As a long-time wishy-washy people-pleasing nicey-nice female blogger, I have something to say about the tone argument.
Last week, the latest SF/F brouhaha began with an article by K. Tempest Bradford: “I Challenge You to Stop Reading White, Straight, Cis Male Authors for One Year.” The headline is the most incendiary thing about it, and honestly, it’s not all that shocking or offensive, especially in this age of clickbait headlines. In it, Miss Bradford discusses the value of conducting reading experiments to increase the diversity of what you read. She even includes some helpful lists of books to get you started.
Some people got upset about this article, and some of these upset people brought out the tone argument. Miss Bradford should have been nicer in her article (even though it is completely professional, mind you). Miss Bradford should have suggested reading some diverse authors, but should never have suggested reading all diverse authors (even for a limited period). Miss Bradford should have been helpful by giving the reading list but not suggested a reading challenge at all (even though the idea of a reading challenge is neither new nor particularly subversive at this point. At least theoretically.) Miss Bradford should not have been an asshole in talking about a diversity reading challenge (she is apparently an asshole because her reading challenge excludes a certain kind of writer, ie the most privileged, most published, and most well-read kind). And on and on.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about privilege and how it works at play here, as well as some confusion as to how widespread any adoption of such a reading challenge is likely to be. (The answer? Not very.) But what I want to talk about right now is the tone argument, because I feel particularly qualified to comment upon it.
Photo Credit: Elodie R-S via Compfight cc
When you are nice, when you bend over backwards to avoid offending every single person, when you water down your message, when you take on everyone else’s issues along with your own, when you speak quietly and mildly and sweetly…NOBODY LISTENS TO YOU.
Believe me, I know. People might say they respect you, but they certainly don’t act like they respect you. They probably won’t listen, and if they do, they’re less likely to remember. They dismiss you at the first opportunity. Not only that, but they tend to walk all over you. And if you’re trying to engender change, well, forget about it.
THIS IS NOT EFFECTIVE WRITING.
I wrote about my own PoC Reading Challenge last year. I did everything people said Miss Bradford should have done. I didn’t issue a challenge to my readers to follow my example. I gave a list of books written by people of color. My own personal challenge was less “extreme.” I was super nice about the whole thing.
And guess what? Nobody read that post. Nobody talked about that post. Really. I’ve looked at the stats. The post did quite badly. And while I bring up my experience with that reading challenge on a semi-regular basis in conversation, no one ever brings it up before I do, asking me about how it went or what I learned. Nobody read it, and the people who did read it don’t remember it. Why not? Because the post wasn’t effective and compelling.
Miss Bradford, on the other hand, wrote a highly effective post. She had a headline that meant people would both read and remember her post. She had a strong call-to-action, and she didn’t water down her message or try to avoid making people uncomfortable. Nor should she have, because the discrimination prevalent in the publishing industry today is, quite frankly, not comfortable. She maintained a professional attitude while discussing her own personal struggles and process.
This is what a good blog post looks like. This is a blog post that has a chance of making a small difference in the world.
Do I think it’s cool when people spew rage-filled rape and death threats at other people? No way! Am I on board with personal attacks and name-calling? Again, no. But this blog post is not that. Not at all.
Jaym Gates makes an excellent point in her response to all of this: “Wendig and Sykes have a loud, fun, wacky internet presence, and are loved for it, but a female, queer, or POC author who has *one* outburst, or makes a mildly incendiary post (like this one), gets piled on.” We are imposing a double standard of presentation and behavior here. I mean, seriously. Can you imagine someone saying, “Oh, Scalzi, you should have been nicer when you talked about that controversial subject?” Because I can’t.
The same kind of thinking that is behind the tone argument is what kept me silent and stifled and miserable for years. Don’t have opinions. Don’t have emotions. Don’t say what you think. Don’t take a seat at the table. Don’t demand the respect you deserve. Play it safe, and don’t take chances. Don’t be a voice for change, it’s too risky. Don’t be authentic. Don’t show people who you really are. Not ever. If you’re nice enough, and patient enough, and sweet enough, you’ll eventually get your chance and be treated with respect and have a voice.
For the record, I did not get my chance and be treated with respect and have a voice until I stopped being so nice.
Which is to say, the tone argument is complete bullshit. Be nice and no one will listen to you. Be courageous and loud and true, and they just might.
The Practical Free Spirit 
I am, essentially of gentle outlook, but some things do make me go red and smoke has been seen rising from my eardrums The thing I have most trouble dealing with, ( apart from the rape, murder , pillage stuff, racism. Ok I could go on and on, but you get my drift ) is self-importance and certain kinds of smug intolerance. Then I can get sharper. The point I’m making at some length and quite poorly is, that I can get mad, but I don’t feel the need to in person or on my Blog just to show I have an edge to my personality. You are who you, are, and lovely with it in my opinion, so be happy with who you are and how you Blog 🙂
Oh, I am happy with who I am, have no fear of that. 🙂
I don’t think Miss Bradford wrote her article just to show she had an edge. I know I don’t write that way myself. But I am all for using the writing tools at my disposal to make a piece of writing more resonant and effective.
D’accord. Only the most privileged are likely to be listened to while being genteel. It is part of privilege to assume that everyone else can be heard as easily as they are when they speak quietly – not realizing that the reason they are heard so well is because others have been forced to shut up.
Word. Thanks, Richard, for distilling this idea so effectively.
🙂
“You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.” Albert Jay Nock
Amy, you obviously disagree with Nock. The problem with changing your tone to reach a wider audience is that you inevitably change your message, however slight. If we always have to cut and shape our vision to fit the distribution channel then sometimes that vision will be pounded completely out of shape and occasionally it will metamorphose into a monster. But more likely the vision will simply be gutted of substance until all that is left is appearance.
As a dyed-in-wool idealist and a writer by trade, I’d like to think there is a way to combine effective writing/communication with vision. That is certainly what I am experimenting with now!
I am reading Brene Brown’s “Daring Greatly” right now, and she asks the question: “What’s worth doing even if I fail?” One of my answers is having the courage to write with clarity and power and truth. Which does not always involve being nice.
YES!!! Rock on Amy!! SPEAK YOUR TRUTH!! You & Justine Musk are on the right track!! I just discovered both blogs & the timing is divine! You both are bringing about major epiphanies for me which are helping me to jump a hurdle I’ve been been stuck at for many years! I do not have to cower to “others” opinions when they don’t match up to mine, just so they will “like” me. I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years ago. I believe I was making myself sick all of these years by not allowing myself to embrace my true self. I have decided that it’s quite alright if others don’t like me for who I am, as long I am true to myself. I’m not a writer but have so much to say. I used to not comment on anything in fear of being put down for not writing “correctly”…fuck that and fuck being NICE! I am kind, but I am not Nice:)
I find the distinction between kindness and niceness to be so helpful, and it sounds like you do too. I’m so glad! Congratulations on jumping the hurdle; it’s a difficult thing to do, but very rewarding.
Damn straight. This is what Friends (Quakers) call “plain speech,” which is part of our Testimony of Simplicity as well as that of Integrity. We take our cue from Jesus: “Let your yes be yes and your no be no.”
The original Quakers didn’t pull any punches, and their “flame wars” often got them beat up, thrown in prison, or killed. Modern Quakers are generally too nice because they buy into a version of the tone argument you so ably demolish here. Sometimes you really, really have to hit someone with a 2×4 (non-violently, of course) to get their attention. Doing otherwise will erode your joy in communicating what really matters to you, and does your readers no service by eliminating the passion that is a true testimony to the integrity of your writing.
This is one reason I prefer Google+ to Facebook, which I will not use. The Circles paradigm seems to encourage careful speech and discourage flamewars.
Malcolm X, who knew a little about oppression, said, “Respect everyone.” The first question to ask about tone is whether you want to be praised by your allies or to convert your opponents. Malcolm knew that respect did not mean weakness; in the same bit of advice he said that if someone lays a hand on you, send them to the graveyard.
Very good point, Will. I try to do that, but I think sometimes anger is the only proper tone. As Augustine said, “Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”
Needless to say, I don’t agree with the last part of his advice, and his fate too well illustrates what Jesus said: “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”
He was a great man, and his death was a great loss. My understanding was that he was tilting towards non-violence at the time of his death. Perhaps he would eventually have endorsed what Audre Lorde said much later: “You can’t dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools.” (Which seems to me to be pretty much what Jesus said.)
We’ll never know. but I’d love to see Malcolm in a alt-hist story someday.
Oh, just to be clear, I do think there is something like respectful anger. King may’ve been a master of it–anger at injustice, not at individuals.
I agree that there is respectful anger. Anger can be very tricky, in that I think it can make it harder to listen and harder to be respectful. Harnessed in a certain way, though, it can be a powerful tool. I actually considered talking about that as well in the above, but I decided to keep it more streamlined. Another time, perhaps.
You should go to Hell if you think it’s ok to threaten to rape and murder people under the guise of ‘oh, you’re just using the tone argument, hur hur hur,” fuck right off.
I never said that. I don’t think it’s okay to threaten to murder or rape anybody. I say so pretty specifically in this post, but perhaps you missed that paragraph.
And FUCK YOU for acting like I’m somehow “supporting the oppressors” just because I’m not a complete asshole to every single person I’ve ever met every single fucking minute of every single fucking day. ROT IN HELL.
I hope you enjoyed your fight with the strawman. Where did anyone say it’s okay to threaten anyone with anything? The people who think tone matters never approve of threatening language.