I always feel like I'm the reviewer for Kirkus who points out icky race issues, to the extent that I feel self-conscious about it, like I have an obsession that I need to get over (I should note to my editor has never asked me to write less about race; the discomfort is all internal).
Me too, for every word of that sentence except that I know you're doing it too! And maybe other reviewers are too, but I'm never sure; it's harder for me to tell when I haven't read the books they're reviewing. It's easy to see when something gets mentioned but impossible to see if something doesn't get mentioned that I might have mentioned.
Mentioning fatphobia makes me feel even more like a sore thumb, because fewer people in our field have heard of the concept of FA than the concept of anti-racism. (Note: I am not saying fatphobia is worse than racism -- I would never say that.) I worry that fatpol looks like my personal hang-up. Our editor's never said that and continues to send me some books about fat characters, but still I worry.
Every time I mention race or colonialism, I feel like I am dragging down one book for exhibiting the failings of an entire genre.
Yes. Plus I worry about the lack of parallelism that results from any journal with multiple reviewers: why should a book that I call out for racism or fatphobia get a worse review than a book with the same amount of racism or fatphobia but that's reviewed by someone else? I feel guilty towards my book if I like it artistically or in other aspects of content, in a way that I wouldn't if I were reviewing with a pool of other reviewers using the same ideological criteria. But I don't see any way around this, and of course having multiple reviewers is a good thing in most ways. Also, the opposite must be happening too: I miss things (both ideological and artistic) that other reviewers catch, just because I know less or nothing about them.
As usual, there's no formula. I generally decide whether or not to mention ideological problems based on proportion and based on whether or not I'd feel comfortable handing it to a reader in a non-discussion context. But that's no hard formula either, really.
no subject
Me too, for every word of that sentence except that I know you're doing it too! And maybe other reviewers are too, but I'm never sure; it's harder for me to tell when I haven't read the books they're reviewing. It's easy to see when something gets mentioned but impossible to see if something doesn't get mentioned that I might have mentioned.
Mentioning fatphobia makes me feel even more like a sore thumb, because fewer people in our field have heard of the concept of FA than the concept of anti-racism. (Note: I am not saying fatphobia is worse than racism -- I would never say that.) I worry that fatpol looks like my personal hang-up. Our editor's never said that and continues to send me some books about fat characters, but still I worry.
Every time I mention race or colonialism, I feel like I am dragging down one book for exhibiting the failings of an entire genre.
Yes. Plus I worry about the lack of parallelism that results from any journal with multiple reviewers: why should a book that I call out for racism or fatphobia get a worse review than a book with the same amount of racism or fatphobia but that's reviewed by someone else? I feel guilty towards my book if I like it artistically or in other aspects of content, in a way that I wouldn't if I were reviewing with a pool of other reviewers using the same ideological criteria. But I don't see any way around this, and of course having multiple reviewers is a good thing in most ways. Also, the opposite must be happening too: I miss things (both ideological and artistic) that other reviewers catch, just because I know less or nothing about them.
As usual, there's no formula. I generally decide whether or not to mention ideological problems based on proportion and based on whether or not I'd feel comfortable handing it to a reader in a non-discussion context. But that's no hard formula either, really.