You may be asking yourself, what is so objectionable about Sarah J. Maas releasing a new book? The issue lies not with the book itself, but with  how her publishing company, Bloomsbury Publishing, is handling its  release. Instead of publishing one edition of the book, Bloomsbury will be releasing five different editions on January 30. Each edition will be unique to a specific retailer – Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, Target, Walmart, and select indie bookstores will each receive a different edition of the book each featuring unique bonus chapters. Basically, every edition has a unique chapter related to a handful of characters in the book. If you want to experience the book in its entirety, you will have to buy it five times. 

If readers want to experience the whole gamut of the Crescent City universe, why are they being forced to jump through hoops to do so? These bonus chapters  easily could have been compiled  into a novella that would have retailed at a much lower cost than a main entry in the series. Instead, Bloomsbury has decided to set the retail price of House of Flame and Shadow at a whopping 42$ CAD. If you want to read all of the bonus chapters, you will have to fork over 200$. 

The frustrating reality of  this stunt by Bloomsbury is that they are clearly aiming to capitalize   on the loyalty of Sarah J Maas’ literary fanbase. The publishing house is aware that her loyal readers are passionate and   willing to go above and beyond to support their favourite author. Publishers used to release signed editions of books in limited quantities to appeal to loyal readers. But it seems that they have now found a new way to exploit consumers. 

The success of  Bloomsbury’s stunt ultimately lies in the hands of book buyers. If their response to these exclusive editions is muted, it could leave some stores with dead stock, and discourage other companies from following this model. However,  if it turns out to be wildly successful, this marketing ploy might set a dangerous precedent for the publishing industry.  It could even attract scalpers who will buy the book en masse and sell it at inflated prices – a process covered in the Daily article “It’s Not You, It’s Capitalism.” Regardless, it is guaranteed to anger fans, some of whom might opt out of buying the book altogether. 

It remains to be seen whether or not these additional chapters will have any bearing on the release of the fourth book in the series. Nevertheless, the release of all of these special editions is worrisome. Has this practice set an industry standard where  selling multiple exclusive editions of one book is the norm? Will people be required to buy the same book multiple times to be able to enjoy the full story? If you want to incentivize people to buy print books to compensate for the general decline in book sales in recent years, this is the wrong way of going about it. 

Bloomsbury’s actions might lead you to believe  that they are experiencing financial troubles,  but this is far from the truth.  The first half of the 2023 fiscal year was actually the most successful in the company’s history. In fact,  Bloomsbury’s  revenue increased by 17% in 2023, with  a 79% increase in sales of Sarah J Maas’ books being cited as one of the driving forces behind the company’s success. This marketing stunt has nothing to do with helping Bloomsbury stay afloat; it is just another example of unbridled capitalism. 

No matter how much profit a company makes they always seem to find a way to cut corners to increase earnings. In the headlong pursuit of perpetually increasing profits, companies are willing to cast aside their standards and morals – just as Bloomsbury has done here. The average Maas reader just wants to read the full book without all these shenanigans. In a day and age where  people consistently bemoan that  young people  don’t read as much as past generations, why is a  major publishing house setting up obstacles to prevent readers from fully enjoying such a popular series?  Instead of price gouging their readers, Bloomsbury should be prioritizing efforts to widen access to books for the average person.  A well-read population should never depend on how many editions of a book they can afford to buy.

The post Five Editions of House of Flame and Shadow is Unbridled Capitalism appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Trump granted Duda a favour by ordering American soldiers deployed in Germany to relocate to Poland, an act which was rightfully criticized by Democrats, Mitt Romney, and NATO allies, since it was seen as a move that destabilized the region and heavily benefited Russia. Because of the cooperation between the Duda and Trump administrations, Duda pushed for a Trump victory. When the American press declared Biden as the president, Duda took to Twitter and expressed his uncertainty about the election result, mentioning that “[a]s we await the nomination by the Electoral College, Poland is determined to upkeep high-level and high-quality PL-US strategic partnership for an even stronger alliance.”

After Duda made his post, Polish writer Jakub Żulczyk responded to the president on Facebook, mentioning that he “never heard of such a thing as [an] Electoral College nomination” and that “Joe Biden is the 46th president of the USA.” He proceeded to make the claim that “Andrzej Duda is a moron.” Five months after these statements, on March 23, 2021, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal decided to charge the writer with defamation in accordance with Article 135 of the penal code. The article stipulates that those who publicly disparage the President of Poland can receive a sentence of up to three years in prison. In most cases, however, punishment usually entails a fine or community service. It remains to be seen whether the 37 year old will face any jail time, but it is worrisome that the top court in Poland is actively persecuting a writer for a critical Facebook post.

This event is part of a recent trend, in which the Duda administration tries to curb the power of the press. In December of 2020, the Polish government bought out Polska Press Group, a media organization that oversaw a group of newspapers and news websites whose total readership amounted to 17 million readers. In addition, the justice minister, Zbigniew Ziobro recently filed a lawsuit against Gazeta Wyborcza, a newspaper which has faced 60 lawsuits in the last couple of years from members of the ruling party, the Law and Justice party.  

Duda’s rhetoric on the campaign trail was arguably much more divisive than Jakub’s comments. Duda has historically dehumanized the LGBTQ+ community by claiming that they are “not people – they are an ideology.” He accused Germany of meddling in the Polish election after a paper posted a story that upset him, has repeatedly tried to make abortion laws stricter, and has attempted to punish judges that do not agree with him in order to make unconstitutional changes to the election laws. For someone who talks such a big game, Duda’s fear of those who disagree with him exposes his true insecurity

If Poland decides to jail this writer, the European Union must convene and impose heavy sanctions and fines against the Duda government. Arresting a user for a social media post sets a dangerous precedent. What is stopping Duda from going after other critics of the government? He has already taken measures to silence judges that oppose his government by passing a bill that punishes those who openly criticize his policies. The polish courts have enforced Act 135 of the penal code in the past, mostly in the form of fines or community service. If the government starts jailing every dissident, it hampers civil society and its ability to hold Andrzej Duda accountable for his actions. With his attacks on the press and now private citizens, it appears that Duda is setting the stage for a tyranny. 

The post A Dangerous Precedent: Poland Threatens to Arrest Writer who Criticized President appeared first on The McGill Daily.

It is disappointing how Bell Let’s Talk is limited to social media and text messaging. I do not take movements on social media seriously because I feel that they are often ephemeral and deceptive. In the summer of 2012, for instance, people suddenly started caring about the warlord Joseph Kony in Uganda. The movement lasted for a few months, but ultimately dissipated quickly as social media users latched onto another cause. Some social media users support causes that they may not necessarily agree with. For instance, when January rolls around, even the biggest of bullies start spreading the Bell Let’s Talk hashtag. It is frustrating how the same people who bully their peers for exhibiting depression symptoms abruptly proclaim themselves as defenders of mental health causes. Some people use the event to proclaim that they are always willing to listen to someone with depression, but when you try broaching the subject of depression on any other day, they will tell you to “stop being negative” or regurgitate advice that would not help someone experiencing depression.

People with depression often do not have anyone to lean on since people view them as a “burden”. Anhedonia, a pervasive lack of joy, is a symptom that accompanies depression and is often the reason why people distance themselves from depressed people. The problem is that society encourages people to cut out “toxic people” from their lives and on many occasions, people with depression are lumped into the same category as toxic people. For many people with depression, the only people willing to listen to them are therapists. Therapy is a good option for some people, but for many, the expensiveness of therapy makes it inaccessible for them. Perhaps seeing a therapist is a better option than opening up to your “friends” since therapists are generally better equipped to deal with depression than one’s group of friends. Nevertheless, it must be awfully difficult for people with depression to deal with the feelings of rejection and isolation when their peers cut off ties with them for being depressed.   

Some of the symptoms associated with depression are caused by factors such as a chemical imbalance or hyperthyroidism. The media and the general public often believe in the caricature of depression as people who are sad 24/7 and cannot function normally due to depression. As soon as you stray from this insulting simplification of depression, people are quick to label you as a “liar” or an “attention-seeker”. People should see depression on a spectrum. There are a myriad of symptoms and types of depression. The debilitating effects and the frequency of symptoms vary depending on the type of depression you have. 

Another factor driving the stigma around depression is the tendency of people to use “sadness” and “depression” as interchangeable terms. Sadness is a short-term, ephemeral emotion, whereas depression is a long-term feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness. When people conflate the terms, it distorts the struggles of depressed people and contributes to the stigma. It also is one of the main reasons why people struggle to understand the magnitude of depression. In many regards, confusing the terms is an honest mistake, but it is also important to reflect on the differences between the two terms. “Depressed” should not be expunged from people’s vocabularies, but people should understand that synonyms do not carry the same exact meaning. 

Unfortunately these myths are still pervasive in society when statements like “depression is a choice” are considered as “sound advice” by some people. Using a “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” approach does not work with depression because depressed people often struggle to feel better. Since people can often explain why they feel sad, they also believe that depression should have a clear-cut cause. Depression, however, can affect anyone. Many successful people who appear to lead a great life suffer from depression. It is a myth that only people who are down on their luck can become depressed. It is frustrating that many people act as if you have no right to feel depressed if you are successful. It is common to be referred to as a “downer” in such circumstances.         

“Bell Let’s Talk acts like it is only appropriate to talk about mental health for one day.”

Bell Let’s Talk acts like it is only appropriate to talk about mental health for one day. Depression haunts people every day of their lives. It makes the most basic of tasks a burden and contrary to popular belief, it cannot be turned off at the flick of a switch.  Depressed people, for the most part, cannot express their struggles publicly because they are immediately branded as negative. I feel like the depressed should be afforded more opportunities to express their struggles and should not be limited to Bell Let’s Talk. In my opinion, the fact that people living with mental illnesses only “get one day” to talk about depression illustrates how little society thinks of depression. No matter how much society tries to disregard depression, there is no denying the fact that depression is rampant. 

It is tough to trust the campaign when Bell, a company whose actions display the utmost contempt for people experiencing depression, spearheads the movement. In 2017, Maria McLean, a radio host in Grand Falls, New Brunswick, was dismissed from her post after she provided her supervisors with a doctor’s note that recommended a two week mental-health leave. Bell is the company that owned the radio station at the time. In addition, as many as 600 employees revealed the toll that Bell’s toxic work environment took on their health. Because of these actions, I see the whole movement as a cheap way for Bell to improve its corporate image.   

“The underlying problem lies in the fact that politicians, organizations, and employers focus exclusively on improving the productivity of the individual to bolster economic growth, ignoring the toll that this has taken on mental health.”

The underlying problem lies in the fact that politicians, organizations, and employers focus exclusively on improving the productivity of the individual to bolster economic growth, ignoring the toll that this has taken on mental health. Since so much of society emphasizes the importance of the economy and consumer culture, more public attention is given to  fighting over the latest incremental improvement featured in the newest iPhone than checking in on their peers who may be struggling. There are  many stories of people being fired for revealing a depression diagnosis, but the amount of movements to combat discrimination based on mental illness does not feel comparable.The masses choose to ignore the plight of the depressed because it threatens their rosy view of the world.  

The sad reality is that it is likely that Bell Let’s Talk would not be as successful if the campaign was not held on social media. Perhaps it is a necessary evil. But has Bell Let’s Talk improved the situation of people living with mental illnesses? Maybe this event has turned some people into staunch mental health advocates. I applaud those who are always willing to help depressed people through the year. I think the stigma surrounding depression is still very powerful and society still has a long way to go before the discourse around depression and mental health is healthy and inclusive. Corporations like Bell should practice what they preach instead of using mental health to boost their brand recognition. To achieve these aims, they should treat their employees better, invest in mental health initiatives, and involve medical professionals in the process.  

The post Bell, We Need to Talk appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I don’t like Facebook. I never understood its appeal. Despite its flaws, people still flock to Facebook. I left the site years ago due to the toxic behaviour I was subjected to and I never looked back.

People always mention how miserable Facebook makes them feel, yet they never delete their accounts. People put on these fake personas that only highlight their best moments. As a result, one feels like one is missing out on living a great life. The personas that people adopt do not reflect reality. They are as believable as a WWE character. This propensity to make comparisons derives from the keeping up with the Joneses mentality, which equates happiness with wealth and material possessions. One sees these types of posts on Facebook all the time, whether it be travel or food pictures. What purpose do these pictures even serve? It seems like there is no rhyme or reason behind them.

Facebook describes itself as a social network, but instead of bringing people together, it drives a wedge between them. Part of the onus lies on the user base and some of it on the website’s structure. So much of the posts on Facebook are passive-aggressive. People post lyrics, dictums, and sayings that clearly aim to insult someone, but they always pretend that that is not their intention. Attempting to carry on a conversation on Facebook is an exercise in futility. When you try having a conversation, you will often get replies like “K” or “cool story bro” when you make an earnest attempt at getting to know somebody. The groups function is arguably the most polarizing aspect of the site. Theoretically, it could help create a community of like-minded individuals around an interest such as Japanese role-playing games; however, more times than not, groups devolve into cliques, infighting, and safe havens for cyberbullying and conspiracy theories. Facebook groups encourage group-think. Groups shun anyone with a different opinion, creating echo chambers, wherein users anathematize people with opposing views. This creates a polarized discourse and it is directly responsible for the rise of conspiracy theory groups such as flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, and hate groups. 

How has Facebook improved our quality of life? I think its benefits are negligible. Facebook’s impact on self-confidence and the extent of cyberbullying on the site should not be downplayed. Yes, Facebook has facilitated communication between people, but how often do Facebook discussions devolve into name-calling and insults? I understand that most of my peers regard Facebook as an indispensable part of life. While Facebook could be useful in theory, the user base ruins it. Social media has worsened the ways in which people communicate and it abets destructive emotions like anger, covetousness, and jealousy. It is not to say that the world was better before Facebook, but how does the toxic behaviour of Facebook (and social media users for that matter) make the world a better place?  

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this letter belong to the author.

The post Letter: My Issues with Facebook appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Similar to other right-wing populist politicians who have recently emerged in Europe and the United States, Duda employed the same conquer and divide tactics to win the 2020 Polish election. To rile up his supporters, he targeted the LGBTQ community. Duda likened the LGBTQ to Bolshevism, contending that LGBTQ is a new form of Bolshevism that corrupts the youth. Considering that Bolshevism is a left-wing political ideology, whereas the LGBTQ comprise a group of various sexual orientations, Duda’s assertions are arbitrary and inflammatory. He continued to target the LGBTQ by unveiling a law that he would set in motion if he won the election that would bar LGBTQ individuals from adopting children. This is blatant discrimination: as long as parents considering adoption are reasonably able to take care of a child, they should be allowed to adopt regardless of their sexual orientation. 

Duda’s Party, the PiS is in itself problematic in its politics and its people. For example, Jarosław Kaczyński, Duda’s mentor, and the leader of the PiS is an outspoken critic of the LGBTQ people and uses every opportunity to malign them. Their party politics rely on a Right-Wing interpretation of Catholicism, promoting ideas of homophobia, nationalism, xenophobia and the like. Kaczynski uses Catholicism to inveigh against the LGBTQ. He argues that every Pole must adhere to Catholicism and those that doubt the role of the Catholic Church are unpatriotic. Before the election, he argued that the LGBTQ “threaten our identity, our nation, its continuation and therefore the Polish state.” These two statements encapsulate how the PiS invokes religion to discriminate against those with different beliefs and sexual orientations. It also illustrates how Duda merely parrots Kaczynski’s rhetoric, which makes you wonder how much power Kaczynski exerts over the PiS. 

The reelection of Duda has brought about active persecution of marginalized groups: for instance, 48 LGBTQ protestors were arrested recently for slashing the tires of a van that drives around broadcasting the message “homosexuals are preparing society to accept pedophilia,” a slogan that sounds all too similar to the sentiments of the PiS.

Duda and his party represent sentiments of violent nationalism. Like the current US President Donald Trump, Duda attacks his country’s allies. Poland’s biggest ally is Germany, but Duda’s party has consistently antagonized Germany since his first term in 2015. When millions of refugees fled from war-torn countries in Africa and the Middle East to seek asylum in Europe in 2015,  he refused to allow refugees into Poland, breaking the European Union (EU) law. In 2019, the PiS wanted Germany to pay Poland $850bn in war reparations for World War II. When Fakt, a German-Polish tabloid, reported on Duda’s pardon of a pedophile, he accused Germany of attempting to tamper in the election. Germany is Poland’s biggest trade partner. It is a shame that Duda demonizes them in order to foster his own support. Duda is also a hypocritical skeptic of the  EU, often whining about the EU while reaping its benefits. In fact, Poland was allocated the most money from all members of the EU, $ 77.6bln between 2014 and 2020. The allocation sought to help Poland develop its infrastructure and its economy, doubling its GDP from 2003. 

If the EU has helped Poland so much, why does Duda oppose it? I think the answer lies in the values that other EU countries have adopted. Maybe someone should notify Duda that the world left the Middle Ages 600 years ago. The PiS can cling onto Catholicism as long as it wants, but if it does not want Poland to become isolated from the rest of Europe, it should update its outlook. Hopefully, the younger generations of Poles can see past the illusion of populism and the regressive policies that the PiS endorses. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the article belong to the contributor and may not necessarily reflect those of The McGill Daily editorial board.

The post Opinion: Right-Wing Demagogue is Sending Poland Back to the Middle Ages appeared first on The McGill Daily.