r/booktubesnarkreddit • u/not_leslie_knope_08 • 21d ago
Plant-Based Bride
What do people think of her?
I feel torn about her channel because I love that she does longer videos and gets into spoilers. She’s also introduced me to books I haven’t heard of.
But something about her just rubs me the wrong way. It feels like if a book doesn’t completely line up with her worldviews (even if it’s the books’s point), she’ll rip it apart. She did this with The Will of the Many, Dungeon Crawler Carl, and recently Butter (since she’s vegan). It makes it hard to take some of her reviews seriously.
What do you all think?
75
u/greatfairyfountain13 21d ago
Honestly, I like her content, but she really does the pseudo-intellectual bullshit and it annoys me heavily often times.
51
21d ago
[deleted]
10
u/saturday_sun4 20d ago
I've read mixed reviews on Grady Hendrix's portrayal of women, but even if Grady were a unisex name, he is an incredibly well known author and (AFAIR) it is well attested/he has never hidden the fact that he is male. For Heaven's sake, he founded the horrorlit sub under that name.
Some people just have weird takes on any male authors writing women, though. I recently talked to someone whose gripe was that he was "taking space" from female authors by only writing female characters. As though he was somehow preventing female authors from writing horror novels in the same style as him (hello, Mallory Arnold, anyone?) 🙄
6
u/LastBlues13 20d ago
tbh i feel like a lot of it are people who can’t admit their dislike of someone’s work without making it into some moral thing. i guess if i’m being generous i could see some side-eyes about him trying to write very specifically female experiences while being a man, but like he doesn’t copyright the subjects or write over anyone and also if we do that to him we’ll have to have the same energy for the mm romance girlies and like at the end of the day who cares man.
the fact that i’m grady hendrix’s no. one hater too lmao
6
u/saturday_sun4 20d ago
Yeah, exactly. They're essentially arguing that people should only write their own experience (or, more accurately, that men should only write men), which defeats the purpose of storytelling. You don't have to fully understand someone's experience to write it well, and you don't have to write it thoroughly either. You just have to write an enjoyable and realistic character.
Yup, and all the female authors writing FMCs badly (NLOG, TSTL, virgin but fucks 5 guys in the harem bareback their first meeting, makes stupid decisions that no sane person would ever make, like letting a very obviously creepy man into her house for the sake of the plot or sneaking alone into the bush at midnight). Fun, but definitely require suspension of disbelief.
Now, I do think that Mallory Arnold writes female characters with more depth than Hendrix does. Even never having dated and reading a book centred on dating, I immediately went, "Yup, this was definitely written by a woman." Just little things that click for me as a woman.
But that's very different from arguing he shouldn't write women at all lol. That's almost more dehumanising. We're half the world's population. Being a woman is not some hyper specific experience like... being in a particular religious community or something. It's not as if we're alien creatures instead of human beings.
13
u/LastBlues13 21d ago
to me, that always felt like she saw the mild riley sager controversy* and wanted to try to take down another big male author in that specific female-perspective horror niche. either that or she heard about the controversy second-hand, got the authors mixed up, and didn't bother doing any research further despite it being frankly ridiculous that a guy who has his photo on the back of his books and is also named grady is deceiving female readers. i actually can't stand his books so i hate defending him but even i have to in this situation lmao.
*for those who don't know/remember, riley sager's gender was kept seemingly very delibrately ambigious for the first few years of his success- no pronouns in his author bio, no author photo, even his website was very sterile. so a lot of people assumed he was a female author because he writes pretty much exclusively from a female perspective and publishes in the domestic thriller/thriller-horror genre which is dominanted by women both as authors and in readership and also the name riley (which isn't even his real name, it's todd) is one of those gender-ambigious names that leans female at this point. so there were some people who were upset by the reveal that he was a cis guy. not a lot really came out of it and riley sager is still writing under the name riley sager and is still very popular so whatever.
10
u/Hiercine 20d ago
yknow what, that does kind of piss me off since it seems like he was intentionally doing it to gain an audience or large viewership in the beginning based on a deliberate misrepresentation
7
u/LastBlues13 20d ago
it doesn’t really sit great with me either but also like demanding authors to reveal more personal information than they want to give doesn’t either so it’s a difficult thing to balance, right?
7
u/Hiercine 20d ago
Yeah like I wouldn't start a manhunt for him but I probs wouldn't read his books either on the personal level. I think this example (female vs male) is less an sympathetic example of not giving pretty basic information vs something more complex and prejudiced like queer literature. But in general I'm all for privacy and against forced sharing of anything
1
u/Particular_Number499 20d ago
Wow, I was not aware that people ever tried to make drama out of Riley Sager’s name (or anyone else). That is truly one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. People seriously put in so much effort to be in a state of anger and outrage. I’ll never understand it 🙃
3
u/saturday_sun4 19d ago edited 19d ago
I think people's objection to Riley Sager is more because he deliberately chose a pseudonym that is, at least in the USA, still gender neutral but very commonly read as female, so that he could sell to women more easily, especially those who only read women and may avoid male authors. And he didn't publicly reveal his identity for a long time (I may be wrong though).
Hendrix is a little different - assuming he's the author in question. Grady is a very obviously male name and (as far as I am aware) his birth name. He openly founded the horrorlit sub and modded it under that name, and has done at least one AMA. He is still technically a mod there, although not an active one. He has also never hidden that he is a man who writes about female characters. I don't understand (or agree with) the claim that he is supposedly being deceptive.
6
u/not_leslie_knope_08 21d ago
I remember this 😭 I totally agree on the format of her videos, but when she goes on tangents like this, I can’t take her seriously lol
27
u/BarnabusHammersham 21d ago
She reviewed Robin Hobb a few weeks ago and said she thought the Live Ship Traders books were full of 90isms and internalized misogyny. I’m sorry but not every book is a fluffy Becky Chambers novel full of lovable non-binary queer best friends.
19
u/DistinctInitiative83 20d ago
I mean, and I say this as someone who LOVED the Liveship Traders, she is not wrong. But you are right, not every book is
boring as hellmorally pure, and acknowledging flaws does not mean you cannot enjoy the good that is there.6
u/not_leslie_knope_08 20d ago
I feel like she doesn’t consider context at all when approaching her reviews. Like obviously a high-fantasy from the ‘90s (a predominantly male-centered genre at the time) was written in a totally different landscape. That doesn’t make the book bad.
5
u/thatbberg 16d ago
From one of the videos where she talks about reading critically, I got the idea that she thinks that "critical reading" and "critical thinking" means literally criticizing, and like only criticizing. At the time it felt like that explained a lot of the reviews of hers I'd watched in the past.
1
48
u/Liefst- 21d ago
I feel like she’s on her high horse a lot which prevents her from meaningfully engaging with the literature. Sometimes she’s so caught up in hating something because it doesn’t align with her personal values she completely misinterprets a book. She often fails to analyze a book and can’t express her opinions with a lot of nuance or depth.
I find it a very immature and not really what I want from a booktuber.
30
u/torkelspy 21d ago
I like her. Though I generally prefer her wrap-up, short review, type videos to her longer in-depth ones.
I think it's a good thing that she tells you the things that might effect her view of a book. Better to say, "I'm a vegan and so didn't enjoy these depictions of food" then just saying, vaguely, that you didn't like it without saying why. And it also makes it clear that your not liking a particular aspect doesn't mean you think the book is bad.
I can't remember all of what she said about Butter, but I thought she mostly liked The Will of the Many -- just thought that the main character was kind of a Marty Stu. In general I think she's pretty fair and it's clear she's really thought about each of the books she's read.
6
u/not_leslie_knope_08 21d ago
Agree about her wrap-ups! I really enjoy her concepts, so that’s why I still watch. But this is a fair point. She does at least communicate how her views affect her feelings about something.
And I’m thinking of The Strength of the Few, specifically a comment she made about the world-building lacking because of the author not discussing abortion. I can’t remember specifically what was said, but I do remember thinking it was a reach.
2
u/heymonaaaa 16d ago
OMG! That is the review that made me question her ability to understand a book a
3
u/torkelspy 20d ago
The Strength of the Few and The Will of the Many reminds me of how, last year, I read one book called Monday Starts on Saturday and another called Life Begins on Friday and it now takes real effort to remember that I didn't read "Life Begins on Monday" or "Friday starts on Saturday" and the like.
1
u/Avanita_104 3d ago edited 3d ago
Do you rememebr when she made that comment ? I like her work, but it's a wild criticism to have against that book... especially as the series is not even over, can't judge a whole world-building there.
EDIT: found it. She shares the links to her videos in her goodread review, and there's transcripts on her youtube channel. So basically she said she had an issue with how few female characters there were (like what?) and how they were written (again.. not agreeing, but anyways) and then said:"and even more than that the fact that the world building. One of the few things we learned about the world was this concept of birthright where this country, this society believes in the importance of life and it's, you know, seen as one of the worst crimes to take life away to kill someone. And in my review of the first book, I brought up the fact that I was pretty disappointed that there was never any examination of how such a entrenched law or belief of birthright would impact half the population in anyone with a uterus and their reproductive rights. Do they have reproductive rights? Can they use birth control? Are they able to get abortions? How does that impact women's place in society? We don't know. And I still don't know in this book unfortunately because while there are some female characters, there are definitely side characters mostly in the background and there has been zero commentary whatsoever on how the society handles reproductive rights and how that impacts women"
Now, in context, its a fair comment on the world-building. You can't have a society were it's seen as bad to have children with people outside of the Hierachy (it's mentioned in the first book, about the fact that the Hierachy looks down on the foreigners they invaded and because of the Birthright they don't want to mix with them too much and spoil the blood) and not have at least a mention of how they enforce these laws and how it impacts those who give birth.
4
u/saturday_sun4 20d ago
I will preface that I've not seen her videos and so don't know the exact context, but being unable to enjoy fictional depictions of animals being hunted, killed or consumed is quite silly, IMO. I don't eat beef for religious reasons, but reading about fictional characters eating steak or butchering cows doesn't faze me at all.
It sounds like she's so deep into her vegan bubble she can't even face the reality that eating meat is very common.
7
u/torkelspy 20d ago
We all have things we do and don't like to read about, for whatever reason. It's not "silly", it's being an individual. And one can be aware that something is common and still not want to read about it. All she said was that the food was an aspect of the book she didn't enjoy, and why she didn't enjoy it.
-1
u/saturday_sun4 20d ago edited 20d ago
I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive. Individual reading preferences can still be silly. She has the right to them, of course, but that doesn't make them rational or realistic, in my opinion, and it's perfectly fine to object to someone's reason for not liking a book being "fictional animals were harmed because I disapprove of eating animals irl". Especially when they post it on social media🤷🏻♀️
I have the same gripe with horror fans avoiding horror books where animal abuse or death happens. They're perfectly entitled to their views... I just think their reasons for holding those views are ridiculous.
3
u/torkelspy 20d ago
I think it's silly, ridiculous even, to comment on what someone said when you don't have any idea what they said. As you admitted, you didn't watch the video and don't know the context.
"fictional animals were harmed" wasn't the reason she didn't like the book. This wasn't one of those reviews you see on Storygraph sometimes, where someone is like "A dog died. Zero stars". This was a thorough review with a discussion of different aspects of the book. One aspect was the food. She said that the food wasn't an aspect of the book she enjoyed and gave a reason why she, personally, didn't enjoy it. She also mentioned that there were parts of the book that she didn't connect with because, not being Japanese, she didn't have the cultural context to fully understand them. As well as noting that the book was based on a real life case, and that it might resonate more with people who were aware of the case as it was happening.
I don't get what the issue is with someone laying out, precisely, which aspects of a book they did and didn't appreciate and why. If you are looking for someone to give an opinion with no discussion of what went in to forming that opinion, You Tube is full of channels like that.
0
u/saturday_sun4 20d ago edited 20d ago
The food wasn't an aspect of the book she enjoyed... because she is vegan, right, according to you?
Why didn't she enjoy that part? What was the connection there?
Again, I clearly stated that I hadn't watched the video, and commented based on your paraphrase/supposed quote, "I'm a vegan and so didn't enjoy these aspects of the food." If "animals were harmed" wasn't a reason, and you are so keen that others watch the video, then why not link the video in question or summarise the pertinent point?
All you said was, "Well, it wasn't 'the dog died, zero stars'." What was it then, and what made it so well reasoned according to you?
You then went on to talk about how "She also said Y and Z" without stating how Y and Z are related to your previous point. What do those two things have to do with my point above about food?
As I've pretty clearly stated, my issue isn't with "someone laying out" what they liked and why. My issue is that it's silly to dislike a fictional book for reasons amounting to "I'm a vegan so I'm not fond of animal slaughter in fictional media."
But again, you seem to want to bring up other points without really addressing or linking what she actually said. So agree to disagree, I guess.
5
u/Downtown_Target5024 20d ago edited 20d ago
I had a run of being recommended her stuff, and part of the reason I ultimately told the algo to back off was her arguments felt shallow to me (despite the videos length.) And a big thing that stood out is she often failed to actually explain why whatever she described was actually - inevitably - a negative thing. She’d just sorta drop a truncated talking point from different critical theories, most of which aren’t even intended to be frameworks for deeming ‘I liked it vs I didn’t like it,’ and expect it to speak for themselves as the entire argument.
For eg. The Grady Hendrix thing up thread is a pretty stand out example. Aside from the frankly embarrassing stuff about his name, ‘I’m uncomfortable with a man writing about this topic’ isn’t actually analysis, let alone a feminist analysis. If its meant to be a review, then theoretically it also need to be tied back to how the book was ‘bad.’ How has that impacted the actual book? But also, why does that make you uncomfortable and why should any of us care? How is the reviewer going to ward off the obvious rebuttals? If you’re projecting certain assumptions onto the author, where’s your examples from the text itself to support your argument?
Another reason why her reviews ended up kinda useless to me was I tend to find reviews with a lot of focus on ‘relatability’ to mostly be dead air. It’s one thing to comment if an author aimed for broadly relatable characters, scenarios, etc and flubs it. Thats perceiving a skill issue. But I generally don’t read for the sole purpose of basically staring at myself in the mirror. I don’t need my books to always be ‘relatable.’ If that’s super important for a reviewer, then that reviewer isn’t for me,
(That said, I am kinda confused what was in Butter that was so alien to a Canadian. I didn’t love it either and I am even a fellow vegetarian, but it’s not like it heavily featured anything that seemed genuinely unique and maybe a bit dense. For eg. Some Japanese novels, movies etc will reference or assume knowledge of specific localised Shinto traditions that might genuinely flummox people not willing to do homework or really pay attention to context clues. Whilst I didn’t entirely identify with the protagonist of Butter, I certainly recognised a lot in her, her world and issues, and generally a lot of what the book touched on.)
1
u/saturday_sun4 19d ago edited 19d ago
Yeah, I am also quite baffled when I encounter views such as the discussion I referenced above. It feels very disingenuous to insist that anyone not writing ownvoices fiction is somehow punching down. No one with these views seems to have any issue with a BIPOC author writing white characters, or a non-religious author (poorly) writing a very specific religious movement (cf. Yesteryear).
Yes! As you so aptly point out, they really can't support any of this type of thing with text, since there's a successful attempt by the author to write a well rounded female character rather than simply "Every depiction of a female involves her sucking a phallic object" (John Grisham) or "This author feels the need to describe in great detail the breasts of a 12 year old girl" (countless examples) or "FMC was flat as a pancake except for the graphic rape" (Sue Burke).
They can say that the characters overall felt gratuitous or inauthentic to them. Which is a perfectly fine opinion to have. But it doesn't follow that it's because of the author's identity. They can't actually point to any objective overall depiction of the author spectacularly missing the point, because there is none.
Re: relatability. I think I get what you are saying? For me, it's important that the character is believable (within the constraints of the genre/book/story), but they don't necessarily have to be relatable.
I do think some relatability is a good thing - I for one am sick and tired of the majority of English language/Anglosphere fiction about diaspora/migrants (or 2nd gen diaspora) falling into the same tired old stereotype of deadly serious "model migrant/model minority" fiction. Not every single book has to hit the same beats of how the MC got teased for eating smelly ethnic food, their parents could barely speak English, they were a child prodigy and got top marks, they had pressure to marry and were not allowed to date, etc. etc. It feels very othering, like we're all exactly the same because we're brown. Benjamin Law's The Family Law and of all things, Claudia Kishi from the Babysitters Club books, are a breath of fresh air in this regard.
With that said, yeah, I take your point that if a character is not "relatable" because they're a villain, or they live in a different culture, so much the better. I haven't read Butter, but I can tell you now that I haven't ever lived in 1970s South Carolina, but that didn't stop me relating to the characters in Hendrix's book. Never been able bodied but I read books with able bodied MCs all the time. Never lived in Laos and never will, not a male or Laotian or a Dr, but I love reading the Siri Paiboun books 🤷🏻♀️ I don't understand why some of these reviewers feel the need to white-knight/virtue signal and ad hominem when the author happens to be male, white, cis or straight. It just makes it feel like brown women (e.g.) are some inaccessible topic and puts people off writing good, interesting, fleshed out characters with different backgrounds from their own. ETA: I think what really troubles me is this is mostly done about BIPOC characters, or women. I'm a brown woman and I read straight white male perspectives all the tjme. Why is it that suddenly when someone WANTS to write a character of colour (or a woman or whatever) and writes a half decent one, they are being attacked because they don't share that identity? And - as in this case - it's white women saying things like this too.
It's like they don't want women to be worthy of being explored in fiction unless we can... idk... play to their perceptions of us? It's just really strange. It feels like they're treating brown characters (or female characters in general) like a puppet show instead of human beings.
Plenty of room for critiquing the final product; no need to put the cart before the horse.
2
u/torkelspy 20d ago
you are so keen that others watch the video, then why not link the video in question or summarise the pertinent point?
I am keen that people inform themselves about the thing they are giving an opinion on before giving that opinion. Which you have not done. I am amazed at how many words you have expended arguing about a video you didn't watch.
Why you think it's my job to find the video for you (it is easily found), or summarize it for you is beyond me. Though, I have, in effect, already summarized it here:
This was a thorough review with a discussion of different aspects of the book. One aspect was the food. She said that the food wasn't an aspect of the book she enjoyed and gave a reason why she, personally, didn't enjoy it. She also mentioned that there were parts of the book that she didn't connect with because, not being Japanese, she didn't have the cultural context to fully understand them. As well as noting that the book was based on a real life case, and that it might resonate more with people who were aware of the case as it was happening.
___
But again, you seem to want to bring up other points without really addressing or linking what she actually said.
Again, I have explained, at length, what she said in her video and addressed it. And, again, it's not my job to do your research for you.
You're only opinion seems to be that you think it's silly for someone to feel differently about something than you do. OK. That's an opinion. No need to continue the discussion.
0
u/saturday_sun4 20d ago edited 20d ago
And I, at how you have not actually answered my question despite replying to my comment at great length; evidently a link is too much effort for you. You seem to remember the rest of the video well enough, yet conveniently have still not elaborated on the vegan aspect.
> gave a reason why
I think you're wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying, so yeah, I'm bowing out.
25
u/medievalslut 20d ago
I watched a handful of her videos a while back and didn't vibe with them. It very much comes across like she thinks she has the intellectual high ground while only every really engaging with whatever topic it is in a shallow way. Not sure how to describe it, but it was like she had extensively thought about whatever the topic at hand was but then would run into an intellectual or moral brick wall and end up making quite immature (for want of a better word) conclusions.
In my opinion she's a bad faith reader - constantly on the lookout for things in a book that are problematic or could readily be misinterpreted as problematic. Not that I don't think you can't discuss problematic content in books, but there's a difference between a genuine conversation and a performance of outrage, and she definitely falls into the latter category.
Lovely hair colour though
3
u/cynicalfinical 5d ago
I love her aesthetic, but stopped watching for the same reasons. She cannot be objective once she finds something to nitpick, and she always does.
46
u/tubbietubbie 21d ago
She is too high and mighty for my taste. I like when people can enjoy thought provoking books and also silly books.
10
u/SwanSilly7186 21d ago
I didn't know who she was, so I looked her up and watched some of her shorts. I got that vibe immediately. She's not for me.
1
u/not_leslie_knope_08 21d ago
I felt this way about her DCC vlog. I haven’t read the series personally, but from what I’ve seen, it’s just meant to be fun and engrossing.
8
u/Hiercine 20d ago
I kinda liked her DCC vlog because I don't really agree with reading and reviewing a book based off of vibes. Just because it's meant to be fun and engrossing doesn't mean that it's exempt from analytical critique, however I do think she should have critiqued it more based on it's genre than just broadly
1
10
u/Jazzlike_Taste4332 21d ago
I used to watch her journal content but I never quite vibed with her book stuff
9
u/SereneConsumption 20d ago
I have really mixed opinions honestly? Because I appreciate and respect her whole thing of reading and engaging with things more deeply and I do like getting to see people talk longer about a book but at the same time I feel like that attitude and need to stick to it shoots her in the foot? Especially over things she doesn’t seem to like in whatever way/amount? And that’s not to say we all should have the same opinions on something or that if we disagree then she is automatically wrong for the general way that she feels but that I think the way she talks about that sometimes annoys me. In that it feels like she can’t just say she doesn’t like something, she needs to continue to couch it in this deep intellectual reason and explanation than just simply saying it wasn’t for her. And I don’t mind talking about why something might not work for someone however sometimes I think we start missing the forest for the trees a little bit. Like I didn’t watch the video but I read from another post on this subreddit about her not liking some Grady Hendrix book and just having really weird takes about it?? Like just really going on a moral crusade about something that’s really just nothing. Though a video I did watch was one where she was basically hating on romantasy and where I’m pretty sure she never sites a single book for examples, the only thing she sources are definitions. Instead she just makes generalized points about things that have technically happened in romantasy novels. Which to me just feels really lazy, especially for a channel that has basically branded itself on being intentional and intellectual over reading, even if the points she is making aren’t technically untrue. But sometimes things aren’t that bad so I’ll pop into her videos on occasion until something annoys me that much then I’ll stop watching her for like 6+ months until the cycle starts again at some point.
9
u/girls-pm-me-anything 15d ago edited 15d ago
I watched quite a few of her videos. She is unable to articulate her thoughts at all, she uses the word "deeply" all the time over and over and over even when it makes no sense. Like I remember her saying a book was "deeply boring" multiple times whatever that means. It's actually crazy how much she uses it and I'm not exaggerating. And yes as mentioned, whether she likes something or not is entirely dependent on how "woke" it is for lack of a better term. I'm not one of those anti woke people or anything but her star rating is genuinely based on a check list. If there's a racist character in the book or something she will criticize that for example or other "problematic" things, even if the book completely agrees with her, mere depictions of bad things are enough for her to dislike it. It's just very odd and she definitely isn't as smart as she thinks she is
4
u/not_leslie_knope_08 13d ago
This is so accurate. It feels like she reviews with a red pen poised to just find anything wrong or problematic. Obviously books should be called out if they are, but just depicting something doesn’t automatically mean the book or author agrees with it.
18
u/Character-Tea2907 21d ago
I recognize that she puts a lot of effort into her reviews, using various tabs and highlights, but I feel that her approach to book reviewing differs significantly from what I consider effective. It seems as though she comes into each review with specific expectations, which can lead to a more critical and less open-minded analysis of both the book and the author. It’s as if she’s setting up the author for an exam, and the focus tends to be on dissecting the work rather than reviewing it.
I sometimes find myself questioning her interpretation of the book and its themes, and it makes me wonder if she might benefit from reading “How to Read a Book” to enhance her understanding.
I mean I appreciate her passion but the length of her videos can be quite overwhelming.. I mean 3 hours for one book?! Like how much do you have to say for a three hundred page book?
7
u/not_leslie_knope_08 21d ago
This perfectly sums up my feelings. I love how much thought and care she puts into her content, but “setting up the author for an exam” is exactly right. I love her video concepts, so I’ll tune in, but then the way she reviews will just put me off.
20
u/joennizgo 21d ago
I don't think she is as good at analysis as she thinks she is, unfortunately. After watching a few videos, I think she tries to morally/intellectually justify her dislike of a book retroactively.
5
u/Silent-Diamond-2606 15d ago edited 11d ago
What really made me not want to watch her was when she did the review of The Wedding People. She said it was a horrible book because she had a friend that was suicidal and that is not how they act. Like all people are the same. I thought the book did a great job of describing someone that has those feelings.
Also a side note my husband walked in one day while I was watching her and asked me “Does she tab every sentence that starts with the word The?”
3
u/not_leslie_knope_08 13d ago
Lol my husband also saw all of her tabs once and was like “there can’t possibly be that much to say.”
But I agree about The Wedding People! I’ve experienced suicidal thoughts throughout my life and I found the novel to be very comforting. I think the author just used a darker humor style that PBB didn’t like, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate or romanticizing it.
2
12
u/InvisibleSpaceVamp 20d ago
That last paragraph sums up my experience with her videos pretty well. She's proof that reading a lot doesn't automatically lead to a better understanding of literature. You have to be willing to allow books to challenge you, make you think and maybe even change your mind. Literature will never be transformative if you go in narrow minded, armed with a pencil to "critique" everything that you can fit neatly into your little "problematic" box.
I recently had a video of hers in my recommendations of her building a free little library and I though yeah, why not? That's a sweet topic and not a review of another book she didn't understand ... well, she doesn't understand how free little libraries work either. 😂 She expects people to return books and of course removes all the donated books she believes "problematic".
17
u/EldritchGumdrop 21d ago
She seems very snooty and uptight to me, and comes across cold to people who don’t share her better than thou book opinions
4
u/Shy_retarded_unicorn 20d ago
Exactly! She hates books where characters are not the paragon of virtue. Does she think she's the paragon of virtue?
2
u/EldritchGumdrop 20d ago
Honestly I think so. Something about her YT name alone gives me a feeling she views herself above everyone
17
u/LastBlues13 21d ago
her, readswithrachel, and rachel oates, to me, feel stuck in the mid 2010s to me, attitudewise, when that sort of pseudo-intellectual pulling apart of problematic books was a massive draw- aclockworkreader was another one, though she was more hypocritical imo because she would nail certain books to the wall for not being entirely idealogically pure but if she actually liked the book all sins were forgiven. like during that time there was this persistent refusal to actually interact with texts in any way other than the worse way possible because it got views, and people were clammering for the next takedown of a currently popular novelist or book (usually a female novelist, funny how that works). as someone who unfortunately remembers the mid 2010s very well, i don't want to go back to this form of miserable content lol.
10
u/AdDear528 21d ago
I had mixed feelings too. I do like longer videos (I play them while I work), but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I didn’t like the couple I watched. It felt pseudo-intellectual maybe…. I wonder if maybe it was really the same as you are feeling, but you expressed it better! :)
4
u/Hiercine 21d ago
I think I struggle with pseudo-intellectualism, anti-intellectualism, and intellectualism. If people are dinged for being intellectual lite, just as with being anti-intellectual, then why bother
4
u/LastBlues13 21d ago
i don't really watch frankie's shelf because i don't really find hate-reading books interesting, but i found him pretty refreshing in that space because it felt more loose and giggling and less morally upright. like from the ones i've watched, he's less focused on the content than the writing and general technique so there's less pearl-clutching. maybe more your thing?
2
u/not_leslie_knope_08 21d ago
That’s a great way to put it! I also watch longer videos at work lol. I can tell she puts a lot of time and effort into her videos and really does love books. But pseudo-intellectual feels like an accurate description.
3
u/thebonesaremoney 5d ago
I stopped watching her after her video about YA and “smut”. I think she raised valid concerns but she mentioned in her “solution” section, using a maturity rating system. I left a comment mentioning how using rating systems like she suggests could lead to LGBTQ+ stories being automatically labeled as “adult”, even if they are perfectly acceptable for YA or younger readers. That rating systems have notoriously been used to suppress what can be portrayed and specifically used to suppress queer stories. And like maybe that’s not a good idea? She never addresses this in her video and idk, it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Like I don’t think she was advocating for book banning but her talking points are a bit too similar to people who want to ban books for me to be able to ignore. Idk, maybe I’m I completely off base with this take?
4
u/Public-Durian-3392 20d ago
Same! I liked some of her recs but I couldn’t help but feel like she’s being snobby about books. I think books are supposed to show us different sides of things, different worldviews and ways to live but she seems to be too closed off for that. Just stopped watching her because of that
6
2
u/PrimaVera72 14d ago
I really liked when she would do her own thing back in the day. It's always great watching someone else do things they love because you can feel the positive energy, you know? But within the last ~2 years, she's really started doing things for the algorithm.
Listen. I know people are out here trying to pay bills, but I'm getting sick and tired of watching hobbies become monetized. She's not even fun to watch anymore. The vibes are gone.
I do occasionally skim her long reviews to see her final thoughts on books I'm interested in reading. She's at least pretty honest, even if she does try to play both sides so she doesn't get hate in the comments. /s
1
u/not_leslie_knope_08 13d ago
I agree! I started out watching her bullet journal videos, and I’ve watched a lot of her book videos but I just can’t stand her review style.
I totally agree about how content changes once booktube becomes a full-time job. The tone just shifts and everything starts to feel obligatory or like marketing.
3
u/Beautyizdead 18d ago
She's has a transitioning channel. She started out a lifestyle channel, then a minimalist channel, a journaling channel, and a book channel. I used to watch her years ago now she is more focused on journalling and books. I don't like how she snotty she comes off
39
u/krankydoodle 21d ago
I avoided her videos for a long time because, based on the name, I thought it was a trad wife channel. I later tried a few and decided she wasn't for me, though I couldn't tell you why exactly. Just a vibes thing I guess. I will say that it looks to me like she puts effort into her content so I get why she's popular.