Kara > Status Update

I don't even see why readers should be concerned about author's sales. Why do you care if my review hurts the author's sales? If authors want to make money stop writing cheating crap. And above all stop romanticizing pedophilia and rape. A rapist doesn't deserve a happy ending.

I do care about my precious reading time, my reading enjoyment and my precious safety pals. When I see reviewers more protective of authors than readers I immediately block them. I unfriended and blocked dozens of readers who defended the author of the wild. For all we know the people who attack our safety warnings could be imprint plants or friends of an author. I have no time to deal with people like that.

V. PARENTAL GUIDANCE ALERT: A Court of Wings and Ruin is NEW ADULT/EROTICA but Goodreads editors won't tell you wrote: "I don't even see why readers should be concerned about author's sales. If authors want to make money stop writing cheating crap.
I do care about my precious reading time, my reading enjoyment and m..."

Completely agree, V. I don't need to waste my time on stuff that disturbs or distresses me. And I hate when fans of those authors climb into reviews pointing out sketch content and blast the reviewers. There are books in the romance genre that I find morally objectionable (thinking specifically of a recent release where the "hero" and his friends gang-rape a girl - what the actual fuck?!), but I won't comment on positive reviews to spew shit. But I will never read those authors again, no matter how amazing their next book may look.

Kara wrote: "But I will never read those authors again, no matter how amazing their next book may look."
I've blacklisted a lot of authors because I hate when they make money promoting rape culture. Rape culture has hurt me personally, I read for fun I don't need to get a heartache. Even if the author of The Wild (I refuse to even say her name) later writes something safe she won't see a single penny from me. She among other authors have already made money promoting messages that personally hurt me. I blacklisted them and some of her defenders. One thing is saying that you liked a book and another is you telling me how I'm supposed to feel. If I want to get angry about a book because its messages hurt me, I'll be angry. Triggers are very real for me. If I want to unfriend someone I'll do it. I'm here to have fun not to get constant reminders that cheating and rape are a real thing.

Sorry for the rant, but I hate that you had to post that. I wish the authors fans/friends/plants would leave us safety pals alone.

V. PARENTAL GUIDANCE ALERT: A Court of Wings and Ruin is NEW ADULT/EROTICA but Goodreads editors won't tell you wrote: "Sorry for the rant, but I hate that you had to post that. I wish the authors fans/friends/plants would leave us safety pals alone."

Don't feel that you have to apologize! I completely get it! There are so many authors that infuriate me because, as you said, they make money off of promoting rape culture, or writing such misogynistic crap that I secretly wonder if they're actually men writing under a pseudonym. Because I genuinely can't understand women enjoying books about forgiving men who cheat on them, or who manhandle them, or who think so little of past sexual partners that they slut-shame them so that the heroine looks like a virtuous princess in comparison. I don't appreciate the "boys will be boys" attitude in real life, and I for sure am not tolerating it in something that's my main source of enjoyment and relaxation!

*hifives

🙌

Well said ladies👏🏻🙌🏻👍🏻

Thanks Cyndi!

Amen Kara! I read romance to relax and escape. I'm so thankful for the safety gang too. Saves me a ton of time I used to waste on unsafe books or scouring reviews to find a forthcoming one. Readers should be independent from the authors when leaving a review. FTC guidelines are pretty clear about that. And you are so right, it's not about censorship; it's about putting the book in the appropriate genre/category and being forthcoming with content warnings--real ones, not those insulting ones that have become a bad author trend.

I make your and the commenters words my words. I just hate reading a book with my triggers.

There is nothing worse than loving a book until "that one part" happens and you feel that burn in your stomach and your blood boils. It ruins the whole experience and makes me angry that I wasted my time.

Funnily enough, sometimes I read books with content I don't like and I appreciate being warned so I 'm not surprised and I can brace myself for the bad stuff. Safety into doesn't always mean a "nope" for me depending on if it's a hard limit or not.

Book-Bosomed wrote: "And you are so right, it's not about censorship; it's about putting the book in the appropriate genre/category and being forthcoming with content warnings--real ones, not those insulting ones that have become a bad author trend."

Completely right, BB. I hate when authors use that "you have to brave to read my book" line as a pseudo-warning. It doesn't make me less brave because I refuse tl read objectionable content. It means i have my own thoughts, and I'm not going to cave to an author who uses what is essentially the same tactic schoolkids use to manipulate their peers' behavior by calling them "chicken". It's so asinine!

Rejane wrote: "I make your and the commenters words my words. I just hate reading a book with my triggers."

Me too, Rejane. Most of the time, if i see one of my safety friends has marked a book "unsafe", I don't even investigate. I just mark it as "nope" and move on, because even the descriptions of unsafe content in a review can be triggering.

Sommertime wrote: "There is nothing worse than loving a book until "that one part" happens and you feel that burn in your stomach and your blood boils. It ruins the whole experience and makes me angry that I wasted m..."

I know that exact feeling, and i hate it so much! If there are people that enjoy that stuff, fine, but like BB said, categorize books appropriately so those of us who don't like it can avoid it.it
it
I used to be able to enjoy an unsafe read from time to time, too, but not so much anymore.

Exactly! I have PTSD and some things will trigger me. It’s sad when a book that’s hyped up ends up getting cut short for me because nobody bothered to list trigger warnings and the book ends up triggering an episode for me. I’m always making sure I have some way to warn others. I hate being disappointed that a book is ruined for me because the reviewed protected the author instead of other readers who could have triggers. Thanks for posting this!

Wow, sounds like censorship to me. We are all triggered by something or we want to protect or kids but use common sense. Don't read romance if you are triggered by sexual situations, etc. Protect yourself, don't rely on others. Yeah, I have kids and I have PTSD and I get triggered. If I do, I set the book aside and deal with the crap it brought up instead of hiding from it. Please don't clap back at me. My opinion is as valuable as yours even if it is different.

Lenna Unicorn 🦄 wrote: "Exactly! I have PTSD and some things will trigger me. It’s sad when a book that’s hyped up ends up getting cut short for me because nobody bothered to list trigger warnings and the book ends up tri..."

Exactly. I've had to DNF many books halfway through for triggering content. It's frustrating, to say the least.

Cinnabelle wrote: "Wow, sounds like censorship to me. We are all triggered by something or we want to protect or kids but use common sense. Don't read romance if you are triggered by sexual situations, etc. Protect y..."

Censorship would be me saying that those books shouldn't exist and that no one should read them, rather than I prefer not to read them and appreciate being warned in advance of problematic material. Everyone deals with their issues differently, and I don't consider it hiding to avoid triggers - I consider it self-care. I'm not clapping back, but as you said, everyone's opinions are valid even if they are in opposition. I appreciate that what you're saying works for you, and I hope you appreciate that I utilize coping techniques that work for me.

Wow. Just couldn't resist, could ya? Censorship is censorship no matter how you fancy it up.

Cinnabelle wrote: "Wow. Just couldn't resist, could ya? Censorship is censorship no matter how you fancy it up."

Censorship: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Not sure how you can define anything that I've said as supporting the suppression of material I find personally objectionable, but whatever.
I responded to your comment respectfully. I'm done with this discussion, as you seem to only want to argue.

As a reader, who was repeatedly bashed for not accepting the books with incest, underage heroines and rapists male protagonists, I do believe in censorship. Media incl. books is what our kids are having access to, it's what could be taken as a norm, if many proclaim it as a good content. So sue me, but I do believe in censorship!
If I, as a reader, spend my time and money on a story with my triggers, I get upset (to phrase it politely).
Many of us praise respect for others opinions, but show the opposite with the comments.
Kara, good update!

Cinnabelle wrote: "Wow. Just couldn't resist, could ya? Censorship is censorship no matter how you fancy it up."

Is this a new word you’ve learned and couldn’t resist to apply to other people’s post?
Censorship is censorship when it’s censorship. NOT when you feel threatened by other’s sensitivity on a issue and feel the need to invalidate other’s suffering.

She asked for a “disclosure” or “disclaimer”. So no, no matter how much you try to be obtuse about it, it’s NOT censorship. Kara already explained censorship to you. Educate yourself.

Also, how you deal with PTSD isn’t necessarily the way everyone should be dealing with it. Stop invalidating other’s issues and feelings.

You came to Kara to argue and be offensive so stop playing the victim by stating “couldn’t resist”. I’m not sure what you expected after your digs which were based on misconceptions.

Alex ♈ wrote: "As a reader, who was repeatedly bashed for not accepting the books with incest, underage heroines and rapists male protagonists, I do believe in censorship..."

Hey Alex! I feel where you're coming from, but I think censorship is a slippery slope. I loathe that books that promote rape culture exist, but to ban them is to prohibit freedom of speech, and I fear that would pave the way for widespread oppression of "dangerous" ideas, which are usually any ideas that oppose the status quo. But I definitely get why you advocate for banning those types of books altogether. I don't want to normalize rape, incest, pedophilia, and other acts of sexual violence, and I don't understand why books that do that are so popular. But I also think "50 Shades" is a how-to manual for an abusive relationship, and people would riot in the streets if that shit was banned. I guess it's a matter of perspective!

Honestly, though, to compare wanting to know about sketchy content with censorship is so over the top that I can't even begin to understand where that came from.

Kara - I don't know you but I do like your post despite not being a safety woman. I hope you do not mind my comments on your thread.

First @Cinnabelle: Why would you come and post an inaccurate and snippy comment and then demand no responses. If you did not want to engage in conversation why just show up and post that? There seem to be people here who are willing to engage in that conversation. I know I have gained from listening to people here. Like you I am a mother and I have PTSD from multiple incidences of trauma. I often read books with triggers and often can soldier on through. That is fine for me but I can understand why others might not be able to do so. Are you not able to understand that it is fine for us all to react differently than you? Are you truly not able to understand the difference between censorship and warnings?

@ those who like trigger warnings: My only preference with them is for them to be in a clear location that I do not have to read. A few books I have read on my kindle open at a page that says "Trigger warnings on the previous page". I really appreciated that. Sometimes I just do not want to know because I like to let a story unfold without the warnings, other days I want the warnings and want a "safe" read.

Kiki wrote: "Cinnabelle wrote: "Wow. Just couldn't resist, could ya? Censorship is censorship no matter how you fancy it up."

Is this a new word you’ve learned and couldn’t resist to apply to other people’s po..."

Thank you for the support, Kiki. I can't even begin to understand how she made the leap from "informed" to "banned" with no provocation! And WHY are people so put off by the idea that we don't all want to read the same shit?! Listen, if I wanted to read about a cheating piece of shit male, I'd read my divorce papers.

Anyway. This is a ridiculous argument made by someone who just wants to stir shit, and I would rather just ignore any more comments made by anyone like this. Read what you want. But don't shame me for not wanting to spend my time cringing or feeling sick to my stomach.

Emma wrote: "Kara - I don't know you but I do like your post despite not being a safety woman. I hope you do not mind my comments on your thread.

First @Cinnabelle: Why would you come and post an inaccurate a..."

Emma, thanks for your comments! I appreciate that you're respectful of other people's opinions and not dismissing them out of hand. I absolutely don't have a problem with people having a different opinion that mine, and I like having reasoned discussions about those differences. But yeah, the commenter just kinda went into a weird place by asking me not to comment back.

I appreciate your support of us safety people, especially as someone who can read unsafe material and live to tell about it! All respectful and reasonable commenters are welcome on my posts.

Don't read romance if you are triggered by sexual situations, etc. ."

Also, point out where ANY of us claimed we’re offended by “romantic situation”? Do you and we have different definition of romance? I don’t know anyone personally who finds rape, abuse and chauvinism as “romantic situation”. If you do, we have nothing further to discuss then.

I PERSONALLY don’t find BDSM romantic. Yes, of course I’ll not read books involving BDSM, but without disclosure how would I know? Crystal balls? And why should one stop reading romance altogether because they find one aspect of sexual nature not appealing?

Thanks Kara

I don't think the safety people need my support at all. I see it much more as me needing them. I like reviews that outline what people liked and did not like about a book, especially if they detail the level of the offense. Then I can make an informed choice based on my own preferences and mood at the time.

For a "safe" example consider editing. Some people just put down the book needed an editor. I like reviews that tell us why and just how bad the typos were. 3 I can deal with, but one every paragraph might drive me bonkers.

So when Alex posts about doormat behaviour or Kiki mentions the cheating I thank them in my heart for taking the time to share that with all of us. I come out ahead because they wrote out their concerns. They never tell me not to read a book and have even told me they are glad I could enjoy a book they could not. I am always the winner when I read their reviews :)

Kiki wrote: "Yes, of course I’ll not read books involving BDSM, but without disclosure how would I know? Crystal balls?"

I snort-laughed, Kiki. Nice.

I don't care for BDSM either, and I like to be warned so I can avoid it. Again, this whole discussion of safety versus non-safety boils down to personal preference, just like every other aspect of reading!

I don't think the commenter wanted to do anything more than agitate the hornet's nest.

I don't think the commenter wanted to do anything more than agitate the hornet's nest.

Entirely possible. Too bad everyone else who has posted has been calm.

I want a reading crystal ball now Kiki! I want it to tell me if I will enjoy/hate the book no matter when i read it, or if I should avoid it for a day/week/month, or if I better read it tonight because tomorrow I will hate it. Then we would not need Goodreads. Until you perfect your prototype though I will have to rely on your reviews :)

Emma wrote: "Thanks Kara

I don't think the safety people need my support at all. I see it much more as me needing them. I like reviews that outline what people liked and did not like about a book, especially i..."

100% agree. I don't often write reviews, so I'm a total hypocrite, but I love reading my friends' reviews because they spell out what the did or didn't like, and whatever stuff might be upsetting. I have a tendency to get too involved in what I read, and it takes days for me to get over it when I stumble onto cheating or a virgin h who waited while the H screwed every girl in town or the h getting turned on by watching the H screw OW. Why wouldn't I just avoid that if I can?

And just like you said, too many grammatical, syntactical, or punctuation errors will ruin a read for me, too. With so many people self-publishing lately, that's important to make note of, because not all indies bother to get their stuff edited before publishing. (Indie authors: please please please spend the money. It's worth it.)

Emma wrote: "I don't think the commenter wanted to do anything more than agitate the hornet's nest.

Entirely possible. Too bad everyone else who has posted has been calm.

I want a reading crystal ball now K..."

Yeah, her comments definitely went in a direction I wasn't anticipating when I made the post, but on the up side, I got to block my first person on Goodreads! Milestone!

I did not even know you could block a person on Goodreads. Though of course it makes sense. And now you have taught me something :)

Emma wrote: "I did not even know you could block a person on Goodreads. Though of course it makes sense. And now you have taught me something :)"

Yaaay! It was a good day.

Well said Kiki! Cinnabelle clearly doesn't understand the complexity of censorship or the definition of romance/romance novels. I highly recommend some further exploration for her, and I couldn’t agree more that she needs to educate herself. It would certainly be a start for her to google a ‘banned or challenged’ book list to understand that even when true censorship (not suitable and respectful content warnings or proper categorizing) is at play, book banning has historically been targeted at works that were progressive for their times, often satire or cultural critiques that tackled touchy, tough, or controversial issues (coming of age, racism, genocide, political change, etc. to simply name a few). These are often ‘classics’ to modern readers, surviving the test of time by offering powerful and relevant messages. The key is they offered a message, an analysis. The real ‘censored’ authors didn’t just toss a bunch of shock value scenes on the page in a genre where it wasn’t appropriate and put it out there for incendiary purposes and/or to make a buck. Because let’s be honest, that’s why some of these so-called romance authors are hitting the publish button on the books that incite triggers and reader distress. They aren’t trying to bring about social change or call attention to an issue that needs attention. (If anything they are potentially making serious issues worse.) They aren’t trying to warn society of the dangers of a certain type of ideology or practice. Interestingly, I am currently reading Fahrenheit 451 on the side, which is a notable “censored” book on the topic of censorship. But I digress. One has to wonder if Cinnabelle is commenting on posts by the motion picture association or TV networks, all of whom practice a rating system that issues content warnings. I suspect she’s not. Like you said, Kara, she’s just wanting to stir shit.

Book-Bosomed wrote: "Well said Kiki! Cinnabelle clearly doesn't understand the complexity of censorship or the definition of romance/romance novels. I highly recommend some further exploration for her, and I couldn’t a..."

Damn, BB - I am in awe of your perfect summation of the subject. Everything you said is 100% correct: specifically how many authors are basically writing shock porn to sell books without any other motive. Just write the most depraved, degenerate shit possible and you, too can be a USA Today bestseller! Not that i think that all books have to have meaning or be an allegory for the martyring of Christ or a metaphor for the dangers of communism, but I'm tired of the obviously mercenary motives some of these authors have.

And i was totally thinking of Fahrenheit 451 the entire time i was fighting with the commenter! Is she not aware of the banned books list, or of public book burnings? That shit happens. That's censorship!

Aw thank you Kara!
And I totally agree too that all books don’t have to have deep meaning or powerful messages or take up all of the world’s social injustices. I certainly appreciate the ones that do very much, but I also read romance for fun, to relax, and for a little escape. And really, that’s the origins of the genre and it’s why readers get upset when a book labeled a romance doesn’t provide the expected elements, doesn’t live up to the genre’s mission of positive presentations of love. Like I think we’ve all said, no one is saying authors can’t write about difficult topics like cheating and rape, but there are places where that belong and places where it doesn’t. And authors and their obsessive fans/trolls can’t cry censorship when the latest ‘penny dreadful’ isn’t well received or gets negative reviews. It’s not the same thing as an author tackling the same topics with respect and intellect, marketing it as simply fiction instead romance, supplying a suitable content disclaimer, and choosing the topic because they hope to see something positive come out of the awareness, not because they simply want attention or another dollar in their wallet. I’m not even sure at times that some of the publicity seeking and money grabbing writers who write shock value aren’t actually after a “good censorship” to get their name and books viral after all. But they either forget or don’t have the insight to understand that without the substance, those fires burn out quickly. Montag could snuff out their controversy sparks with his finger. It’s the Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Night, and Satanic Verses of the literary world that aren’t reduced to ashes so easily. Of course, those works aren’t even at the same bonfire. ;-)

*takes notes