We Need Snowflakes, Book Review

[Igneococcus]

In the Times today, how do these books find publishers:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8448fd8-730f-11ec-b318-3e3a5d689572?shareToken=5b11133006d9a7a0ebc6ef6e0857cb03

[SantaClawsServiette]

@ErrolTheDragon

The descriptions in this review sound more like relating to a rather different phenomenon, the 'social justice warrior'. I thought 'snowflake' was more applied to those who complain they need 'trigger warnings' for anything remotely challenging/upsetting, and 'safe spaces' from being intellectually/ethically challenged - which becomes untenable when denying the need for womens physical safe spaces.

Yeah, I think so. I guess there is some crossover though - people who focus on "be kind" and see social justice in terms of not hurting people's feelings, talk about bigotry in terms of micro-aggressions, etc.

[nauticant]

Hannah Jewell, the author of We Need Snowflakes, was just on Woman's Hour and after letting her expand on her views, Emma Barnett then took her apart. The interview got more enjoyable as it went on. Jewell seems to not be at all bothered at the treatment Kathleen Stock received and is even more intolent and muddled than you'd imagine. It would seem that abuse is acceptable when it comes from certain people who think the correct way. All pleasantly delivered in a #bekind way.

[WinterTrees]

Emma Barnett has definitely had her power weetabix this morning. Taking on Hannah Jewell and her silliness with kindly derision, and then having to host the swaggering wokesters from the Six musical.

Emma, it's nearly time for a pre-lunch gin. You deserve it.

[terryleather]

@nauticant

Hannah Jewell, the author of We Need Snowflakes, was just on Woman's Hour and after letting her expand on her views, Emma Barnett then took her apart. The interview got more enjoyable as it went on. Jewell seems to not be at all bothered at the treatment Kathleen Stock received and is even more intolent and muddled than you'd imagine. It would seem that abuse is acceptable when it comes from certain people who think the correct way. All pleasantly delivered in a #bekind way.

Why does that not surprise me, nauticant?

More proof, if it were needed, that be kind is nothing more than an invitation to submit by the sanctimoniously intolerant good folk

[BlackeyedSusan]

ah, thats the loud interupty not taking a hint and shutting up at the end of an interview person. only had Wh hour on for two minutes... I may listen to the interview then.

[nauticant]

Do listen to the interview, around 37 minutes in to the programme. Once Jewell has handed over a bunch of hostages to fortune, the tone then changes and Barnett does a fine job of taking on a lazy, complacent, and intolerant world view.

[Yumsnet]

I haven't listened to WH for ages, Anita Rani in particular put me off after her Paris Lees fawning.
But for some reason today, I put it on and caught part of the Hannah Jewell interview and it really cheered me up.

[WarriorN]

Emma's worth listening to.

She takes no prisoners

I really enjoy her programmes.

[nauticant]

My timing's off, move the playback marker to 25:25 and enjoy:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0013rrb

to listen to the author who embraces the snowflake label because of how it gives her a dopamine hit of self-righteousness.

[Ikeabag]

Nauticant said it better than me (thanks for the link!) - that reminded me of schoolgirls on sports day when they're assigned a team and get all giddy about their team winning. It felt like she ran off after that to her team for hi fives, all a-buzz, fist pumps and yessssssses. It's so debate-team frivolous. The point about real world consequences of cancel culture sailed on by.

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Emma was magnificent, as usual. She has perfected the art of polite skewering.

[Torunette]

@Scraggythang

This book doesn’t sound like it was written by an adult.

Also this line “How can someone who created fantasy novels possibly think biological sex is real”she wonders.

That pretty much sums up the anger towards JK. And when you read it like that, that so many think it is outrageous that she can both be a writer of fiction AND still believe in reality, you do have to laugh.

She has a fundamental misunderstanding of the fantasy genre and how it works.

Fantasy literature only works if the structure around the fantasy elements is stable and works to an understandable set of laws. As a result, a lot of fantasy literature tends to use historical or old-fashioned social and cultural environmental anchors.

A perfect example of this is the narrative of Harry Potter taking place in an environment that is pretty much an English boarding school of the 1930s. Or Lord of the Rings taking place within a Dark Ages environment where a strict patriarchal hierarchy is the backbone of the society. Same goes for A Song of Ice and Fire, and a million other high fantasy novels.

Even in urban fantasy, you get aspects that are out of time: people going to libraries, for example, or an obsession with manuscripts, or buildings that date back hundreds of years, or rather anachronistic policemen that really belong in a Chandler novel.

Fantasy needs these anchors so readers have something to tether their "suspension of disbelief" balloons; otherwise, the narrative is too nebulous and readers either don't understand what the hell is going on or assume the narrative is some kind of fever dream where all meaning is free-floating and thus meaningless.

There are fantasy novels where characters are transgender or non-binary, but what you tend to find is that those characters exist within recognisably formal, conservative and historical structures: for example, pseudo-monastic institutions or as civil servants within an imperial government environment -- you know, generally, what should be expected of them outside their gender expression.

Indeed, there's probably a very interesting piece of work in what fantasy literature reveals about queer theory.

I would argue that fantasy novelists are essentially manipulating "anti-reality" tools to create meaning about reality itself. Of course, you can't do any of that if you don't have a decent grasp on material reality in the first place.

[StrawberrySquash]

"Indeed, there's probably a very interesting piece of work in what fantasy literature reveals about queer theory."
I would like to read this!

The 'How can someone who created fantasy novels possibly think x' argument has always seemed really shallow to me. Just because dragons, for example, aren't real, doesn't mean in literature, or at least in your novel that they don't work within certain rules. Part of the fun is seeing where those rules lead, but you can't just do whatever you want. You don't have a dragon fly to rescue someone one chapter, suddenly unable to fly the next chapter, just because it suits your plot and 'It's fantasy so I can do what I want.' It would be unsatisfying and confusing. There are rules, and you have to understand rules to play with them well. You still need to create a coherent universe. Good world building is a skill!

[Helleofabore]

What struck me was the complete lack of self awareness. The complete lack of being aware of the hypocrisy of their ‘be kind’ attitude. I am not sure how else Emma could have phrased it without crossing the line but that author was oblivious.

[SteakExpectations]

“I want to do a book” said no real author ever.

[MrGHardy]

"Also this line “How can someone who created fantasy novels possibly think biological sex is real”she wonders."

LMFAO

They are saying she has to believe in it, because she wrote fiction? Are they admitting it is fiction?

[Sophoclesthefox]

I had just finished listening to Emma Barnett interview the author from yesterdays Woman’s Hour when I saw this thread.

The author did not cover herself in glory in the interview any more than it seems she does in the book 🤣

On the one hand, snowflakes are figments of Breitbarts imagination, and on the other they are the most deeply moral and righteous people alive today. It is utterly wrong to monster or pile on people for being snowflakes, because piling on is aggressive and punching down- people should be prevented from doing this. however, any pile on of who she considers to be a “Terf” is absolutely fair game and not just a righteous pastime but a moral imperative based on principles of free speech and equity.

Embarrassingly shallow and ill thought through. The conclusion is clearly that right thinkers are good, and wrong thinkers are bad, and it is abundantly clear who is a right and a wrong thinker.