Hey friends, I’ll cut to the chase: I gotta take some time off again. I’m on a new medication, and while it’s helping me in certain ways, it’s making it very difficult to write. I don’t think I’ll be gone more than a few weeks; I just need a chance to adjust to the new chemical soup my brain is swimming in! Thanks for bearing with me, and feel free to keep commenting and sending in submissions and other messages. I love y’all, take care.
I intended the Addenda feature to be used to revisit old reviews long after their initial publication, not post reader reactions or edits of things. But one message I got the other night deserves to be both addressed and highlighted, so the use of an addendum seems to make the most sense.
Those of you who have read my Poppy O’Possum review know that I have strong opinions about coding – the practice of associating fictional characters with real-world groups of people through the use of “coded” traits. That’s a definition that’s almost so broad as to be meaningless, though! So let’s talk more about coding and its relationship to representation.
Hey friends, just a heads up, I’m skipping this week’s update. I kinda bit off more than I could chew with a gigantic, broad topic and my current draft just isn’t something that’s good enough to publish. I’d rather take the time to get this one right. Look for it on this coming Sunday. In the meantime, let’s go through the mail! Which all seems to be about Sister Claire for some reason?
When I see a poorly-written trans character in fiction, I have a lot of reactions simultaneously. These range from the gut emotional (“wow, this writer hates people like me”) to the technical and intellectual (“wow, this is an ineffective character that detracts from the story”). But one thing I never think is “this character is unrealistic”. Why?