Why I don’t want to hastily “cancel” authors

TLDR; TikTok is often rife with unsubstantiated accusations against authors that are based more on opinion than fact. Criticism is important, but it should be well researched and nuanced. Misinformation that spreads quickly leads to uncertainty and undermines constructive discussion. Everyone should decide for themselves what to read and what to hold up to the camera—in an informed and thoughtful manner.

Videos keep popping up in my TikTok feed saying, “You should stop reading these authors.” But these posts often lack convincing evidence. Instead of being based on verifiable facts, they are usually based on purely personal statements by the creators or on other TikToks that also quote TikToks. If you ask for specific sources, you often get TikToks cited as evidence. This leaves many readers with an uneasy feeling and quickly causes uncertainty.

First of all, we must not forget that criticism of authors is important, because nobody is infallible.

Let’s take Sarah J. Maas (SJM), author of the A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) series, as an example. I’m using her as an example because she is very often named as a “problematic” author and is the subject of heated debate. I have objectively examined the main points of criticism and formed my own opinion. I would like to present what I have researched and why I am not boycotting her.

On BookTok, SJM is sometimes portrayed as a Zionist and boycotted. Why is this assessment made?

Her Jewish ancestry and a so-called “Birthright Trip” to Israel:
An article from 2016 mentions that she took part in such a trip at the age of 18. Marketed as a free cultural tour, “Birthright” is often described by critics as a propaganda tool: young Jews are presented with an idealized, almost fictional image of Israel. Palestinian life is deliberately ignored, and the privilege of a free trip goes hand in hand with the exclusion of those who actually live in the area. Given the controversial nature of Birthright, it is understandable that the participation of an 18-year-old author at the time would later be critically questioned. However, SJM is one of 40,000 young people each year who often use this trip as a free vacation opportunity. Whether this can be used to deduce her current political views is questionable.
Her grandmother volunteered in the IDF:
This information also comes from an article in a Zionist newspaper from 2016. She says: “Despite all my travels last year, I made sure I was home for Passover and had my grandmother with me. She is 86 years old, a Holocaust survivor, and still volunteers regularly at an Israeli military base. It was very special to have her at my home.”
However, to infer from this that SJM holds anti-Palestinian views is a huge leap that is not supported by clear evidence. The article is nine years old, and we do not know for a fact whether SJM actively supports the IDF.
No public statement on the current situation:
SJM has not publicly taken a position on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Whether public figures should feel compelled to comment on all political issues is a complex topic that requires much discussion and consideration. Some want to speak out but find it difficult to find the right words, while others feel they are not sufficiently informed or fear that their statements will polarize opinion or be misinterpreted. There are many factors at play here, including the responsibility that comes with public speaking and the possible consequences that such statements can have.

So far, there is no concrete evidence that SJM publicly supports either side in the conflict between Palestine and Israel. Personally, these three points are not enough for me to label SJM a Zionist. In addition, we should also give them the chance to develop and learn more. Especially in international conflicts, it is difficult to take well-founded positions if one is not sufficiently informed or fears causing more harm with imprecise statements.

She is also accused of being racist and homophobic. I would like to examine this on a factual level and form my own opinion.

Used Breonna Taylor’s death to promote her book:
In September 2020, SJM (or her PR team) posted an Instagram post announcing the release of a book cover, in which she mentions the case of Breonna Taylor. She writes: „In case you missed the reveal earlier, here’s the ACOSF cover! I hope it’s a bit of light for you guys today, given the appalling lack of justice for Breonna Taylor and a president doing his best to undermine and destroy our democracy. And while I’m truly so thrilled for you guys to read Nesta and Cassian’s book in February, and I love this artwork SO much (thank you, @happypetsink!!), I also want to encourage each one of you to get out there and VOTE this November. Vote for people who will protect and nurture our democracy. Vote for people who recognize and will fight the racial injustice in this country. Vote for people who will battle climate change and pull our planet back from the brink. Vote, vote, VOTE because no election has ever been more important, and the future of this country and this world depends on YOU. 💖“ She explained that the cover of her book was intended to cheer up her fans in light of the difficult times marked by the death of Breonna Taylor and the presidency of Donald Trump, which have weighed heavily on many. She then talks about her book again before urging her readers to vote to ensure that such tragedies do not happen again. Is this a PR stunt or a sincere appeal to her readers? To me, this post seems unfortunate—it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and personally offends me. Breonna Taylor did not need to be mentioned to make her point.
However, I can also understand the other side, which perceives the post as a sincere appeal and does not view it negatively. Ultimately, perception remains very subjective when reading.
Racist stereotypes in her books:
In her debut novel Throne of Glass (ToG), the character Nehemia is described as BIPOC and is one of the few POC characters in the entire series. Unfortunately, Nehemia dies very early on and serves primarily to advance the plot. Is this an ideal solution? Not at all. The criticism of this is absolutely justified. Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that SJM wrote Throne of Glass at the age of 16. It seems unlikely that there was any racist intention here.
In the A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) series, on the other hand, there are more characters who are described as BIPOC. Specifically, in the books there are the Illyrians, who have “tanned” skin (“They generally have dark hair and tan to golden-brown skin”). It is not clearly stated that they are POC. Then there is also “The Summer Court,” where most of the characters are POC, especially High Lord Tarquin (“Tarquin has white hair, turquoise eyes, and rich brown skin”), who is portrayed as POC. The High Lords Helion (“Helion is a shimmering High Fae with dark brown skin and onyx hair”) and Thesan (“He is slender, with brown skin and hair kissed with gold”) from the other “Courts” are also POCs. In the last book, for example, we got Emeryn (an Illyrian) as a very strong character, which I was very happy about.
The main criticism is that the Illyrians are described as “uncivilized” and “barbaric” (Volume 2, Chapter 16, literally: […] But they are also brutal and backward, especially in their treatment of their women. […] They are barbarians […]) because they mistreat their women, for example. We need context here. The Illyrians are a warrior people of the Fae who live in the northern region of the ACOTAR world and are considered by many to be violent and warlike. From whose perspective is this the case? From the perspective of the privileged other Fae, but also from the Illyrians (Cassian & Azriel) themselves. This people is described as misogynistic and, yes, violent, which the protagonists in ACOTAR want to fight against. Are these stereotypes of POCs? Unfortunately, yes. Are the Illyrians POC? I can’t answer that. If they are POCs, then yes, the criticism that racist stereotypes are being reproduced here is justified.
Insufficient LGBTQ+ representation:
We have now established that SJM does not have good POC representation in her earlier works. The same applies to LGBTQ+ characters. There are virtually no LGBTQ+ characters in ToG and ACOTAR. It is only in the third volume of ACOTAR that we learn that one of the main characters, Morrigan, is actually queer (volume 3, chapter 66: „I do find pleasure in them. In both.“ Her hands were shaking so fiercely that she gripped herself even tighter. ”But I’ve known, since I was little more than a child, that I prefer females. That I’m … attracted to them more than males. That I connect with them, care for them more on that soul-deep level.„). She is portrayed as a promiscuous person. The very late emergence of this fact does not seem natural and rather forced.
In Crescent City, SJM has improved. There are several queer characters (Fury, Juniper, Declan, Hypaxia…).
Since SJM herself is not queer, I can imagine that it is not easy for her to develop such characters. This is particularly evident in her earlier works.

Critics cite Ebony Purks‘ master’s thesis “You Can’t Sit With Us: A Textual Analysis of Racial Hostility in the Sarah J. Maas Fandom on TikTok” as evidence of racism in the books. However, I must point out that there is no explicit statement in the master’s thesis that Ebony Purks has read Sarah J. Maas‘ books. Her analysis is based primarily on the discussions and behavior of fans and critics on TikTok, not on a direct textual analysis of Sarah J. Maas‘ books.
However, she also makes some good points about “white feminism” and highlights certain biases within the fandom. She also explains that there are colonialist motifs in SJM’s books—again without context (Kingdom of Ash is quoted). However, she does a good job of explaining why Booktokers criticize SJM, especially in relation to the BLM and #FreePalestine movements.

We must ensure that the voices of those affected are not lost, even when controversial issues are involved, because their perspectives are crucial to a comprehensive understanding of the situation. It is important to emphasize that there is also a wide range of opinions among those affected themselves, shaped by personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and individual life stories. By listening to these voices and including them in the discussion, we can develop a more inclusive and equitable solution that takes into account the needs of all stakeholders and thus promotes respectful dialogue.

It is important to emphasize that I do not want to prohibit anyone from criticizing her books and SJM herself. I would like to appeal to everyone to read the reviews and form their own opinion, for example through research.
I have decided to continue reading SJM. However, I am aware of all the criticism and will continue to read the books—consciously and informed. In my opinion, SJM has improved in some of the areas mentioned. Of course, I don’t know SJM personally, but neither does anyone else. I base my opinion on facts and make my own decisions. If you no longer want to read her books, that is also your decision.

One person I will not and cannot support is JK Rowling, who has recently been making very clear and regular transphobic statements. This is clearly documented and dangerous misconduct, which I do not find acceptable.
Neil Gaiman (due to sexual abuse) is also someone I cannot and will not support.
Nevertheless, I am not forbidding anyone from reading or continuing to like Harry Potter, because who am I to do so?

It is often said that one must accept that, for example, SJM is criticized. Booktokers also say that no one is prohibited from reading problematic authors. I would find this very commendable if they actually implemented it, because diversity of opinion is an important part of our literary debates. However, in the comments, people are attacked in the name of enlightenment, which often gives the impression that it is less about constructive debate and more about personal attacks. There are hundreds of “enlightenment videos” by various Booktokers who remain objective and sometimes provide evidence, which can enrich the culture of discussion and encourage people to think about literature and its influence. I personally have nothing against these videos; on the contrary, they can offer useful perspectives. But as soon as you go to the comment sections (like mine), you see how personal the discussion becomes and that, unfortunately, it cannot remain objective. Many participants in the discussion seem more interested in vehemently defending their own points of view than in respectfully considering different perspectives, which ultimately hinders fruitful debate and jeopardizes cooperation within the book community.

Part of the BookTok community exerts enormous pressure: anyone who reads the “wrong” books is immediately condemned—often without a chance to comment or discuss the matter openly. This is precisely when the focus shifts from critical dialogue to pure condemnation. Yet the main aim should be to educate, not simply to denounce others.

It is important to remember that people with mental or physical illnesses often struggle with limited resources and do not always have the capacity to deal intensively with all issues. It is important to respect the individual limitations and needs of people with health restrictions.

Sometimes I feel that this community tends to judge people rather than properly educate them

No one should portray an author as a “monster” without conducting research and presenting verifiable facts, but at the same time, we should not blindly defend or idealize them. A healthy culture of discussion must provide space for criticism, open questions, and clarification.

I can only repeat myself: my biggest problem is the spread of misinformation and false claims. I just want people to inform themselves and not believe everything that someone posts, because the danger of misinformation is omnipresent and can have serious consequences. TikTok (and Chat GPT) is not a reliable source of information. The fast-paced and unfiltered nature of TikTok content can lead to information being presented in a distorted or incomplete way. While journalists strive for objectivity and accuracy, TikTok creators often pursue personal goals and use the platform to spread their own opinions. TikTok is a great medium for disseminating information quickly and creatively, but it often offers only superficial insights into topics that are more complex. Nevertheless, it is rarely a complete source for complex social issues. Important nuances and contextual information are often omitted, which can lead to misunderstandings and false assumptions.

If you really want to be well informed, you need to gather information from various channels, read articles, check the facts, and also apply critical thinking by taking the time to consider multiple perspectives and remaining open to new insights. Only in this way can we contribute to a constructive culture of discussion and truly advance social issues by making informed decisions and developing well-founded opinions based on solid information.

Advocating for social justice is not a one-time act, but an ongoing task. So, if you want to get involved, here are a few places to start for humanitarian aid in Palestine:

I would like to thank E., who works in educational media and has been a journalist for many years, for proofreading and providing input.

xx, Jana