I think the concerns you have, which are shared by many, are totally valid. I just think the narrative has strayed into dramatic fiction to some extent.

For instance, it’s not a cancellation of the book — just a postponement. I think it’s totally valid to be mindful of timing. I just learned that lesson when I wrote an article about small dick energy comments and used Greta Thunberg’s tweet to he-who-shall-remain-nameless as a springboard. I realized later that my timing on that was…well, bad, and I feel that I ultimately caused more potential harm than any good I had hoped to accomplish with that piece.

I also don’t understand the conflation of an act of compassion with “cancelling” Russia, as you said. I’ve heard many say this, but is one evidence of the other? If she was going to cancel Russia, I would think she wouldn’t have put the book out there in the first place — or even wanted to write a book that had anything to do with Russia, for that matter. I don’t see how postponing the publication cancels anyone.

That said, it’s such a complex issue. I don’t know what I would do in this situation. You said you disagree with me because you think she shouldn’t have pulled it from publication, but I’m not arguing here that the right move was to postpone it. I honestly don’t know. I’m just arguing that her decision is reasonable and compassionate and I’m concerned that there’s more backlash about that than there was about the book, itself.

It will definitely shake things up in the industry…but I think we need that sometimes. :) ❤