is the way it's going to be.  I suppose science fiction writers must all be aliens and Stephen King should be sued by 1958 Plymouh Furys for writing from the perspective of a murderous vehicle.

Wait. Who is "they"?  If it's just people, so what? People can say, "Don't do this," and I can say, "I'll do what I want."

But also, in terms of today's conversation on The View -- the topic didn't even arise because a BIPOC writer said a thing -- it arose because a white author had an opinion, and enough zhuzh to get that opinion printed on the pages of The New York Times. She's not oppressed.

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, General Days said:

When the cultural appropriation critique is effective, it can result in, for instance, fewer sales of a book, but that just means consumers are exercising choice. That's just capitalism, baby.

I haven't watched the show yet so I don't know if the book American Dirt was mentioned.  That book written by a white woman about a Mexican woman who comes to America as an undocumented worker faced controversy after it was announced as an Oprah Book Club selection.  I can understand why Hispanic writers were asking why the books they wrote weren't being published or given the publicity this book this received. 

[Welshman in Ca]

7 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I haven't watched the show yet so I don't know if the book American Dirt was mentioned.  That book written by a white woman about a Mexican woman who comes to America as an undocumented worker faced controversy after it was announced as an Oprah Book Club selection.  I can understand why Hispanic writers were asking why the books they wrote weren't being published or given the publicity this book this received. 

Maybe because their books weren't as good, if I read a book & think it's a good book or not has nothing to do with who the writer is or what colour/ethinicty the writer is. This isn't school where everyone gets the same prize no matter where they came in a race or how good or bad their book is.

[Haleth]

14 minutes ago, KittyQ said:

Does Amber Ruffin imagine that there's some committee that approves or denies what topics/stories/themes authors can write about?

Publishers pick and choose what they think will sell.  People can submit whatever they've written but it doesn't mean it will be picked up.  I imagine publishers are more interested in quality (which translates to dollars) than the genealogy of the writer, but extra points for authenticity and avoiding controversy.

11 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I don't know if the book American Dirt was mentioned.

Excellent example.  I have not read it but I know it was was a best seller in spite of the controversy.

Here's the answer; have every book published anonymously.  Only the publisher knows the author and his/her background.  (JK)

[General Days]

9 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I haven't watched the show yet so I don't know if the book American Dirt was mentioned.  That book written by a white woman about a Mexican woman who comes to America as an undocumented worker faced controversy after it was announced as an Oprah Book Club selection.  I can understand why Hispanic writers were asking why the books they wrote weren't being published or given the publicity this book this received. 

I don't think it was. Joy brought up Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, and Pear Buck's The Good Earth (as examples of writers who've written outside their own culture, although she did take care to note that Lee's book was told from the perspective of a little white girl). 

Your point (in bold) is the point Amber made (although not citing American Dirt, as far as I can recall). 

Just now, Welshman in Ca said:

Maybe because their books weren't as good, if I read a book & think it's a good book or not has nothing to do with who the writer is or what colour/ethinicty the writer is. This isn't school where everyone gets the same prize no matter where they came in a race or how good or bad their book is.

It's really hard to get a book published, or even considered, which is part of the larger cultural critique. Publishing is famously insular, so if a publisher/agent/editor is looking for a story about, for instance, a Black woman's life, they should look at works by writers who are Black women.

You're right, that it shouldn't be a participation prize, but that's not even the situation. The situation is more like trying to get your brilliant kid from an utterly ordinary family into Harvard, but Harvard accepts the applications of mediocre legacy students, instead.

[After7Only]

1 hour ago, Ellis Bell said:

This a very dangerous time for free speech in this country.  They're not asking for an equal voice, they're shutting down any form of discourse on the matter and saying this is the way it's going to be.  I suppose science fiction writers must all be aliens and Stephen King should be sued by 1958 Plymouh Furys for writing from the perspective of a murderous vehicle.

I find it interesting/frustrating that so many confuse the issue of free speech.   Neither Sunny or Amber had the desire or most importantly the ability to shut down anything or declare what stories can be told by what person.   They were both stating their opinion.    Sunny is a published writer, and I'm pretty sure she has some non Afro-latina female characters in her book.   So her point was not that a writer can only write about characters like them.    It was about the perspective and knowledge of the writer.   I can generally tell when a book, movie, TV show etc. with majority black characters are written by non-black people.  (It happens often).   It just doesn't feel authentic to what I know of the Black experience and that therefore lessons the quality of the book/movie/tv show.   That's the point Sunny/Amber are making about writer's perspective.  It is very difficult to get it right without living or getting significant input on the experience you are writing about.   

This is totally a different scenario from what Florida is doing.  As so eloquently explained by @General Days

Had to LOL... with Anna mentioning someone who once accused her of having a fake Sofia Vagara accent.   I do believe that someone was the husband of SWSBN....  Love her level of petty!

Edited April 25, 2022 by After7Only

[bluegirl147]

15 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Here's the answer; have every book published anonymously.  Only the publisher knows the author and his/her background.  (JK)

Kidding or not I do think that would have an effect on which books become best sellers.  We have all seen books by Tori Spelling land on best seller lists.  I doubt that is because her books are so well written.  

[TheGreenKnight]

3 hours ago, Ellis Bell said:

Joy should run for Congress.  She'd be considered a spring chicken among that bunch of octogenarians.  Term and age limits on politicians and talk show hosts.

The View isn't Congress. And I'm not down with this ageism that anyone should be packed up and shipped off at a certain age. Eighty and all, Joy is still hands down the best thing about this show--the highest-rated talkshow* on TV. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

* With the multiple co-host format, I mean. I know Kelly Clarkson is the highest-rated solo show.

Edited April 25, 2022 by TheGreenKnight

[Back Atcha]

1 hour ago, TheGreenKnight said:

And it seems kind of dumb to say only person who's lived the life that's being portrayed can write a story. I mean, that's just illogical.

If we must throw out all the writings of those who have NOT experienced what they write about...let's throw out most of the writings.

1 hour ago, Ellis Bell said:

Amber needs to dial it back a bit.  She seems to think she's on stage doing her set.

Because a family member tapes Colbert's show, I'm often invited to see Amber's segments.  She DOES need to dial it back; I assume that will come with experience.

37 minutes ago, KittyQ said:

Does Amber Ruffin imagine that there's some committee that approves or denies what topics/stories/themes authors can write about?

She doesn't need to "imagine" anything.  There are "committees," also known as publication houses.  For decades (mostly) white men... talented or not...made the decisions on what readers would read.  As far back as the 1800s, women wrote using men's name--otherwise no mail/manuscripts they submitted would  even be opened.  Yes, there have always been committees..."that approves or denies what topics/stories/themes authors can write about?.  Of course, writers can write whatever they want to.  "Committees" decide what will be published.  Amber speaks from experience.

[TheGreenKnight]

3 hours ago, General Days said:

You present a false equivalency.

A government penalizing a corporation for speech is akin to actual censorship. This is in the wheelhouse of the First Amendment. Thanks to the First Amendment, Florida cannot silence Disney, but the STATE is exacting a financial penalty in an attempt to achieve that end.

The cultural appropriation conversation is different, because consumers and critics do not have the force of a government behind them. I wish Sunny had touched on that. Maybe Ana would have, if she had gotten a chance to speak during the second half of the conversation.

No government is telling white writers: "You cannot write BIPOC stories."

No government is penalizing white writers who write BIPOC stories.

People saying, "We don't like it when you appropriate our stories," is not censorship, and it is not akin to censorship. White writers retain the right to write BIPOC stories without government penalty. "We don't like you appropriating our stories" is criticism, and for people who care -- it's a part of the larger conversation on how to be a good ally.

When the cultural appropriation critique is effective, it can result in, for instance, fewer sales of a book, but that just means consumers are exercising choice. That's just capitalism, baby.

Whether I don't like your books because your story is boring, poorly plotted, and the dialogue is stilted -- or I don't like your books because you co-opt and exploit the lived experience of others -- and my opinion then influences others, the result is the same. I've harnessed the power of capitalism. The government hasn't imposed any sort of sanction on your speech. Readers just think your book sucks.

Side note: "White writers retain the right to write" is the start of a decent tongue twister + lesson in differentiating homophones (which aren't covered in the Don't Say Gay legislation -- yet 😉). 

👏 👏👏

Being criticized on social media for your speech and being punished for speech via the government are two vastly different things.

Edited April 25, 2022 by TheGreenKnight

[Back Atcha]

27 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Here's the answer; have every book published anonymously.  Only the publisher knows the author and his/her background.  (JK)

I get the JK.  Now...which publisher will every writer (and reader) trust to be impartial and fair?  NJK

[General Days]

19 minutes ago, After7Only said:

Had to LOL... with Anna mentioning someone who once accused her of having a fake Sofia Vagara accent.   I do believe that someone was the husband of SWSBN....  Love her level of petty!

YES! I cackled. I had paused the show after commenting on the panel's writer conversation, and only saw that after.

Maybe The View should move production to Miami, so we could have Ana full time. 

11 minutes ago, Back Atcha said:

Because a family member tapes Colbert's show, I'm often invited to see Amber's segments.  She DOES need to dial it back; I assume that will come with experience.

 

Amber is on Seth Meyers NBC show, and has her own show on NBC-Universal's streaming platform, Peacock. Colbert is on CBS. How does that work? 

7 minutes ago, Back Atcha said:

I get the JK.  Now...which publisher will every writer (and reader) trust to be impartial and fair?  NJK

Yeah. The publishing houses (and agents, and editors) are the biggest part of the problem. 

[KittyQ]

8 minutes ago, Back Atcha said:

If we must throw out all the writings of those who have NOT experienced what they write about...let's throw out most of the writings.

Because a family member tapes Colbert's show, I'm often invited to see Amber's segments.  She DOES need to dial it back; I assume that will come with experience.

She doesn't need to "imagine" anything.  There are "committees," also known as publication houses.  For decades (mostly) white men... talented or not...made the decisions on what readers would read.  As far back as the 1800s, women wrote using men's name--otherwise no mail/manuscripts they submitted would  even be opened.  Yes, there have always been committees..."that approves or denies what topics/stories/themes authors can write about?.  Of course, writers can write whatever they want to.  "Committees" decide what will be published.  Amber speaks from experience.

My point about Amber's comment is that it seemed directed towards writers not publishers. Writers should be free to write whatever they want, but getting published is tricky, especially for new or unknown authors. 

However, it seems to be easier to anyone to write and distribute their own books now. In the past, "vanity" publications were not considered very seriously, but nowadays authors can "self-publish" their material online and do ok with that. I know someone who did that and is currently working on their second novel. 

[After7Only]

51 minutes ago, After7Only said:

 

Delete

Edited April 25, 2022 by After7Only

[Haleth]

1 hour ago, After7Only said:

Had to LOL... with Anna mentioning someone who once accused her of having a fake Sofia Vagara accent.   I do believe that someone was the husband of SWSBN....  Love her level of petty!

Oh, that’s right!  I’d forgotten that. 

[Gemma Violet]

3 hours ago, Ellis Bell said:

Amber needs to dial it back a bit. 

I thought she did OK today, but yeah, maybe dial it back a bit for a political talk show.  

I'm not really an Amber fan.  The first time I saw her (her first "Amber Says What" bit on Seth Meyers), I didn't think it was the slightest bit funny.  After the commercial, Carol Burnett was the guest and she told Seth that it was the funniest bit she'd ever seen.  So, I will defer to Carol (who knows more about comedy than I do). 😄

 

 

[Ellis Bell]

1 hour ago, General Days said:

You present a false equivalency.

A government penalizing a corporation for speech is akin to actual censorship. This is in the wheelhouse of the First Amendment. Thanks to the First Amendment, Florida cannot silence Disney, but the STATE is exacting a financial penalty in an attempt to achieve that end.

The cultural appropriation conversation is different, because consumers and critics do not have the force of a government behind them. I wish Sunny had touched on that. Maybe Ana would have, if she had gotten a chance to speak during the second half of the conversation.

No government is telling white writers: "You cannot write BIPOC stories."

No government is penalizing white writers who write BIPOC stories.

People saying, "We don't like it when you appropriate our stories," is not censorship, and it is not akin to censorship. White writers retain the right to write BIPOC stories without government penalty. "We don't like you appropriating our stories" is criticism, and for people who care -- it's a part of the larger conversation on how to be a good ally.

When the cultural appropriation critique is effective, it can result in, for instance, fewer sales of a book, but that just means consumers are exercising choice. That's just capitalism, baby.

Whether I don't like your books because your story is boring, poorly plotted, and the dialogue is stilted -- or I don't like your books because you co-opt and exploit the lived experience of others -- and my opinion then influences others, the result is the same. I've harnessed the power of capitalism. The government hasn't imposed any sort of sanction on your speech. Readers just think your book sucks.

Side note: "White writers retain the right to write" is the start of a decent tongue twister + lesson in differentiating homophones (which aren't covered in the Don't Say Gay legislation -- yet 😉). 

Gen,  the latter is much worse.  While both have the right to free speech, Disney may have legal recourse in regard to reversing the status of their tax revocation.  Writers who want to write about a certain topic have that right but this cancel culture mentality will  have them, their career and their reputaion ruined in record time.  

I'm reminded of Woody Allen writing about his own experiences in his memoir.  The employees of the publishing house decided to be judge, jury and executioner in regard to unproven accusations against Mr. Allen.  They proceeded to stage a walkout  and effectively had the publisher cancel the book.  He eventually found another publisher and the book became a best seller.  The former shows the dangers of a myopic cancel culture while the latter, yes, does show the market will prevail.  Woody has been in the public eye for close to 60 years while those starting out who may have offended the rigid sensibilities of today's culture warriors will not fare as well.

The Woody Allen reference is to show how a vocal group can wreak havoc in business these days.  Disney was pressured into taking a public stance by some of its employees.  It is irresponsible for a public company to voice an opinion on an issue which will alienate a good portion of its shareholders and customer base.  Again, they bent to the will of a few employees and this is the result.  The same holds true for Amber, Sunny and others with a public plaform.  There is a vocal minority controlling a very rigid narrative.  My way or the highway.  It's taken over and the freedom to express one's opinion comes at a very high price.

Lastly, you'll notice my username is the pen name of Emily Bronte, author of Wuthering Heights.  I wonder if men will now rise up and argue her portrayal of Heathcliff was an abomination because how could a woman write with so much insight about the emotions and desires of a  male?

[After7Only]

2 minutes ago, Ellis Bell said:

I'm reminded of Woody Allen writing about his own experiences in his memoir.  The employees of the publishing house decided to be judge, jury and executioner in regard to unproven accusations against Mr. Allen.  They proceeded to stage a walkout  and effectively had the publisher cancel the book.  He eventually found another publisher and the book became a best seller.  The former shows the dangers of a myopic cancel culture while the latter, yes, does show the market will prevail.  Woody has been in the public eye for close to 60 years while those starting out who may have offended the rigid sensibilities of today's culture warriors will not fare as well.

The Woody Allen reference is to show how a vocal group can wreak havoc in business these days.  Disney was pressured into taking a public stance by some of its employees.  It is irresponsible for a public company to voice an opinion on an issue which will alienate a good portion of its shareholders and customer base.  Again, they bent to the will of a few employees and this is the result.  The same holds true for Amber, Sunny and others with a public plaform.  There is a vocal minority controlling a very rigid narrative.  My way or the highway.  It's taken over and the freedom to express one's opinion comes at a very high price.

Lastly, you'll notice my username is the pen name of Emily Bronte, author of Wuthering Heights.  I wonder if men will now rise up and argue her portrayal of Heathcliff was an abomination because how could a woman write with so much insight about the emotions and desires of a  male?

But Woody's book was still published and he still has a career.  People can disagree with someone and choose not to support.  Just like people can choose to support and publish his book and support his projects.   

Disney's position likely reflected the position of the majority of its shareholders and customer base (and employees).  We haven't heard much from any of those groups against the statement.  They only people it offended was the government of Florida.   Disney made a statement that they did not support the proposed Florida law.   Just like many citizens of Florida also did.    They did not threaten to take any action against the state, or move business from the state.  So for the State then to take direct retaliatory action against Disney based on a opinion statement is what scares people.   Because what would stop the State from doing something similar to a municipality in Florida that made a similar statement against the bill?

 I'll admit I haven't read Wuthering Heights since high school.   So if it's a story specifically about manhood and makes social commentary about male culture, and men did not feel it properly reflected the male point of view, then it's perfectly fine for them to express that.    Although if that was the case then I'm sure men would have said so by now 🙂.     But please note the critiques Sunny and Amber shared are consistent with critiques they've shared before.  This isn't new for them.  It's just now society is now (kinda) listening.  

[Ellis Bell]

3 minutes ago, After7Only said:

But Woody's book was still published and he still has a career.  People can disagree with someone and choose not to support.  Just like people can choose to support and publish his book and support his projects.   

Disney's position likely reflected the position of the majority of its shareholders and customer base (and employees).  We haven't heard much from any of those groups against the statement.  They only people it offended was the government of Florida.   Disney made a statement that they did not support the proposed Florida law.   Just like many citizens of Florida also did.    They did not threaten to take any action against the state, or move business from the state.  So for the State then to take direct retaliatory action against Disney based on a opinion statement is what scares people.   Because what would stop the State from doing something similar to a municipality in Florida that made a similar statement against the bill?

 I'll admit I haven't read Wuthering Heights since high school.   So if it's a story specifically about manhood and makes social commentary about male culture, and men did not feel it properly reflected the male point of view, then it's perfectly fine for them to express that.    Although if that was the case then I'm sure men would have said so by now 🙂.     But please note the critiques Sunny and Amber shared are consistent with critiques they've shared before.  This isn't new for them.  It's just now society is now (kinda) listening.  

After, yes I mentioned Woody prevailed.  I also mentioned he has been in the public eye for close to 60 years so people will have varying degrees of affection for him as a writer/director/actor and former stand-up comic.  He's a known commodity.  A new writer being attacked will not have that public safety net when the mob gets hold of their work and start tweeting their latest culture war rhetoric.

Writers write, they create.  They bring to life characters in order to entertain the reader.  It's interesting how a white writer can write about a family of American upper-middle-class WASPS yet everyone knows the American working class Irish person does not share that experience.  White people are not a monolithic group with shared ideas and just because the NYT decided Black people are a monolith (hence the capitalization of the word "Black") is probably one the dumbest examples of pandering I've seen in quite some time.  Would you be upset if a person from Ghana wrote about a black American family?  I think an American writer of any hue would have a better perception of black culture in the US than someone from another continent.  But hey,  they're black so it AOK.

[After7Only]

2 minutes ago, Ellis Bell said:

Would you be upset if a person from Ghana wrote about a black American family?  I think an American writer of any hue would have a better perception of black culture in the US than someone from another continent.  But hey,  they're black so it AOK.

Nuance and context is always important to these types of discussion.   Nothing is just Black or white as much as people would like it to be.   I have read Homecoming by Yaa Gyasi, who is Ghanaian-American.  Her story tells the story of 2 half sisters one stolen into slavery and sent to America and one who remained in Ghana and multiple generations of their descendants.   Great book.  Her unique experience as a Ghanian-American added to the storytelling.   I don't think the book would have been nearly as good if written by a non-Black person, or even if it was written by a Black-American writer.   

A book by a Ghanaian writer who has never lived in America but wrote a novel on the Black American family in the 1950s with no ties to Ghana would give me pause.   Without a ton of research, it's possible they get some of the nuances of dialogue and storytelling wrong.    

 

[McKavity]

6 hours ago, Welshman in Ca said:

Maybe because their books weren't as good, if I read a book & think it's a good book or not has nothing to do with who the writer is or what colour/ethinicty the writer is. This isn't school where everyone gets the same prize no matter where they came in a race or how good or bad their book is.

Or maybe they didn’t have the same access as a white writer because their books were not destined for the regular stacks in bookstores or libraries, but the tiny sections dedicated to Black, Latino or any other ‘othered’ group that doesn’t receive the same promotion or publicity.

Amber and Sunny were on point.

[KittyQ]

2 hours ago, After7Only said:

Without a ton of research, it's possible they get some of the nuances of dialogue and storytelling wrong.    

I think that very good writers do a lot of research even for fiction. No one knows everything about everything, even about areas and people they are familiar with. To write a good story with interesting characters, a good writer researches many things, from historical records, maps, newspapers, journals and so on. With a solid base of research, even a person who has never been a particular place can write about it in a meaningful way. 

[Ellis Bell]

1 hour ago, After7Only said:

Nuance and context is always important to these types of discussion.   Nothing is just Black or white as much as people would like it to be.   I have read Homecoming by Yaa Gyasi, who is Ghanaian-American.  Her story tells the story of 2 half sisters one stolen into slavery and sent to America and one who remained in Ghana and multiple generations of their descendants.   Great book.  Her unique experience as a Ghanian-American added to the storytelling.   I don't think the book would have been nearly as good if written by a non-Black person, or even if it was written by a Black-American writer.   

A book by a Ghanaian writer who has never lived in America but wrote a novel on the Black American family in the 1950s with no ties to Ghana would give me pause.   Without a ton of research, it's possible they get some of the nuances of dialogue and storytelling wrong.    

 

She moved here when she was two-years-old.  I'm sure her family and its traditiions played a huge part in her upbringing and in turn how she views the world but she was still raised in the States.  This plays into the question on today's show about white women writing about the black experience.  I haven't read the book so forgive me for just analyzing from a Cliffs notes perspective.

Though I do agree her family's heritage added an extra layer to the story,  what makes this young black woman the right storyteller for such a weighty issue?  She is a talented writer who created a work which has been widely received yet she has no personal experience with slavery. 

Because she's black she's automatically allowed to be the voice for a young woman sold into slavery?  She succeeded not because of her personal experience as a black girl/woman in the US circa 1990s - 2020s, she succeeded because she brought emotion and empathy to a character she created same as any white writer could have done who has not lived the experience. 

I do agree with you about nuance/context and not everything is black or white. 

[Ellis Bell]

7 hours ago, KittyQ said:

Does Amber Ruffin imagine that there's some committee that approves or denies what topics/stories/themes authors can write about? Authors write about what interests them! And just because something is in someone's lane (so to speak) it doesn't guarantee that they are going to write well about it. Everyone should make their best effort to write whatever they want and if it is good then people will respond to it. 

Also, there is no singular experience for any particular event, so having a variety of perspectives can benefit a reader in understanding what they may not have experienced themselves.

That's the problem in a nutshell.  No one else is allowed to share their perspective.  This era makes the Red Scare and McCarthy eras look like a stroll through the park in comparison.

[General Days]

Except Joy and Sara did share other perspectives.

Edited April 26, 2022 by General Days
corrected "Sarah" to "Sara"

[Ellis Bell]

3 minutes ago, General Days said:

Except Joy and Sara did share other perspectives.

I'm referring to the topic - a non WOC writer.  As we both said earlier the market will decide yet many non WOC writers today will never recieve the chance.  It's fine if black women want to write about their experiences but why must they insist no one else can write about the black community?  It's s form of censorship to silence other voices.